“King Charles Is Totally to Blame for the Civil War.” Do I Agree?

421 Words2 Pages
“King Charles is totally to blame for the civil war.” Do I Agree? The English Civil War took place in 1642 when Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham. The split between Charles and Parliament was such that neither side was willing to back down over the principles that they held and war was inevitable as a way in which all problems could be solved. The country split into those who supported the king and those who supported Parliament. Some historians say that Charles is totally to blame for this war, while some say that parliament is totally to blame for it. I am going to tell you about it. There were many reasons for why the king was to blame one of the reasons for why the king was to blame was because of his money problems. Charles was not good with money and always had very little. He had closed down parliament and had to think of ways of getting money without asking the parliament's help. He had used old laws like 'Ship Money', which was a special tax to help the navy he used this idea to get money off the people of England. This made him very unpopular. Another reason for why the king was to blame was the way he had handled with religion. As he was the king, he had thought that he had the power to make the Scots use English prayer books. The scots were so furious that they decided to fight Charles I instead. This also made him unpopular to the scots as well as the people of England. When the scots had defeated him Charles had to pay lots of tax money which he couldn’t afford. So, Charles had to recall parliament, as only tax voted by parliament got rid of the scots. Charles believed in divine rights that God had chosen him to be king so he and Archbishop Laud started to decorate the church which he said that if the church is decorated, you will be closer to God. He also married a catholic princess from France which was very unpopular.
Open Document