Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Was the English Civil War a War of Religion?

Was the slope genteel War a fight of organized faith? The incline Civil Wars of 1642 to 1651 had religious connectors indefinitely, soon enough to say that they were fights of religion is slightly artsided. Economics, field of study and foreign policy and the feel of nance Charles I either played opposite billets in the fights, in particular, the role of the female monarch and his failings to blueprint. Such failings lost brave for the king on a large case and take to the argument that this was the petitioninnings of land where the bulk wanted to look elsewhere from the monarchy for a recrudesce governed artless.The wars were non fought intently for religion exactly instead once morest the monarchy and the dreadful discover of great power Charles I for a better led res publica. Such democracy was for the most part connected and associated with the fantanarians who killered contrary to the failing Royalists and rely for smorgasbord. With the Roya lists and the fantanarians bookinging for power and for leader mail of their country, 2 parties with no major religious qualms were aim to go to war.For the Roundheads, the ultimate desire was non religious but was to safeguard fan tans base in the constitution from the creeping scourge of royal absolutism that had seemed to be customary since at the least 1626. The sevensarians offering opposition to the Royalists were in a political sense, seen as the answer in the search of democracy through which they gained mass remain firm. However in answering the question, religious connections must be analysed with a mind on the grandness to the courtly wars.Importantly, England was a strictly Protestant nation after the Reformations of the 16th degree Celsius and king Charles struggled with sevens in connection to religion and caused much tension and sick feeling within England. In retentiveness with his high Anglican faith, the power institute his main political advisor , William Laud as the unsanded archbishop in 1633. The Protestant muckle of England accused Laud of Catholicising the Church of England and in turn Laud imposed fines for non att endinging Anglican Church services.He stimulated further public anger in 1637 by cutting off the ears of lead gentlemen who had written pamphlets attacking Lauds own views. Such strict and inexorable behaviour caused affright in the slew and alien Lauds church. pull ahead still, the marriage of queer Charles to the Roman Catholic cut princess Henrietta Maria 1625 had previously caused a general fear of Catholicism to come on in England but this was only construct upon by the measures Laud had instigated. Cl ahead of time religion did have an impact yet it is the incidental effects that matter.These religious matters crucially caused a need of substitute for the monarchy and the realisation that the monarchy postulate Parliament to govern effectively. The mogul was blind to this and this fo rced the quite a little to look elsewhere for democracy. This was the true nature of the war to fight for control and a new democracy. To continue, nance Charles the First showed incompetence throughout his rationale losing the support of his pile gradually but surely. A series of failings displayed his inability to regularisation yet first and foremost was the panache of King Charles.Michael Young describes Charles as a stubborn, combative and high-handed king, who generated conflict whilst Richard Cust continues that he was non stupid, but he did survive from what Russell calls a tunnel vision, which make it very difficult for him to understand each singles perspective early(a) than his own. Shy and obnoxious, Charles was remote to conform to sevens insisting that he was chosen by God to persist in accordance with the doctrine of the reverent Right of Kings.Many parliamentarians feared that setting up a new kingdom as Charles I intended might destroy the grizzly side of meat traditions that had been integral to the position monarchy and its country and this belief from King Charles I of the prognosticate right of kings only exacerbated this. Importantly at this point, parliament was subject to dissolution by the monarchy at any time and they had to aweary of this. In all, King Charles was unsuitable to expression England and his character flaws along with his beliefs and reluctance to agree left him on a one way path to disaster and crucially, unpopularity.He postulate parliament yet he himself did non know it, instead his own policies and decisions would alienate him from the raft and would be his very downfall. to a greater extent so disastrous for his reign than his indecisive, pitiable and ineffective personality were the policies of King Charles I. The King wanted to take part in the Thirty Years War of europium at huge costs and with effectual expenditure. Parliament fore aphorism these impossible costs of the war and refus ed to support King Charles yet this did not stop the King in urgent ahead with his European Wars.His conquests move a foregone the dissolution of parliament into his personal regulating until he was forced to withdraw from the war making peace with Spain and France the monarchys funds were shattered and the King had dissolved Parliament ending any hopes of financial support from taskes. present the King demonstrates his naivety with the country sustaining in plausible financial troubles with unforesightful reciprocate to show for it but most significantly he lost further support of the people. People began to question his ability to find oneself and began to look elsewhere towards parliament.Perhaps the clearest indication though that he was unable to rule without parliament came with his 11 year Personal Rule. For 11 years, King Charles avoided calling a parliament during which time he made some(prenominal) crucial slues. Most importantly, without Parliament, Charles wa s left with little revenue and so he looked to other means of income. Controversially, the King tried to implement Ship valuees, exploiting a naval war-scare and demanding tax from inland counties to pay for the Royal Navy.The tax was questionable at best, supported by law but regarded as an extrajudicial tax men refused to pay the ship tax and argued that the tax was illegal in court, but most lost and were fined. move on resentment to the King was growing among the English people and again they blamed the Kings lack of parliament and his inability to rule without it. King Charles I foolishly looked to enforce policies in Scotland also. The King had hoped to unite England with Scotland and Ireland to create a single kingdom with a invariant High Anglican church.This idea affright Parliament with fears of losing traditional English slipway evident. Despite this, pass of 1637 saw Charles I interfere with Scottish religion introducing a new high Anglican English book of prayer to the Scottish scorn the Church of Scotland having strict traditions. This was duly followed by resistance and riots in Edinburgh followed by a rebellion. Naturally the King responded by preeminent an army to the Scottish border and contend the rebellion.A second war followed in 1640 where embarrassingly King Charles forces were belabored by a Scottish army who continued to contract freshlycastle Charles now had a rebellion on his hand but with insufficient monetary resource he could not defend anything of the like, he was forced to form a new parliament and seek the taxes that they brought. The Scottish were demanding ? 850 a day to keep them from advancing and this was all Charles own doing in trying to change religion in Scotland. It can be argued as indeed C. Russel does that, Religion uncertainnesslessly contributed heavily to the outbreak of the Bishops wars.It contributed to the English defeat in the wars, by building up a party in England whose sympathies were on t he Scottish side. However these religious disputes were not a direct cause of the genteel war rather that once again King Charles had made a mistake and proven his inability to rule without the credible parliament. The people were becoming all similarly aware of these failings and his delusions. The dislike for King Charles I continued to climb with his ordered doing of Thomas Wentworth May 1641.The King had sacrificed one of his chief advisors in the hope of preventing war yet it was all in vain. Here his incapabilitys had resulted in an transaction and the backlash in Ireland was total topsy-turvyness with the faithful Catholics fearing a protestant resurgence. pass on tension between the monarchy and parliament was seen and the King looked very weak at this point. Finally, the end of King Charles of England rule came in 1642, early in which he had attempted to enamour five members of the House of Commons.The King had gone accompanied by 400 soldiers to block the five mem bers on charge of traitorousness yet upon arrival at parliament the Speaker refused to reveal the whereabouts of the suspects. Crucially, Lenthall replied May it gratify your majesty, I have neither eye to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this provide is joyous to direct me whose servant I am here and humbly beg your majestys pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me voicing his determined commitment not the King but to Parliament.This visualised the feeling between Parliament and the King and it was only then that the King saw that he had real opposition. Following his in style(p) failing Charles had fled from capital of the United Kingdom in fear of his own safety but continued to negotiate with Parliament through until the summer to no avail. With the summer passing towns and cities began to articulation their allegiance for either the Royalists or the Parliamentarians and the war was beginning to e merge. Quite literally King Charles had got it all wrong and had even sparked off a civil war with his attempts to take parliament members.Importantly it was the Kings attempts to choker members of parliament that sparked the war as opposed to any religious factors or disputes and the Kings ill-chosen public opinion of the country that continued to sack the civil wars for years to come. In conclusion, the English civil wars on 1642 to 1651 were not wars of religion. Without doubt religion played a role in the distancing between the King to his people and Parliament and also with the Bishops wars, yet it was not integral to the emergence of the war or indeed throughout the war.Rather the war was a war of power and control with Parliament attempting to provide democracy to the unsatisfied people in contrast to the diabolical failings with the rule of King Charles I. King Charles was incapable of ruling the country, demonstrating his incompetence with endless examples to make the people want for a new democracy and better leadership for their country and that they did with support for Parliamentarians seen in huge numbers. The Kings failure to rule and govern the country had directly led to intervention from the Parliamentarians and the start of the English civil wars. Word Count 1920Bibliography 1. Coward, B. (1980) The Stuart Age England 1603 1714. Pearson educational activity expressage 2. Cust, R. (2002) Politics, Religion and Popularity, Charles I and popularity. (ed. ,Cogswell, T. Cust, R. Lake, P. ) Cambridge Cambridge University vex 235 3. De Groot, J. (2004). Royalist identities. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire Palgrave Macmillan. 4. Hill, C. (1958). Puritanism and revolution Studies in version of the English revolution of the 17th century. London Secker Warburg. 5. Kishlansky, M. (1999) Tyranny Denied Charles I, Attorney planetary Heath, and the cardinal Knights Case. 42 53 6. Morrill, J. S. (1993). The nature of the English Revolution E ssays. London Longman. 7. Parliament. uk Speaker Lenthall defends Parliament against the King. Accessed 27th March 2012. Available from http//www. parliament. uk/ line of reasoning/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-highlights/archives-speakerlenthall/ 8. Russell, C. (1990) The Causes of the English civil War. Oxford Clarendon bear on 9. Sproxton, J. (1995). vehemence and religion Attitudes towards militancy in the French civil wars and the English Revolution. London New York Routledge. &8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212- 1 . Coward, B. (1980) The Stuart Age England 1603 1714. Pearson Education Limited 2 . Cust, R. (2002) Politics, Religion and Popularity, Charles I and popularity. (ed. ,Cogswell, T. Cust, R. Lake, P. ) Cambridge Cambridge University shrink 235 3 . Cust, R. (2002) Politics, Religion and Popularity, Charles I and popularity. (ed. ,Cogswell, T. Cust, R. Lake, P. ) Cambridge Cambridge University Press 235 4 . Kishl ansky, M. (1999) Tyranny Denied Charles I, Attorney General Heath, and the Five

No comments:

Post a Comment