How Did Charles I Prevent The English Civil War

In April 1642, the Civil war started in England. The civil war ended up by King Charles losing the war. And in my essay I am going to talk about many reasons why Charles lost the civil war.

After Charles was executed several political problems arose because there was no direction of settlement due to the degree and nature of the reform. As a result of this, two sides formed, the army who were religious radicals and parliament, who were after a conservative settlement. The result of the

Repetitively, the authors announce the King’s crimes against the common man. The colonists cite him and his temperament as one of the grounds for which the want to separate. According to the authors, the King’s governance neglects an entire segment of his subjects -- the colonists. The authors showcase the King’s inability to cooperate with

Throughout the history of the United States many different events have helped shape the country that we live in today. However, there is one particular event that sticks out the most, The Civil War. Many people have debated whether or not the Civil War was preventable or if it was necessary. In order to decide whether or not the Civil War was necessary we need to take a look at the events that led up to the Civil War.

The king looked to the Pope for guidance in difficult situations, seeking advice to handle angry veterans returning from the Thirty Years’ War. Persuaded by bishops, Charles reestablished congregations and restored church paintings and sculptures. Bishop Juxon took office as Treasurer, which was frowned upon by Charles’ Protestant people. Charles’ reign was largely influenced by the Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers. At first, Charles was jealous of the attention George received from Charles’ father, who treated George like a son, later on, however; they became close companions. George guided many of Charles’ decisions, including his calling off the marriage arrangement with a Spanish king’s sister. On June 18, 1625, Charles assembled Parliament for the first time during his reign to start funding for battle with Spain. Charles often went into negotiations with the mind set of his plan or no action at all. Because Parliament was

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

There has been a considerable debate on whether King Charles I brought about his own downfall. Many people have argued that Charles wasn’t to blame, but rather religion or that it was the growth of parliament, however some people believe that there were a number of problems before he began his reign over England, all of which led to the Civil War and Charles’s execution on the 30th January 1649.

He decided that since he could not work with Parliament, Charles would not summon to meet. Charles I pursued a course of personal rule, which would force him to find ways to collect taxes without cooperation of Parliament. His religious policy was catastrophic. After eleven years of frustration, Parliament became determined to deal the king his due. They decided that the king had gone too far, and England slipped into civil war.

During the time that Charles ruled without Parliament. Charles started to collect “Ship money”, which was usually used to buy or fix emergency ships for when Charles needed ships for war. This also contributed to the civil war because when Charles needed ships he didn’t have the money because he couldn’t collect “Ship Money” anymore. For this reason Charles had to re-elect Parliament to give him the money for

Absolute Monarch Essay King Charles II of England was born on May 29 1630 in London under the house of Stuart. He quickly rose to power on April 8 1661 at the young age of 30. He would inherit England, Scotland, and Ireland from his father, King Charles I. King Charles II demonstrated absolutism when he gained control of the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam around 1664 when England was in war with Holland. With such a huge accomplishment, it brought a lot of hope and promise to England. He also showed more absolutism when he Issued the Declaration of Breda which promised “amnesty and freedom of conscience” and also when he vanished parliament vowing that there would be no more chatter about some change or succession.

Charles II took over after Parliament invited him back from exile. At first, Charles II seemed to be different than his father. Parliament was swindled by his light-hearted manner and his jovial nature and felt he was the best choice for their country. But the similarities between father and son was clear when Charles II made clear that, “he thought government was a much safer, and easier thing where the authority was believed infallible, and the faith and submission of the people was implicit…” (Charles II Pg. 8). Charles II felt that the only way to govern was to have people blindly place their trust in you. Parliament worried over this statement, as this is a statement made by a King who usually subscribes to the Divine Right theory, made

The king of England, James I, was a powerful and a demanding person during the time periods of 1603 to 1625. He thought that Kings should have all the power and these thoughts was very similar to his son, Charles I, who became king once James I died. Once Charles I became king there became many disputes between him, and Parliament. Parliament is the highest legislature, consisting of the sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. However, Charles I did not think they had any say in England and they were only there to give him advice. This resulted in Charles I dissolving Parliament over and over while abusing his prerogative power. This costed Charles limited money and supplies since he could not get them from Parliament, so he got money from the people of

He had failed doing this, as the amount of hate received from Ireland, Scotland, and his own people were very displeased. His failure had made him have to call for the one thing he didn’t want, parliament. He needed the money and support that they could provide so he had to let parliament control the government again, as it was with Elizabeth. Charles mistakes had led to a civil war. The country chose sides, and parliament abolished many of the king’s choices. The country was a mess, and would never return to its full state. There was only one man to blame for this mess, and it was King Charles himself. On January 30th 1649 he was executed for being a traitor and for treason. James I and his son Charles I had made the government all about they in a way no other ruler had before. Because they did not have equal say in government or among the British people, England was in turmoil and had no worth to their once profound name. Having equal say could have kept some violent outbursts contained among certain groups of the British people. Equal representation could have controlled not only the citizen’s actions but the king’s actions as

On January 1st of 1649, the Rump Parliament of England passed a mandate for the trial of King Charles I to which he would be charged with “subverting the fundamental laws and liberties of the nation while maliciously making war on the parliament and people of England.” After years of civil war and various failures in fulfilling kingly duties, Charles faced a trial against a strategically assembled English court that would choose his fate. This stands out in history as one of the most noteworthy and dramatic events in early modern England- a domestic political crisis unlike anything that had ever been seen before. Over the years historians have debated in how they characterize the king’s trial and its end result, referring to the execution as “a crime of the worst magnitude, a regrettable necessity, or a laudable challenge to either an individual ruler or the entire political system.” Due to the overall disapproval of the trial by prominent individuals, biased personnel assembled in the court, questionable legal legitimacy, improper court proceedings and unfortunate socio-economic circumstances during his reign, it can be concluded that King Charles I did not receive a fair trial.

Charles made many mistakes during his reign, one of which was when the Scottish were rebelling against the king, Charles made a new tax to pay for the army and declared war on the Scots. This was an extremely foolish decision as he could have gone to parliament and asked for their help to deal with the Scots, so then the Scots were dealt with and Charles would have been re-united with parliament. Another bad decision that he made was in 1640 parliament offered him to re-join forces but instead he closed them down again.