• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent was Charles 1st responsible for causing the civil war in 1642?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

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. ...read more.

Middle

In 1639 on 20% of the Ship tax money was collected. In 1630 Archbishop William Laud made changes to Church of England.. Claiming that he and Charles were only trying to improve it, and not make in Catholic, they bought expensive paintings for it. They changed the layout, and the put in a Rood screen, which angered the people, because it was thought that everyone was equal, therefore why would one need a Rood screen. The Altar, which used to be able to be approached by anyone, was now railed off, behind the Rood screen. Charles was popular for a while. He was modernising the city by building new roads. He repaired his broken relationship with his wife. More demands kept coming in from the Parliament and the Houses of Commons, then they had a meeting and they had a voting to see which side was favourite, it ended up Parliament winning by 159 votes to 148, this was called the Grand Remonstrance. ...read more.

Conclusion

They thought it was too close to the Catholics Prayer book. In February 1642 Parliament debated some questions of religious disagreement. Some of Parliament wanted to rid Archbishop William Laud, while others of bishops all together. Parliament gave Charles more demands again, this time 19, this quarrelling had split the country in two. The MP's who were on the kings side felt this was the ' last straw '. Charles said " this would make him a mere phantom of a king ". In June 1642, Parliament ordered that all of the county's of England to raise an army to fight. This meant people had a choice, a choice that would spilt families in half because of their views. Charles raised his own army, something that Parliament did not expect. The civil war began. Parliament had their way, and Charles was executed. My view is that Charles part of the civil was significant, but not largely more significant Parliament, they provoked him throughout his rule. They may have done this knowing that he was venerable, from his damaged childhood. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Why did Civil war break out in 1642?

    The Parliament insisted that the king must fulfill their demands in order to give him the money he so desperately needed. By the summer of 1641 King Charles agreed to most of these demands. They were great sacrifices from the king. These included: * "Charles' evil ministers must be punished.

  2. Was Charles I responsible for his execution?

    if he was simply getting more money to fight wars in Europe and was not consulting parliament. It seems like autocracy to parliament, who are agitated that they do not get to have a say in these important proceedings. Also, the policies such as the ship tax and the Court

  1. In August 1642 the Civil War began, it was between Parliament and the King ...

    All Ministers must be approved of by Parliament. But Charles and some MP's did not like this so Charles left London again.

  2. How far & to what extent was Louis responsible for the turn of events ...

    What lead, then to the demise of Louis and his family from a monarch who retained his crown, albeit missing some powers, and lacking in public support, to the Louis that mounted the steps to the guillotine?

  1. The roles and leadership of Charles Stuart and John Pym in the English Civil ...

    There were over two hundred Mps and many of them had little appreciation of what war was like. Yet of the men that did step forward and contribute, three groups formed out of them. There was the 'Peace group' which had limited and defensive war aims.

  2. Was Charles I Trying to Establish Royal Absolutism during his Personal Rule?

    Perhaps England needed "a kick in the backside" to bring it out of the Medieval Age and into a more modern line of thinking, and this could only be done by using an extreme, in this case Royal absolutism. When absolutism was well-established and uniformity achieved, the government could begin

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work