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

What Was The Main Cause Of The First English Civil War?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What Was The Main Cause Of The English Civil War? [1642-1646] The first English Civil War took place between parliamentarians and royalists over the course of four years, from 1642 to 1646. It consisted of much political conspiracy and armed contention from both sides who had encountered great difficulty in co-operating during the flawed reign of Charles I. The war was a result of parliament's general frustration at the monarch's policies, and the influence of the conflicts in Ireland and Scotland. Parliament's ultimate aim was not to dispose of Charles I from the throne, but to pressurize and obligate the King to abide by the policies in which they desire the country to be run. Supporters of Charles were to battle against parliament, and so began the events of the civil war. This essay will consider the causes of the civil war through events preceding 1642 from a series of different aspects. Social, political, economic, religious and military accounts will be excogitated and I will venture to find a conclusion to what I believe was the most notable in motivating the war. Charles I was a highly introverted character during his time as King of England and Scotland. He did not enjoy speaking or having any satisfactory form of communication to the public that he ruled over, and suffered from poor social skills. As a supporter of Arminianism, he abided by the divine right of kings, allowing him to remain silent in times of public commotion. ...read more.

Middle

People with property within limits of the boundaries of the Royal forests during Edward I's reign were fined for encroachment, and the Court of Wards was exploited so that the King became an acting guardian to the children of rich parents who had passed away, profiting by selling the estates that those children would have acquired through inheritance. Also during the Personal Rule, Charles' foreign policy revolved around isolating England from any non-domestic conflict. This, of course, compensated for the lack of funds - as did the avoidance of any major innovations in the country's communities. People were upset with the lack of advances at the time and this represents another reason as to why many people felt disgruntled under Charles' reign. Another factor that enraged the public was Charles' lifestyle and expensive taste. He held a firm interest in art and culture and purchased many paintings and portraits from established artists, such as Raphael and Titian (his collection of art was later dispersed by Oliver Cromwell). They felt that because they had limited resources on which to survive at this time, it was unfair of the King to spend abnormally high amounts of money on products that he could have easily survived without. Charles' lifestyle was reflected in his religious practice. Whereas Protestants favoured a plainer approach towards worship and their churches, the King was far more elaborate in these issues, enjoying a high Anglican form of worship which was deeply ritualistic and extensively decorated. ...read more.

Conclusion

to work around as the dissolution of Parliament was a central issue, and the lack of funds meant the King had to increase revenue by introducing taxes, such as the notorious ship money - an economic decision which enraged the public, as did many others. On a par with the importance of these social and economic expressions were that of military events, and the restriction of the power to control armies by Parliament, and the Irish Rebellion. However, I believe that religious issues were of a much more important nature. It is evident that there was a massive divide in the beliefs of the country, and as people are passionate about their beliefs, they will stand up to what they see as true and would be enraged if their reckonings were to be challenged, let alone deal with the abrupt imposition of something completely different (the enforcement of the Common Book of Prayer in Scotland, c. 1637). In conclusion, and in spite of the importance of religion during these times, my opinion is that the political causes outweigh all else, in particular the intrusions on Charles' policies by the John Pym-led Long Parliament in 1641. The Grand Remonstrance was a direct attack on the King, as were a series of other statements issued - and, as a monarch, Charles' only option was to enter into war to quell the threat that Parliament pressured, as life alongside it had become intolerable while having the majority of his power limited considerably and his reputation tarnished. ...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. Was Charles I Trying to Establish Royal Absolutism during his Personal Rule?

    Perhaps the most controversial scheme was Ship Money. Previously, the Ship Money tax had only been raised on an ad hoc basis: when the country was in peril from foreign powers and needed a strong navy to defend her shores.

  2. Why did King Charles I Resort to Personal Rule in 1629?

    Parliament, of course, protested, but Charles dissolved it anyway. This is symbolic of Charles' lack of willingness to compromise at all with Parliament. Dissolving Parliament did not solve the problem of the money he needed. He therefore devised another way of getting the money. Charles realised the backlash he would receive if he attempted to force the money out of peoples' pockets.

  1. Henry II (1154 - 1189) is generally seen as the main catalyst in the ...

    Although in matters requiring a serious enforcement for crimes Henry developed the 'Council of Northampton in 1176 as a means to clamp down upon serious offenders.'66 This reform refers to any convicted persons having been found guilty of their crime could effectively lose their limbs, as well as introducing and firmly establishing Royal justices.

  2. Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?

    Dancing around May Poles was banned. Many inns were shut and popular sports of bull and bear baiting were prohibited. Nobody was allowed to work or even play football on Sundays! Even Christmas day was made a day of fasting. This was strictly enforced with soldiers used to remove meat from ovens in London homes.

  1. What was the most significant cause of civil strife in England from 1455-61?

    The removal of these nobles was one of the demands of Jack Cade's 1450 rebellion, proof that this was a contentious issue amongst the public. Although this was undeniably a contributing factor to the outbreak of civil strife, the stronger argument is that it was not the creation of these

  2. Arabi israli conflict

    I am now going to explain why these interpretations differ using both my own knowledge and evidence from sources A-F. The first interpretation comes from the Palestinian people who believe the PLO to be freedom fighters; they don't see terrorism as a bad thing as it's been justified.

  1. This essay examines the actions of Charles VII in relation to events pertaining to ...

    After her capture, Joan was forgotten by her party by commission, not omission. She was deeply embarrassing to them; a champion held on suspicion of heresy.41 If Joan was perceived as a heretic, Charles would lose the legitimacy he had achieved in the eyes of foreign leaders.

  2. Wives & War: To what extent did these two aspects undermine Henry VIIIs rule ...

    Both Bingham (2011, pg 90) and Wooding (2009, pg 266) agree that at this time Henry had a perfect opportunity to uphold his authority in Scotland, yet he decided in favour of negotiations, possibly due to his lack of resources for his army who already had vast amounts of forces committed in France, this again supports Starkey?s (2002, pg 105)

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