Explain Why Did The Civil War Break Out In 1642

Why did the Civil War break out in 1642?

Amit Pandya

There are several events that led up to the break out of the Civil War in 1642. The war was between two strong parties: Charles I and Parliament. Throughout his reign, Charles I has proven to be very controversial whereas Parliament has been quite conservative in its views. Who was more at fault? Charles I or Parliament?

The underlying cause was when Charles I was brought up to believe in ‘ The Divine Right Of Kings’. ‘The Divine Right of Kings’ was a belief that royalty followed, that stated that the decisions that a monarch determines is based on the will of God. This theory was used from the 17th Century despite it being written in the 16th Century by Jean Bodin, who was a political

In 1634, the King decided that he would desire ‘Ship Money’. Ship Money was a tax that was requested by towns on the coast to defend their coastline, in tradition. However Charles I abused the right of charging Ship Money because he demanded it from every town and county, regardless if it was on the coast. He also wanted the money when a war wasn’t even taking place. In fact, the sole purpose of him wanting to retrieve money was because he could use it for HIS needs and pleasure. In shorter terms, he was betraying his own country, just for the factor of greed. Although he requested this tax, an MP called John Hampden rebelled and didn’t pay the money. He was then put on trial for disobeying the King in 1637. He should definitely not go to jail, considering his actions. This is because Charles disobeyed the Magna Carta, which states that all decisions involving finance and tax should not be approved without the review with the Parliament. Since Charles I sent his Parliament home, it meant that Charles was making decisions alone, regardless whether it was for the benefit of the country. This decision was a very incorrect one to make. Charging it to the public, who is oblivious of the cause is a very bad decision for an average person, especially a monarch. When John Hampden was on trial, the judges were split on how they should rule this verdict; seven thought he should pay Ship Money whereas five

The current Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, tried to force many reformations inside religion. When he created a new Prayer Book in 1637, large riots took place in Scotland. This was because the public believed in a certain and specific way of prayer, so forcing new reforms would prove to be controversial as all these new reforms were associated with Catholicism. The rioters were called ‘Covenanters’. Also since the Parliament were sent home, the Archbishop of Canterbury has become much more significant to Charles I. This could spark a potential rivalry between the Parliament and William Laud as both were advisors to the King. In the view of a civilian, the amount of dispute caused by the King is too much and Charles I was not delivering his duty as King. When Charles I had the MPs as advisors, he and the Parliament disagreed at numerous occasions about whether Charles I had the right/ability to change the peoples’ religion because the outcome has shown that the King has lost support from his people, lost money and his ways through money and power. This exacerbated the hate of the relationship between Charles and Parliament because, despite the conversations, he remained to ignore their verdict and instead, followed his independent desire. This could build to the Civil War taking place, because Charles I has left the public and Parliament behind with his ‘crazy’