Preview

To What Extent Was Charles 1st Responsible for Causing the Civil War in 1642?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
827 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
To What Extent Was Charles 1st Responsible for Causing the Civil War in 1642?
Charles 1st was reasonable to an extent, but not fully. Parliament was also to blame, but less so than Charles. Charles had a bad relationship with Parliament from the beginning, resulting in conflict between them. He believed in Divine Right of King, something that his father also believed in. Divine Right of King means that you were chosen to be King by God; therefore, God is on your side. Charles also shut down Parliament a number of times, and ruled without Parliament for a number of years. He took money from the people of his country without Parliament’s permission and he introduced taxes without Parliament’s permission. He started to make bigger changes to the Church, he gave the Scots a new Prayer book, and he made them use it. Parliament was greedy in the sense that when Charles did reopen Parliament that they asked for something in return, when if they did not act, their country would be punished. Parliament also demanded many things from Charles, and did not agree with his ministers. Charles also married a French Catholic Princess.
Charles 1st‘s main adviser Buckingham was very unpopular with most people. A rhyme was invented:
Who rules the Country? The King The rules the King? The Duke (Buckingham) The Rules the Duke? The Devil.
This shows how unpopular Buckingham was with the people. Parliament tried to send Buckingham to prison multiple times. In 1629, they tried to punish him for bungling a naval expedition against Spain. When Charles began his Personal Rule, which began in 1629 and ended in 1640. In this time, Charles used Ship tax, a tax that was used to improve the navy in times of war. However, slowly Charles began to increase Ship tax, and bring it inland, making him very unpopular which his people and Parliament. In 1639 on 20% of the Ship tax money was
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    To What Extent Can the Years 1661-67 Be Seen as Succesful for Charles
    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages

    To What Extent Can the Years 1661-67 Be Seen as Succesful for Charles

    In terms of finance, it can be argued that the situation was not successful. The Government managing it could not provide a stable financial settlement. Largely the King did not have much in the way of money, and Charles' excessive spending on pleasurable activities, at the beginning of his reign only exacerbated the disastrous financial situation. Initially, although Charles agreed to give up feudal dues that were revived by his father, he was granted an annual income of £1.2 million by Parliament. However, this arrangement had two drawbacks. Firstly, the financial settlement that Charles was given, was simply not adequate to his needs. Secondly, the hearth tax that was imposed to raise the money was highly unpopular to the people. It is hard to say a reign is 'successful' if the Monarch is unpopular, especially as the country at that time, was still suffering from the financial situation left behind by the…

    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    To What Extent Do Monarch Push Or Reject Constitutionalism
    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages

    To What Extent Do Monarch Push Or Reject Constitutionalism

    Charles I did not go along with the parliament. He took a serious hit during his 22 years as king. He began to give into extra parliamentary resorts such as, new tariffs and duties and collection of discontinued taxes. This angered the parliament as taxes were being illegally collected for an already unfortunate war and one that involved France…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Absolutism: Describe and analyze the changes in the role of Parliament in English politics between the succession of James and the Glorious Revolution.
    • 540 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Absolutism: Describe and analyze the changes in the role of Parliament in English politics between the succession of James and the Glorious Revolution.

    James I was an absolutist ruler who emphasized the divine right of kings and sought to restrain Parliament under his will. Consequently, conflicts were inevitable as James I, and ensuing rulers, often found himself deficient of funds, and Parliament served as the gateway to the money. James I and his successor Charles I called Parliamentary meetings solely to ascertain the issue of funds. During this period, Parliament was rarely called upon and after these debates for money, Charles I and James I completely dissolved the Parliament. I did so because he agreed to admit the illegality of his taxes in turn for funding from Parliament. Afterwards, he abolished the Parliament to pursue his own endeavors. Furthermore, during Charles tenure, the English Civil War took place as a result from the lack of amity between Charles and Parliament. The Scottish invaded England, but Parliament refused to allow Charles to raise an army, because they feared he would abuse his powers and assail English citizens who opposed him. Charles I was eventually defeated and executed by Oliver Cromwell. Following the inadequacy of Cromwell, Charles II rose to power and was keyed the "merry monarch" for his easy-going nature. He imposed the Cabal system, a group of five individuals who handled the political issues of England; the term Cabal stems from the initials of each official member. This system acted as a type of Parliament in its methods of governing. During this period as a whole, it is evident that Parliament often conflicted with the ideals of the ruling monarch.…

    • 540 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    To what extent do you believe with the view that it was Charles himself who caused the failures of the Personal Rule?
    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages

    To what extent do you believe with the view that it was Charles himself who caused the failures of the Personal Rule?

    When King Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he was set on the idea of a personal rule without any help from Parliament. This he could manage, as long as he avoided war. His aim was to sort out the country's finances, and with the help of Strafford and Laud, impose a 'Policy of Thorough'. This policy was the idea of a fair and paternalistic government with no corruption. However, within 11 years, Charles' personal rule had failed and England was drifting into war. There are mixed opinions on whether this failure was solely due to the actions of the King, or those of third parties, for example, Strafford or Laud.…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    How Did Charles The First Move Against Parliament
    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages

    How Did Charles The First Move Against Parliament

    Charles the First became king in England, (also in Scotland) in 1625. He caused many problems with the Parliament because he believed in absolute monarchy. At one point Parliament limited Charles The First's power and he went along with a petition they had made but soon dismissed the Parliament.…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    how far was buckingham influence on charles the main reason for personal rule
    • 1197 Words
    • 4 Pages

    how far was buckingham influence on charles the main reason for personal rule

    How far was Buckingham’s influence on Charles the main reason that Charles resorted to Personal rule?…

    • 1197 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Was Religion the most important cause for the breakdown in relations between crown and parliament in the years 1625-1629?
    • 1601 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Was Religion the most important cause for the breakdown in relations between crown and parliament in the years 1625-1629?

    When Charles became King in 1625 he favoured the principles of Arminianism – he placed order and uniformity above tact – despite many of members of Parliament, and the English society, preferred Puritanism. Throughout the beginning of Charles’ rule he would encourage and promote Arminianism, even those who openly attacked Puritans through writing. For example, in 1926, Laud began to provoke parliament by saying in a sermon ‘Puritans were meditating a revolution in both the state and the church’; instead of punishing Laud, Charles would eventually give him the title as Chancellor of Oxford University, and then went on to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. Another example is an Arminian cleric Richard Montagu, he wrote ‘An Old Gag for a New Goose’ and ‘Appello Caesarem’, which stressed the similarities between Catholicism and the Church of England, Charles would appoint him Royal Chaplain in 1625. Puritans around this time believed the Pope, leader of the Catholic Church was the antichrist or devil and so being compared to the Catholics was an unforgiveable insult; also to appoint Montagu as the Royal Chaplain meant that Charles identified Arminianism as the religion of England, this would only cause further tension with Puritans and Parliament. Charles also antagonized Parliament by getting Laud to preach the opening sermon, and stressing obedience to the King and supported Royal Prerogative and Divine Right; these actions saw Charles as pro- catholic, which…

    • 1601 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Absolutism And France's Monarchial System
    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Absolutism And France's Monarchial System

    Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the…

    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    The Evolution of Democracy from Jefferson to Jackson
    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Evolution of Democracy from Jefferson to Jackson

    toward the Bank of the United giving too much power to the unconstitutional and creating…

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    parliament frq
    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages

    parliament frq

    James I's belief in "divine right" of kings, which meant God had chosen him to be ruler, led him not to rely on Parliament. Rather than depend on Parliament, James I and his successor, Charles I looked for other ways to acquire funds such as illegally levying taxes. Parliament was rarely called on during this period. In response to Charles illegal taxation, Parliament passed the Petition of Right which stated that, to pass any law the ruler must consent to Parliament. In order to continue ruling without Parliament, Charles used Ship Money to collect taxes as revenue. He might have been able to rule indefinitely without Parliament if not for his religious policies which provoked war with Scotland and forced Charles to call Parliament into session. This session, known as the Long Parliament was determined to limit the power of the king. It resolved that Parliament would meet at least every three years. Parliament later split with Charles I and declared war on him. Both James I and Charles I fought to suppress Parliament during their reigns and claimed absolute power due to the "divine right" of kings.…

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    How The Extent Of Power Changed In The 17th Century
    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages

    How The Extent Of Power Changed In The 17th Century

    Historians have debated the powers of the king and parliament for centuries, and the events that molded the power balance between the two institutions. This power balance had been changed to a large extent by the end of the seventeenth century from what it had been at the beginning; as power and control slipped out of the monarchy’s grasp and into parliament’s hands. For could James the 1st have ever imagined that in a few years time his son would be beheaded on the charge of treason, and the monarchy itself would be abolished? Could William the 3rd have contemplated having the power to command a standing army, and conducting a foreign policy independent of Parliament? No one can deny the political changes of this era, however, what can be argued is what form this change took; an evolution or a revolution?…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Absolutism. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were an era in which absolutism dominated the political systems of Europe.
    • 751 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Absolutism. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were an era in which absolutism dominated the political systems of Europe.

    In England, during the first half of the 17th century, two monarchs came to power that attempted to develop royal absolutism in that country. Both James I (James VI of Scotland) and Charles I tried to rule without consenting Parliament, but Parliament had so much control at the time that neither James nor Charles successfully decreased the role of Parliament in English government. The English had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for so long that they weren't ready to give all the power of government to a single person. The merchants and land-owning nobles supported Parliament, where members could be elected and changed in necessary, rather than an absolute monarch with no restraints. In 1642, differences between…

    • 751 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    What Events Led to the Civil War?
    • 2142 Words
    • 9 Pages

    What Events Led to the Civil War?

    During the Revolutionary Era from 1765-1815, slavery existed in thirteen colonies. Maryland went from white servants to slaves. There was an agricultural economy that existed in the South that was dependent on the labor of slaves. Although slavery did not exist in the North exclusively; New York, Philadelphia, and New England were involved in the trade of slaves; so although the South was exclusively using slaves as an economic gain, the North also had financial benefits as a result of the existence of slavery. In the aftermath of the Revolution, slavery began to cease in the North. In Massachusetts they ruled slavery as not in concordance with the state. Other northern states like New York and New Jersey passed gradual laws saying "when a slave is born July 4th upon reaching the age of 21, they are free." Slavery was thus becoming sectional. The gradual laws were eventually let go cutting slavery more diligently. In the South, there was a discussion of slavery becoming a necessary evil. Manumission also came into process where owners had the ability to free slaves. Jefferson requested that as America expands, slavery not expand in the Southwest, but his request did not pass. The Northwest banned slavery, and in 1787 the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution began to play a major role in the Constitutionality and legality of banning slavery.…

    • 2142 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    What Caused The Civil War?
    • 279 Words
    • 2 Pages

    What Caused The Civil War?

    There were many different contributing factors to the start of The Civil War. Five of these causes were the Northwest Ordinance and Missouri Compromise, John Brown’s raid, The 1850 Compromise, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the constant conflict between the North and South. The Northwest Ordinance said the there could be no slavery in states north of the Ohio River, however slave holders moved west to new states. This then led to the Missouri Compromise which said no slave states passed the 36 30 degree. John Brown’s raid on the federal arsenal was considered by many to be the cause of the civil war. The 1850 Compromise was also heavily contributed to the start of the civil war. In the compromise New Mexico and…

    • 279 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    What Caused the Civil War?
    • 676 Words
    • 2 Pages

    What Caused the Civil War?

    Proslavery and antislavery civilians clash. The "tea cup sitting close to the edge of the table" (Background Essay) begins to rattle heavily and almost fall off. The Civil War has begun. This "war between the states" shows that extremity of differences in opinions can lead to violence and death. There were over 618,000 casualties by the end of the war, which lasted from 1861 to 1865. So, what lead to this wildness? The Civil War was caused by three main reasons: economic differences, interpretation of the Constitution, and moral beliefs.…

    • 676 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More

Related Topics