More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the english civil war
Concluisions on charles the 1st and parliament
Relationship between charles and parliament
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. To what extent was Parliament to blame for the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642? The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened …show more content…
by his struggles of ruling the three kingdoms, and increased conflict through his strong religious desire for uniformity across his kingdoms. The Parliament then only acted in retaliation to this arbitrary rule of power. It is therefore conclusive that although the friction between Parliament and the King set the sides for the impeding war, the causal factor for this was Charles I’s ignorant and abusive ruling. Charles I’s strong religious stance shown in Scotland, his marriage to Henrietta, and rich liturgy reforms, caused widespread outrage and opposition. Charles I’s accession to the throne in 1625, ensued him the royal leader of England, Scotland and Ireland, also known as the three kingdoms. These three kingdoms presented a difficulty in ruling from the beginning, as each were ‘very different nations with their own distinct religious and political structures.’ For example, England and Wales was predominantly Anglican, Scotland mostly protestant, and Ireland having a majority of Catholic worshippers. These differences, however already presenting a struggle, were radically heightened by Charles I’s attempt to unify the Kingdoms under one religious and ideological rule. In particular, Charles sought to speed up the process of reforming the Kirk in Scotland, as opposed to continuing the slowly moving approach of his father. Charles’ frustration of this slow process led him to introduce a new prayer book to Scotland in 1637, one which would attempt to closely model the religious worship seen in the Church of England. The impact of this was chaotic, with Scotland believing it to be an imposition on their religion. This resistance led to the introduction of the National Covenant in 1638, a document in which declared Scotland’s defence of the Kirk, and consequently formed strong opposition to the King. Although, in Charles’ defence, it was not an uncommon desire to attempt to unify the ruling kingdoms, further arguing that the catalyst for conflict was Charles’ specific undoing. In conjunction to this, Charles’ marriage to Henrietta Maria in 1925 was considered to be controversial also in terms of religion, as she was Catholic. In England this created the fear that Charles would force Catholicism on a majority Anglican population. As well, there had been the rising forces of England’s lower gentry who had come to favour puritanism. This therefore caused further strong opposition to the rich liturgy and arguably ‘popish’ practices in which Charles and Archbishop William Laud had attempted to reform. It is clear that the structural factors caused difficulties from the beginning of Charles I’s ruling, and arguably ‘doomed’ him to fail from the beginning. However, Charles’ deliberate actions of ‘forcing’ a unified religion on Scotland, and favouring Catholicism in England, whilst having knowledge of their stark differences, caused his actions alone to be the major catalyst for the civil war to follow. Charles I’s abuse of power through taxes and his ‘divine right,’ committed him to being unfavourable, and a catalyst for conflict. One of Charles’ biggest beliefs was in the ‘Divine Right’ of a King, believing that he is a Godly figure, and that he was only accountable to God. This belief caused Charles to go beyond his royal power, determined to succeed in his unattainable agenda. One example of this is his abuse of power in obtaining finances to fund his rich liturgy, religious reforms and raising the international status expected of the Monarchy. At the time it was required for the King to obtain permission from the Parliament to raise taxes and therefore produce revenue for expenditure. However the conflict between Charles and the Parliament, as will be further discussed below, prevented this from occurring. Therefore, Charles resorted to ‘unparliamentary sources of revenue,’ such as the permanent ‘Ship Tax.’ This Ship Tax was only normally allowed to be used for emergencies, and to ‘strengthen the Navy.’ However, desperate times called for desperate measures, and Charles took advantage of this money to further fuel his ruling. This caused opposition to form against the King, encouraging the public opinion that further checks are required on the King’s power, as nothing seemed to stop him. This is shown through a petition sent to the King from the citizens of London in 1640, whereby they pleaded for him to put an end to the ship money, the increased taxes, and the harsh imprisonments that resulted from failure to pay them. Furthermore, through Charles’ authority, Laud used the ‘Court of High Commission’ and the ‘Court of Star Chamber’ as powerful tools to prosecute and punish any person who opposed Charles’ reforms. This resulted in harsh penalties, such as in 1637 with the whipping, mutilation, and indefinite imprisonment of William Prynne, Henry Burton and John Bastwick, for merely producing anti-Anglican propaganda. This clearly represents Charles’ attitude against his authority and control being challenged, and as a result developed a mostly negative reputation. Many historians argue that Charles’ largest downfall was his ‘inability to understand how others view his actions,’ declaring anyone that critiqued his work to be resisting or opposition. Also, as a result of his narcissistic attitude of being King, Conrad Russell believes he was weak, and suffers from ‘tunnel vision.’ Therefore, majority of people at the time, and historians now, believe that Charles’ actions beyond his power and disregard for his people, very likely caused strong opposition leading towards a civil war. On the other hand, Parliament’s attempt to control the King’s power through legislation, targeting his advisors and mobilising public opinion against him led contributed to an outbreak of civil war tension.
During the rule of King Charles I, the Parliament had limited powers, and were not entitled to govern independently as a Parliament should. This is shown through King Charles’ power to veto their decisions, and his dissolving of the Parliament three times between 1625-1629. Consequently, the Parliament became frustrated with their minute role, and responded in attempt to control the King’s power, to maintain their control. This is clearly depicted in their refusal to grant tax raising and revenue for Charles’ increased expenditure, including the abolishment of the ‘ship tax’ which had been previously collected illegally. Following on from this was the enactment of legislation through the Petition of Right in 1928, after MP’s had been called back by Charles in his third parliament. The Petition of Right demanded that Charles could not imprison anyone without being found guilty in a court of law, that no tax could be implemented without Parliamentary consent, and soldiers could not be billeted against their will. Furthermore, the Parliament also abolished the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber, disallowing for Charles to continue the arbitrary punishment of opposers to his reforms. The Parliament’s pressure on Charles through these reforms was largely driven by …show more content…
John Pym, a member of the House of Commons. Pym sought to undermine Charles’ ruling by mobilising the public opinion against him. In particular, Pym convinced the Parliament to arrest and kill Charles’ ‘most able and ruthless advisors’, Archbishop Laud and the Earl of Strafford. In doing so, the Parliament felt required to enact legislation to ‘rush’ their prosecution and death without adjournment, in order to avoid Charles’ retaliation. However, Pym’s strong approach towards Charles also inevitably caused minor divisions within Parliament itself, as some ministers believed that he had ‘gone too far.’ Despite this, for the most part this strong approach by Parliament only further emphasises their deep desire to ‘clip Charles’ wings,’ and therefore leading to the eventual civil war to do it once and for all. However, the friction between Parliament and the King further escalated through Charles’ personal rule, attempted arrest of ministers and raising of battle standard. As a direct result of Parliament’s attempts to control Charles, he responded with his own means of taking the power away from the Parliament. An example of this is through Charles’ personal rule in 1629, after dissolving Parliament, which to some began the ’11 years of tyranny.’ This included an arbitrary rule as previously mentioned, whereby Charles took advantage of his power to rule his way, leaving the Parliament and the people no choice. A private member of Charles I’s army, the Earl of Northumberland, wrote about the disputes between Parliament and Charles I in private letters to his family. In 1940, he wrote that Charles was desperate for money to build up forces that he was compelled to reinstate Parliament in order for him to beg the members to agree to raise taxes for him. When they declined to do this after only a few short weeks into being called back, the Earl wrote, “in the morning he hath desolved the parlament (sic).” Clearly Charles was ruthless in getting his way, and Parliament refused to assist. Next, in 1942 Charles retaliated to the Parliament’s execution of his dearest advisors by attempting to arrest 5 members of Parliament who had completely turned against him. This however backfired for Charles, as by the time he stormed the Parliament, they had been warned and already escaped. This then caused an outcry of public condemnation towards Charles, and also definitively turned all members of Parliament against him. Although Charles recalled Parliament in 1640 to aid in the raising of revenue, this friction had been well established and further escalating, with battle lines well drawn. Therefore, Charles then raised the battle standard of his navy on 22 August 1642 at Nottingham Castle, which was coincidentally the same navy that his illegal taxation helped to fuel. However, this action was a call for the civil war to begin, as the tensions had grown so uncooperative and sour between Charles and the Parliament that they had no choice but to settle it at war. It can be concluded that King Charles I had as much to do with his unpopularity as he did the outbreak of the civil war.
It can be shown through the analysis of his actions that his ruling was arbitrary and centred on his own needs in terms of religion and taxes, without concern for the people he was actually ruling. It however cannot be said that his ruling alone forced the outbreak of the civil war. Parliament ensured that their constant retaliation to Charles I’s ruling, and attempt to lower his power over them caused a split in public opinion, and eventually drew the final battle lines. The longer term causes of Charles’ Rule however set up this conflict to occur, and therefore Parliament was only to blame for a moderate extent of the outbreak of the civil war. Charles I’s desire to rule his kingdom by himself, while seeking an unattainable agenda only set him up for eventual failure, and is clearly more to blame for this
turmoil. 1,874 Words. (Without Footnotes)
Throughout Charles I’s Personal Rule, otherwise known as the ‘Eleven Year Tyranny’, he suffered many problems which all contributed to the failure of his Personal Rule. There are different approaches about the failure of Personal Rule and when it actually ended, especially because by April 1640 Short Parliament was in session. However, because it only lasted 3 weeks, historians tend to use November 1640 as the correct end of the Personal Rule when Long Parliament was called. There was much debate about whether the Personal Rule could have continued as it was, instead people generally believed that it would crumble when the King lost his supporters.
In conclusion, opposition to personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was very strong. Charles had criticism and opposition coming at him from all directions and angles. This therefore put him under serious pressure. The key are of opposition for Charles was ‘Thorough’. This was the key are of opposition because it applied to the whole country, and eventually Ireland. ‘Thorough’ made itself lots of enemies as it was so far spread. Most, if not all areas, disliked ‘Thorough’ due to the king and his minions Wentworth and Laud putting pressure on the local sheriffs to abide by the kings word more.
The First English Civil War started in 1642 until 1651 and it caused division among the country as to whose side they were on. The war was a battle between the Parliament and King Charles 1, who was the leader of the Royalists. Conflict between the two had always been there as Charles had never gotten on with the Parliament ever since the start of his reign. The disagreement between the two started in 1621 when James chose to discuss his son, Charles getting mar...
The British rule that was established in the colonies was oppressive and unfair. The British rule was immoral because Parliament contained a totality of British politicians who only cared about Britain’s wants and needs. The Colonists, “wanted the right to vote about their own taxes, like the people living in Britain. But no colonists were permitted to serve in the British Parliament.” (Ember) This unfairness led to many unwanted laws such as the Intolerable Acts and the Stamp Act. These laws did not benefit the colonists in any way, but the acts significantly helped the British. Laws and acts were forced
There are various explanations as to who and what really caused the Civil War. It is even fair to say that sometimes morals stand in the way when deciding who really started the war. Therefore, the facts must be analyzed clearly and in depth. It is true that the north played a major role in the Civil War, however, the south would not release their strict traditional beliefs of slavery. As time progressed, slavery debates pressured the South more and more to stand by their strict beliefs. Fugitive acts, Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Secession all showed how the south used brutal methods to preserve slavery. Therefore, since the popular sovereignty doctrine, the pro-slavery souths’ strict use of slavery and decisions to secede from the nation, angered the north, leading to a civil war.
After our study of many accounts of the English Civil War and Charles I’s trial and execution, it is clear that discovering historical truth and writing a satisfying history are two very separate, difficult tasks, and that finding among many accounts a single “best” story is complex, if not impossible. In order to compare the job each historian did in explaining what’s important about this conflict, the following criteria can be helpful for identifying a satisfying history.
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
The Union is to blame for the civil war, particularly the northern states because the federal union’s goal was to not promote conformity, but to permit diversity within the orderly confines of any socialized community (Niven 311). The union could easily be considered a haven for all types of people, not just slaves. From 1830 until 1860, relatively few immigrants settled in the South (Meyers). The Northern states had a different vision of what they wanted America to be and strongly opposed how the South ran things. The southern states thrived off slavery and is mainly how people made a living in that region. Slavery is the cornerstone of a social order that protected individual liberty and equality for the white population in the south (Niven 311). Meaning that the North had way more resources, workers, and support in comparison to the South, so slavery was a way for the Southern states to at least stay relevant in the United States of America. The North’s feelings about how slavery was tearing the country and the union apart was the spark for the Civil War.
The primary issues that fueled the Civil War in 1642-1649, the Commonwealth in 1649-1660, the Stuart Restoration 1660-1688 ...
Through the analysis of the document, ‘King Charls His Speech’, a number of questions and answers result. However, the question of why was Charles I executed is only briefly answered by Charles I’s speech itself, when Charles I states, ‘for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament.’ Despite this question only being briefly answered by King Charles himself, through his speech immediately before his death, a number of historians have given detailed reasons as to why Charles I was executed.
particularly the Stamp Act. When the Stamp Act was repealed, King George flew into a rage.
King Charles I left us with some of the most intriguing questions of his period. In January 1649 Charles I was put on trial and found guilty of being a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and a public enemy of England. He was sentenced to death and was executed on the 9th of February 1649. It has subsequently been debated whether or not this harsh sentence was justifiable. This sentence was most likely an unfair decision as there was no rule that could be found in all of English history that dealt with the trial of a monarch. Only those loyal to Olivier Cromwell (The leader opposing Charles I) were allowed to participate in the trial of the king, and even then only 26 of the 46 men voted in favour of the execution. Charles was schooled from birth, in divine right of kings, believing he was chosen by God to be king, and handing power to the parliament would be betraying God. Debatably the most unjust part of his trial was the fact that he was never found guilty of any particular crimes, instead he was found guilty of the damage cause by the two civil wars.
To begin with, there was a great loss of human lives. Beginning in 1643 England, the closest absolute king Charles I attempted to storm and arrest parliament. His actions resulted in a civil war between those who supported the monarchy, Royalists, and those who supported the parliament, Roundheads, which did not end until 1649. Estimates for this war put the number of casualties at 200,000 for England and Wales while Ireland lost approximate...
One of the key factors that led to the civil war was the contrasting beliefs of King Charles and the parliament. The monarchy believed in the divine rights of kings, explained by Fisher (1994, p335) as a biblically-based belief that the king or queen's authority comes directly from God and that he is not subjected to the demands of the people. On the other hand, the parliament had a strong democratic stance and though they respected and recognized the king's authority, they were constantly desiring and fighting for more rights to power. Although climaxing at the reign of King Charles, their antagonism stretched for centuries long before his birth and much of the power that once belonged to the monarchy had shifted over to the parliament by the time he came into power.
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.