In 1642, King Charles raised his royal standard in Nottingham, marking the beginning of the English Civil War. The next ten years saw the Cavaliers (supporters of the King) and the Roundheads (supporters of the parliament) engaged in a vicious battle for their respective leaders with the Roundheads ultimately victorious. This essay will attempt to explain why civil war broke out in England while summarizing the story behind the antagonism of the two parties.
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.
Customarily, whenever a new monarch came into power, the parliament would vote the amount of tonnage and poundage (the allowance of the king or queen) to give him or her for their entire lifetime. However, they only voted for a year's allowance for King Charles. Cust (2005, p. 45) suggests that the reason behind the parliament's action was because of their disagreement with King Charles concerning England's involvement in the Thirty Year War. As this was his main source of income, King Charles was e...
... middle of paper ...
... reconciliation between the King and parliament proved futile. The relationship of the King and the parliament had reached its breaking point. With both parties refusing to yield, civil war was imminent.
Rather than one main reason for the outbreak of English civil war in 1642, it was several key problems and disagreements between the parliament and King Charles that amounted together and evolved into a long running rivalry. Slowly but gradually, the rivalry grew, with both sides guilty of provoking the other. Ultimately, their differences could not be solved, and the rash actions of King Charles sparked of the civil war.
Works Cited
Cust, Richard (2005), Charles I: A Political Life, Harlow: Pearson Education
Fisher, David A. (1994), World History for Christian Schools Second Edition
Russell, Conrad (1991), The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642
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...
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
In the early years of the civil war, little difference existed between parliament and the king in respects of power and territorial advantage. It could be said that the war was being fought to a desultory standstill. From the commencement of the conflict, the primary objective of Parliament had been simply to avoid defeat by the king. As soon as the problems of the government had resorted to violence, the leaders of Parliament knew that they could not tolerate any less than complete victory over the royalist forces. This is symbolised by a quote from the Earl of Manchester, "we may beat the king ninety-nine times out of hundred, but if he beats us just once, then he is still the king". Parliament could not afford to lose. If the king was to gain the upper hand then parliamentary supporters knew that they would likely pay for their loyalty with their lives. The introduction of the New Model Army was designed to change this philosophy for the better. As a group of well-organised, highly trained soldiers, their purpose was no longer to avoid defeat, but to win the war -- as parliamentary leaders, most notably Cromwell, realised would be necessary if they were to succeed. This essay is aimed at examining just how important a factor the New Model Army was in deciding that the fate of the first civil war would reside with Parliament and not the king. There were indeed other reasons for this victory, some of which will be explained below, but it needs to be evaluated just how big an advantage the New Model Army was to Parliament, and whether parliamentary success was only made possible after its creation.
In conclusion I think that there were a lot of different reasons why the civil war came about but I think that the main reason for this was slavery and the poor ways that slaves were being treated. Slaves were treated like animals, they were dehumanised. I think that the conflict arose from different situations but slavery made the civil war come about.
For a long time, historians have been unable to come to an agreement to why the Civil War started and whether or not it was repressible or irrepressible. Northern and Southern writers had different opinions as to why the war occurred. To most Northern writers, the war occurred because of the unlawful plan of slave owners who were committed to a not liable institution. The North defended the Constitution and was against the immoral aggression of the south. The North clearly defended the Union. However, the Southern writers on the other hand tried to show their views on why the Civil War started by portraying the North as the aggressive ones who wanted to destroy the South and all of its institutions. The south insisted that slavery was not the main cause of the war but instead was the aggressive and unconstitutional acts of the North. The south claimed the North used its powers for political and economic gain and denied that the war had stemmed from differences over slavery. The north’s domineering attitude toward the south was the main cause for their hostilities. They defended this ...
Charles the First has been faced with many problems with the Parliament of England while he was working hard trying to create a royal revenue. When he was being defeated in the First Civil War during the years 1642-1645, the Parliaments expected him to accept their demands for a Constitutional monarchy. He wasn’t very excited
The Civil War is one of the most important events in United States history. The conflict changed the lives of millions and forever left an indelible mark on this country. The enormity of the conflict makes us wonder how “We the People” became a people divided. It is important to understand the core themes and narratives that led to the war between the states. In my view, there were numerous issues that led to deep sectional divisions that eventually led to war. However, I feel there are three core themes that drew the sections into war were nullification, radical abolitionism, and political realignment. Additionally, I feel the ideas of these three themes were represented by Dred Scott, John Brown, and Stephen A. Douglas, respectively.
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...
The next issue that was another leading cause of the civil war was the cultural differences. This again was due to the ...
King and nobles usually lived together on the same property. The nobles would exchange their loyalty to the king for land. The nobles shared and indulged in the same lavish lifestyle. It wasn’t until Henry II when the relationship between the two groups of people became unstable. King Henry wanted to curtail the power of the noble because their power had reached such a high level. Because of the king’s high contribution to the law and the military, he was able to reduce the power of the nobles. The next king, King John, would continue to displease the nobles by implementing a high tax and ignoring their traditional rights. He arrested all who opposed the laws he instituted. As a result of these taxes and loss of rights, angry barons demanded to meet with King John. The meeting was
What was the root cause of the Civil War? First, what was the Civil War? The Civil War was a war between the North (Union) and the South (Confederacy), which started from 1861 through 1865. This war was the most deadliest, most destructive war in American history, taking away 600,000 lives. The northerners viewed this war as a revolution while the southerners viewed this war as a War of Rebellion or War for Southern Independence. Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War. Slavery also influenced many factors such as territorial expansion, economic tensions, and political alignments.
The Civil War (1861-1865) was one of the important event in the American history. The war was fought between the Northern states and Southern States. Since the formation of the United States the cases that caused the Civil War had been brewing. There were five causes which led to the outbreak of the Civil War and they were unfair taxation, state rights, slavery, Wilmot Proviso, and the Compromise of 1850.
Some historians will say that the Civil War was a ‘natural’ conclusion to the activities of the previous year others will disagree. This essay will take the line that yes; the civil war was a natural and inevitable conclusion to the Anglo-Irish difficulties. In order to understand why the Civil War came about one must first understand how it came about by studying the actions of the previous years, the War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Then it is necessary to look at the feelings of the opposing sides of the Civil War. Finally one must look at history itself and compare the Irish War of Independence and the Civil War with similar cases. Once all steps have been taken the ultimate aim of this essay is to prove that the Civil War was a ‘natural’ conclusion to the previous years.
When James I died in 1625, the relationship between monarch and parliament was arguably still a sufficient and workable one. However, from the years 1621 to 1625, the two sides faced many difficulties; primarily issues revolving religion, finance, and foreign policy. The three issues majorly interlinked when the country was faced with decisions regarding the 30 Years War. Although James’ policies were of great significance in causing difficulties between him and parliament, there are other factors, out of James’ control, that proved to be pivotal in disrupting the relationship of the two sides; such as the underlying religious disagreements facing Europe at the time.
They both wanted more power than the other. If Charles had not held such a great belief in ‘the divine right of kings’, he might have been able to avoid a lot of the tensions which built up to and resulted in the civil war. Charles’ personality played a part and showed his opponents that he was arrogant and had little understanding or sympathy for the fears and aspirations of his people. Ultimately, Charles lacked many of the personal qualities needed to be a successful monarch. Finally, he was not good at developing good relationships with and support amongst the politicians and noblemen he needed to rule the country