Although, there was no lack of other factors – such as finance and religion – that also led to the deterioration of the relationship. Buckingham’s Policies continued to develop a fundamental rift with parliament when he supported Richelu in his campaign against the protestant hueganauts and because he was perceived as the kings favourite by parliament the actions of Buckingham only exacerbated the relations between parliament and the crown. Relations between England and France quickly deteriorated when in 1627, Louis XIII was displeased with Charles’s failure to fully extend the promised toleration to Catholics, and Charles was annoyed at Louis for using English ships in the suppression of the Huguenots. Buckingham had also tried to seduce the French Queen, however, the element that had a tremendous impact on the
He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”. Moreover, the Forced Loan only happened as a result of Charles dismissing the 1626 Parliament, forfeiting his opportunity of obtaining further grants for his wartime expenditure. Parliament had already been antagonised by Charles’ decision to dismiss them and now that Charles was forcing taxation on others in order to fund his wartime expenditure, due to disastrous foreign policy which Parliament largely disagreed with, it is clear that the Forced Loan had worsened relations greatly. In addition to this, the financing of foreign policy also affected the relationship between Crown and Parliament. As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies.
It has been argued that Charles I was the main reason that war broke out. I will be investigating whether this is a far accusation by looking at the long-term and the short-term causes for the English Civil War and assessing how far Charles was really to blame. Firstly, it has been argued that Charles was to blame for the long-term reasons such as wanting to make changes to religion, the power of the king and money. For example, Charles was partly to blame for money because he was trying to buy off the Scottish with £850 a day (which he could not afford) as a result from trying to make the Scottish Puritans. They rebelled and tried to attack.
England was effectively bankrupt and on the edge of internal demise via privet feuds. The battle of St Albans can be pinned as the marking point for the start of the war,, but this would be highly unconventional to blame the conflict on one point such as this, as many other factors had been building up to this event since 1427 such as when Henry VI came of age. He was known as a puppet King, led by the government. It was this governmental rule that caused chaos amongst England and divided it as such, hope for the king to rule England efficiently with an iron hand seemed like an improbable dream. There was a massive loss of resources and income after the recline of land in France, leading to the powerful men of England to take arms in aid of their lords this lead to the battle of St Albans The weakness of royal power can be pin pointed to the king.
But that’s not the only reason religion caused the civil war, King Charles believed in the divine right. It was when the king/queen believes that god put them on the throne. So Charles took all the power because of this and Parliament didn’t want to go with his decision which contributes to the civil war. Also he made Scottish churches uses English prayer books which caused riots and England went to battle with Scotland. England lost.
In 1213 he collected so much money from taxes that half of all the coins in England were his to spend. By doing this he aggravated the Barons, good Kings consult their Barons when handling big decisions but John didn’t. The facts suggest that the Barons got irritated when John didn’t consult them when important matters were being discussed; this was another long term cause of the rebellion. Another long term cause for the rebellion was the disagreement over the church. In 1205 John was in discrepancy with the Pope over who ought to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury, just like his father had done, John refused to let Stephen Langton, the Pope’s choice, become the
England’s monarchy in the early seventeenth century boasted multiple problems. Kings sought to rule independently and did not want to ration their power to the nobles in Parliament. Due to the large amount of debt left behind from Elizabeth I’s rule, some English kings created new taxes or found new means by which to raise revenue without consulting Parliament. England notably started to decline beginning with the rule of James I. Succeeding James I was Charles I, and his policies propelled England to civil war.
To what extent did the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1618 destabilise religion in England? Back in the 17th century, Europe was divided into Catholic and Protestant countries. The two different religious beliefs caused the beginning of the war. Although James I was led by the motto of ''beauti pacifi'' (Blessed be the peacemakers) and did not wish to be involved in any kind of conflict whatsoever, England was compelled to take sides. One of this war's causes was the nearly tacit public opinion, as well as the Parliament's, that they should support the Protestants due to Elizabeth (James's daughter) and Frederick - both involved in the war.
The cause of the English civil war The title ‘The cause of the English civil war’ means, what happened to make the civil war start. A civil war is when a country fights against itself with different beliefs. In 1625 King James died and Charles I came to the throne. James had strongly believed in the divine right of kings he had thought that monarchs got their power and the right to rule from God and that because of this they must be obeyed, the people of England were not very happy with this because it meant that the king could do whatever he wanted and claim that God had told him to. England for a long time had been told to hate Catholics and when James came from Scotland and became king he decided to marry Henrietta Maria, a Catholic, the people became unhappy because they did not know if their heir would be Protestant or Catholic.
The Church became almost authoritarian, and in those days, it is nearly impossible to go against the Church’s doctrine. In Bradford’s own word on the state of affair in England: “… But after these things they could not long continue in any peaceable conditions, but were hunted and persecuted on every side, so as their former afflictions were but as flea-bitings in comparison of these which now came upon them.” This was in response to how it was a treasonous offence to go against the authority of the Church of England. Bradford joined this group of separatist in 1606, despite the displeasure of his family. In 1609, he joined a group of separatist, who had migrated to Holland. Although the separatist had more freedom to practice as they wanted in Holland, they developed the