Salah

Another installment in Salah's long series of dumb questions about post-medieval European history.

While the major figures of the English Civil War, as well as the weaponry and battle tactics prominent in the War are easily recognizeable, I've never seen the subject of why the War happened in the first place discussed in much detail. Recently I read a claim that some of the factors in the Civil War had been brewing for at least a century at the time.

So...what were some of underlying causes and factors of the English Civil War? Could it have been prevented?

Space Shark

Causes? It's gotta be the disputes and arguments between the Stuart kings and Parliment. That's all I have now.

Rongo

And while we're at it, if anyone can recommend a good book on the subject, I'd appreciate it too.

viking

I'll put the very simple answer first. Charles Ist believed in absolute power for the monarch; the "Divine Right of Kings," This didn't go down too well with the middle classes, the gentlemen farmers and successful business men. It's a bit like the American War of Independence. No tax without representation. Charles saw Parliament only as a cash cow. It wasn't there to tell his nibs what to do. The Parliamentarians didn't see things that way at all. So they objected strenuously. Result-- Civil War.

Louise C

Charles thought he could rule without parliament if he wanted to, but they had got too strong by his time. He needed money, and kept trying to impose taxes that parliament had not approved. I think it is true that this situation probably had been brewing for some time. In Elizabeth I, david Loades says:

She failed to deal with two issues of crucuial importance which were to derail the regimes of her successors. Having encouraged the gentry to adopt a higher and higher profile in government, she failed to find a satisfactory definition of the constitutional relationship between crown, lords and commons, although several models were offered to her by William Cecil in the course of her reign. By refusing to define it she protected her perogative from formal limitation, but left it vulnerable to attack, as was already becoming apparent before she died. Secondly, she conspicuously failed to tackle the problem of inadequate revenue. By muddling along, and improvising from hand to mouth, she managed to survive, but the consequence was that nobody faced the fact that the crown needed a regular and substantial taxation income, even to conduct its normal peacetime operations, never mind to wage war. It was as much ignorance as extravagence or ill-will that caused the financial crises of the early Stuarts, and for that ignorancre Elizabeth was to blame. Her inability to act promptly and decisively was thus more damaging at home than it was abroad. It was caused directly by her fear that parliament and particularly the House of Commons, would be empowered to exercise a measure of control which she believed belonged to herself alone.

viking

Louise, you might just have me hunting back through my books on the government of Elizabeth. I'll give a little thought to Loades. Briefly it appears he is making out a case for ignorance and muddle on Elizabeth's part.
You may not be aware that one of her greatest achievements might be England's love of fish and chips.

Brunel

It was, of course, a tyrannical Scotsman who started to cause the events which led to the English Civil War.

Long-term causes



King James VI of Scotland, who came down to England and put himself on the Throne as King James I of England, not only had an abnormally long tongue which often lolled out of his mouth causing ugly scenes when he ate and which caused drink to dribble out of each side of the cup and his mouth when he drank, but he was also a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings. This was a belief that God had made someone a king and as God could not be wrong, neither could anyone appointed by him to rule a nation. He expected the English Parliament to do as he wanted.

James and Parliament often clashed over money - Parliament had plenty of money but James hardly had any. One source of the King's income was Custom Duty, but Parliament declared that he could not have it without its permission.

In 1611, James suspended Parliament and it did not meet for another 10 years. James used his friends to run the country and they were rewarded with titles. This caused great offence to those Members of Parliament who believed that they had the right to run the country.


Short term causes



James's son, Charles I, took to the Throne in 1625.

Like his father, Charles was arrogant, conceited and a strong believer in the divine rights of kings. He had witnessed the arguments between his father and Parliament and considered Parliament to be wrong.


In 1629, MPs arrived at Parliament to find that they were locked out, and weren't able to get back in for 11 years. This became known as the Eleven Years Tyranny. Charles ruled by the Court of Star Chamber.

To raise money for himself, Charles heavily fined those who were brought before the Court. Rich men were persuaded to buy titles. If they refused to do so, they were fined the same sum of money it would have cost for a title anyway!

What was almost the final straw came in 1635 when Charles ordered that everyone in England should pay Ship Money. This was historically a tax paid by COASTAL towns and villages to pay for the upkeep of the navy. The logic was that coastal areas most benefited from the navy's protection, but Charles decided that everyone in the kingdom benefited from the navy's protection and that everyone should pay.

John Hampden, the MP for Wendover in Buckinghamshire and one of the most powerful men in England, refused to pay Ship Money. Hampden was put on trial and found guilty. However, he had become a hero for standing up to the King. The towns of Hampden, Maryland, Hamden, Connecticut and Hampden, Maine, as well as the county of Hampden, Massachusetts are named in his honour. There is no record of any Ship Money being extensively collected in the areas Charles had wanted it extended to.

Haesten

The ship tax and the Bishops' Wars in Scotland were the catalyst.
The ship tax (fiercely opposed) was enough for Charles to rule without parliament for 11 years, but the Bishop's Wars left him bankrupt and he had to recall parliament.

"The Long Parliament of was established on 3 November 1640 to pass financial bills, following the Bishops' Wars. It received its name from the fact that through an Act of Parliament, it could only be dissolved with the agreement of the members"

It also abolished the ship tax and much else, Charles tried to close the parliament in 1642, but was forced to flee to Oxford where he set up a rival parliament and civil war commenced.

Charles the First and Parliament, 1625-29

Widdekind

the early 17th century AD was rife with Religious strife, between Muslims & Christians; Catholics & Protestants; cp. Time of Troubles (RUS), 30 Years War (GER). E.g. the "Bishops' Wars" clearly involved Religion.

Louise C

I think he is making a case for her avoidance of tackling the problem of the relationship between the monarch and parliament, because she wanted to retain her power.

I didn't know she had anything to do with fish and chips, I thought they became popular here in the 19th century.