To What extent was Charles I the basic obstacle to reaching a political settlement?

On the other hand, whilst the king can be seen to be an obstacle to peace in 1646-8, other factors can be argued to have been more significant in the prevention of a political settlement. The Scottish alliance with the King in 1646 (the engagement), in which Scotland gained a certain level of independence in return for support for the King, can be seen to have been one such factor. This engagement threatened to isolate the New Model Army, causing them to resent it. This can be seen to have prevented a political settlement as the army had no intention of negotiating with a force determined to destroy it. Not only did this cause resentment amongst the army but the engagement also caused parliament to further oppose the King. Parliament had many Presbyterian members, which were confronted with the choice of either supporting the Scottish invasion, or facing Presbyterian oblivion in England. Furthermore the engagement caused further hate for the King in parliament who appeared to be threatening to attack his own country. As a result of this ultimately the King can be seen to have been the basic obstacle to a political settlement due to his decision to ally with the Scots.

However, there is also evidence that Parliament contributed to the failure to reach a settlement between 1646 and 1648. Holles and many moderate members of parliament aggravated the army by withholding payment and attempting to disband it by creating counter force. This was because the Holles perceived the army as a potentially dangerous independent powerbase which could be used by radicals to influence the course of events. Furthermore the cost of the army could no longer be borne by the state; the army was already living by free quarter resulting in resentment from the population which had to sustain soldiers living in their homes, creating the need for the army to be sent home. However the actions taken by parliament under Holles, caused the army to lose trust in parliament, preventing the possibility of a political settlement. As a result it can be argued that parliaments mishandling of the army was the basic obstacle to a political settlement between 1646 and 1648.

In conclusion, whilst parliament can be seen to have prevented a political settlement by mishandling the army, ultimately the Charles I can be argued to have been the basic obstacle to a political settlement between 1646 and 1648. Charles’ decision to attack England with the Scots created disillusionment with him in England. Furthermore, Charles’ prevented a political settlement by sitting dormant whilst hoping for his enemies to ‘fall out’ among themselves. However the basic obstacle to a political settlement between 1646 and 1648, can be argued to be Charles’ belief in his divine right and the negotiation be parliament would therefore be an act of treason. As a result Charles can be seen to be to a large extent the basic obstacle to a political settlement between 1646 and 1648.