A figure such as William Laud, Archbishop Canterbury from 1633, personified Charles’s religious arm and was intent on introducing religious uniformity to Britain. Deemed an Arminian by his contemporaries, his religious motives lay with the reinforcement of liturgy within the church, and to move away from Calvinism. This manifested in on instance, in his imposition of railed altars in churches, which required altars to be on the East wall. This displeased the Puritans, because not only did it move away from the plain round table of the Elizabethan Church, but also it was a genuine deliberate departure from Puritanism. Via these moves and coupled with his management of the church via Episcopal visitations Laud portrayed to the protestants an affinity with popery. Charles’s stubbornness on these religious issues, and faith in his aides, led to the altercation involving his attempt to convert Scotland (and England) to his faith, ultimately became a major trigger of the war.
The Petition of Right of 1628 basically forced Charles to accept the rights of his subjects including the end of billeting of troops. He was forced into this by parliament in order to acquire the money he needed for the Thirty Years war, however he was to show his duplicity less than a year later. In 1629, he dissolved parliament for the best part of eleven years just like his father had done. The Puritans were incensed by this move, as they felt that the divine right theory of kingship restricted their personal rights, in as much as they could not appeal to the law courts, because in Charles’s England, he had jurisdiction there as well. In 1639 the Scots invaded England because Charles had tried to implement a new prayer book, in the hope of bringing Britain together on religion. No longer could he rule England with the court of the Star Chamber, the impending war in the north meant he needed funding only Parliament could provide and duly recalled them. It is very difficult not to regard this issue as a religious one, although politics comes into play somewhat, all moves are being made in the name of religion at this point.
The Long Parliament opened on Novermber 3rd 1640 and saw more wrangling for power, with most of the concessions coming from the monarchy. The Irish rebellion against English rule in October 1641 seemed to be the breaking point for parliament. They were fearful of the army Charles displayed in putting down the rebellion and adopted the Grand Remonstrance outlining the evils of Charles and demanding church reform and a lion’s share of control of political affairs including the army. It is not entirely clear whether the many moderates who at this time moved over to Charles at this point, did so because they found the desired church reforms to extreme or were simply uncomfortable with the challenge to such a great institution as the monarchy. It is my belief however that although some would have been uncomfortable with the religious changes suggested, most would have personified the seventeenth century conservative nature and required simple monotony rather than radical change. The evidence for this can be seen in depictions of the King’s eventual execution, where onlookers seem to display shock and horror, not mirth and satisfaction.
To which side one belonged during the war, was not a cut and dry affair, social class did not always allude to a specific religious or political persuasion. Politics was important however, and it can be said that most of the peerage and greater gentry, allegiance to the king could be found because he was the most likely to restore social order. Below this order, it is believed that many were swayed by the promise that parliamentary victory provided, less hierarchical leadership, which would provide for greater opportunity within the kingdom. Some people fought not for cause but for Crownes, not concerned with the political or religious ramifications, whilst others were forced to fight by either their landlords or Parish councils. Charles’s Financial status in the years leading up to the war, were quite frankly not good, thus those men fighting for the Crownes, would have more than likely found themselves on the side of parliament. Conrad Russell states that links between royal finances and the outbreak of the civil war were all indirect, but relevant for inciting anger and disassociating support due to his debts and untrustworthiness. The financial situation of Charles was not a religious based factor of the war, but importantly neither was it enough to describe it as a war of money.
Upon the outbreak of the war, and the raising of the King’s standard in Nottingham in 1642, the sides were fairly evenly matched with the slight advantage lying with the monarchy. The war begun as a battle for power within the kingdom, yet it was greatly joined on the premise of religious persuasion. 1643 saw the emergence of the Solemn League and Covenant, an attempt by the Parliamentarians to bring the Scots on their side. To this end the league worked, however it was much more a religious pact for the Scots than the English. The Scots took to heart the promise of unifying the three kingdoms under uniformity of religion, and saw it as the act to rid Britain of superstition and popery. There were those that were wary of the pact, with regards to some of its more radical tendencies. The death of John Pym, its instigator and the ensuing lean towards radicalism among parliamentary leadership would put great strain on this Scottish-Parliamentarian alliance.
The tides began to turn in favour of Parliament from 1644 onwards, when on July 2nd, at Marston Moor the King suffered a major defeat at the hands of a joint Scot-Parliament. The New model was born out of arguments within Parliaments camp, Cromwell and Manchester had disputed the cause of the war, to defeat the king or not to defeat the king. Manchester was reluctant to do so because he viewed that at the end of it all, Charles would still be the King of England and their fates would be cruel, whereas Cromwell asserted that Charles no longer deserved the kingship. It seems that Manchester’s religious convictions were less strong than Cromwell’s so far as to say that Manchester was grounded in tradition of Monarchy and order, yet Cromwell could ignore this in favour of blind faith in God as the ultimate law and the purity of his religion. These altercations led to Manchester and Essex’s removal, and thus their armies along with Waller’s formed the backbone of a new nationalised army. The army was based on ability rather than nobility and gathered skilled fighters and fighters who wanted to fight. Religion was of the independent nature within the camp, different regiments could often be found to hold differing faiths, yet the Presbyterians and the Calvinists for example, would still fight together after praying separately. For these people the English civil war was one of religion, and perhaps the fact it didn’t begin in this fashion is irrelevant, surely those fighting the war denote for what purpose it is being fought.
Parliament initially promoted its cause as English, for the cause of England and her heritage, against this beast who was trying to take England away from the English with his French Catholic wife Henrietta Maria, and his Arminian, yet suspiciously Catholic church reforms. This stance worked well throughout most of the kingdom, it did not help the Parliament’s cause with the Celtic, Cornish or Welsh. Charles’s use of these troops, along with soldiers brought over from Ireland fuelled the Parliamentarian’s propaganda denoting the king as ‘un-English’, but they were hypocrites to the extent that their indispensable allies were in fact the Scots. This touting of ethnicity and patriotism was really just a cover for the more swaying propaganda of religion, in the seventeenth century, regions were associated with religion and one would often subconsciously substitute, say, the word ‘Scot’ for the word ‘Presbyterian’.
Perhaps the person, who most readily would describe the English Civil War as a religious war, was Oliver Cromwell. David Loades discusses Cromwell and his associates’ ‘Calling’ thus emphasising just how much the war was a religious one. Yes it had to go via political methods to achieve its goal, but the goal of the war for these people was to create a society in which the true religion and thus true ruler would prevail. In 1649, the Rump Parliament was set up, allowing only those who supported the King’s trial. The king had indeed been captured, after a resounding victory for the New Model Army at Naseby, Charles initially surrendered to the Scots in 1646 who turned him over to the Parliamentarians for a sum of £400,000. Charles escaped to launch as second civil war in 1648, allying with the Scots, using the promise of Presbyterian installation within Britain as his bargaining tool.
Cromwell was keen to enforce the independents style of religion in England after the execution of Charles, and in 1653 he became Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. His dreams were to no avail, as by 1660 the Puritan experiment was beginning to rankle the English and Charles II begun the restoration of England and the Monarchy. The downfall was characterised by the Putney debates, where Colonel Rain borough representing the commoners argued that every man who contracts with a civil government ought to have a voice in that government. Cromwell was a for the people, but not by the people man and the Rump Parliament until 1653 then Cromwell himself until 1658 did not meet the expectations of the nation. The idea of free citizens championed by the Levellers was just one of the cases for abolishment of the new regime. For the people who fought for their religious freedom during the war, after the war, they fought for their civil liberties, a political affair.
The English Civil War is best described as a war of religion. This is not so because it was a battle fought entirely over religion, where men took up arms in the name of God, such as in the Crusades. However to sum up the war, religion is the best term because it is most understandable and the most relevant. Although it is the best description, it is my assertion that for King Charles I the war was not one of religion, he saw himself as simply fulfilling his political role, whilst the Parliamentarians mostly fought for the cause of religion. The English Civil war was a war of religion fought sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly by people attempting to achieve political aims.
Bibliography
Bennet, M. The English Civil War, (Longman 1995)
Cross, C., Church and People England 1450-1660, Blackwell (1999)
Loades, D., Politics and Nation England 1450-1650, Blackwell Publishers (1999)
Russel, C., The Causes of the English Civil War, Oxford University Press (1990)
Smith, D.L., A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Blackwell (1998)
Bennet, M. The English Civil War, (Longman 1995) p.125
Ref: Cotton, ed., English Women’s Voices, 1500-1700, Florida international University Press, 1992 pp. 100-104
Smith, D.L., A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Blackwell (1998) p. 70
Russel, C., The Causes of the English Civil War, Oxford University Press (1990) pp. 183-184
Loades, D., Politics and Nation England 1450-1650, Blackwell Publishers (1999) p. 366
