Essay
Essay on the causes of the civil war
- Institution
- PEARSON (PEARSON)
A level essay on How far do you agree with the view that Charles I’s actions between 1625 and 1642 were primarily responsible for the outbreak of civil war?
[Show more]
Content preview
How far do you agree with the view that Charles I’s actions between 1625 and 1642 wereprimarily responsible for the outbreak of civil war?
I disagree with the view that Charles I’s actions were the main cause of the civil war as I
believe that the unprecedented actions of Parliament giving Charles no alternative but war
were primarily responsible for the outbreak of civil war. We must consider other factors like
Charles’s actions in order to push for autocratic rule and religious divisions but they were
not primarily responsible as they were either reactions to Parliament or not significant
enough on their own. We can judge these different causes with the criteria of inciting war or
stopping a chance of peaceful negotiation from happening. Parliament had been used to a
more moderate and conceding king in James I so the more independent rule of Charles with
his 11 year personal rule meant contention was always likely. In addition, the restraints on
the king’s power that Parliament would propose had never been so significant since the
Magna Carta in 1215.
Parliament’s unprecedented attacks on Charles and his authority were primarily responsible
for the outbreak of civil war because their demands sought to take away so much of his
power that he could never reasonably accept them forcing him to retaliate with war. The
role of Parliament was purely legal with raising taxes for him and passing laws for
government to function but under John Pym their actions towards the king became political
which is why they were unprecedented and why Charles opposed them. The first of these
direct attacks on the king’s power was the Triennial Act in January 1641 ensuring that
Charles would have to call Parliament at least once every 3 years. This was an
unprecedented attack on Charles’s power as no king in England had ever been under an
obligation to call Parliament and was instead of balancing the constitution as they claimed
was there aim, it weakened the king’s power and strengthened the power of Parliament.
Later that year in the Grand Remonstrance, Parliament sought the power to veto any new
king ministers so Charles would only be able to appoint ministers that shared the same view
as Parliament infringing heavily on his power to rule in the country in his way. This was so
controversial even in the house of commons it only passed by 11 votes which shows the
number of MPs who all against the recent actions of Charles still found it far too impeaching
of his power. Parliament then tried to appoint a lord-general to command the army with the
Militia Ordinance in March 1642 which was significant as it would take control of the army
away from the king for the first time and leave the king with no real power of his own
without an army to enforce it. Again, the bill only passed in the Lords because many
sympathisers of Charles had left Parliament to join him at York and in the commons, it only
passed by 33 votes, showing how uneasy MPs were with the amount of power being taken
away from the king and transferred into Parliament. Parliament also took the
unprecedented action of announcing that they could act independently of the king in the
nation’s defence which made available to Parliament military action against the king as
there were now ‘independent’ and so incited war to make this legislation an actual law as
Charles had reasonably rejected it. Also, with Parliament entrusting the defence of the
nation to themselves, it removed a crucial role of the king’s purpose in keeping his subjects
safe from invaders so again greatly questioned the need of Charles as king. Finally, in the 19
propositions we see Parliament uncompromisingly ask for control of foreign policy,
supervision of the education of the royal children and control of their marriages. These
demands would have taken away all freedom that the monarchy had by dictating every
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Toby20. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
80435 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now