Historians often focus on the dispute about the causation of the English Civil War. The Civil War had stemmed from a compilation of issues – notably the importance of money, religion and power. However, an underlying theme of debate between historians has been the importance of Charles’ actions in triggering of the conflict and how his personality traits had effect. This essay will examine the faults in Charles personality in a role of king, and illustrate how his traits were a cause of the flawed actions by Charles, namely actions in parliament and to the people, in order to show that his conflicting personality can be linked to causes of the English Civil War and his loss of power to a great extent.
The qualities of early English monarchs …show more content…
During the 1620’s, Charles and Parliament clashed numerous times, prompted by a number of various issues. Charles, and those closest to him, had a large role in the collapse of the relations between the monarchy and parliament. Charles’ extreme trust in those closest to him proved to be a fatal flaw the in the tense era. A notable example is George Villers, the Duke of Buckingham and a close friend to Charles. When Buckingham was murdered in 1628, Parliament revelled his death; infuriating Charles and increasing tension between the two powers which led to the disbanding of parliament. Additionally, there was much belief by Charles’ opposition that the prolongation of his personal rule would result in the kingdom being dominated by an absolute tyrant. Historian Kevin Sharpe, the author of The Personal Rule of Charles I, has argued that Charles never intended to rule indefinitely without the assistance of Parliament, noting that in 1629, Charles declared that he would call another parliament when his subjects would, "see more clearly into our interest and actions." However, the emphasis on the monarchy’s interest is obviously highlighting the wants of a tyrannical king, and not to the reinstatement of future parliaments. It is also often asserted that Charles was an obstinate leader and therefore …show more content…
However, his personality, which guided his actions, cannot bear the whole sole responsibility for the English Civil War and his loss of power. There were other factors that did lead to the start of the war such as the role of parliament and decline of the kingdom under James I. The English Parliament were hostile to Charles from the start of his reign. Parliament presented Charles with their many grievances while refusing to give appropriate taxation and limited his authority as King. An example was the Tonnage and Poundage restriction. From 1414, a king’s right to accumulate Tonnage and Poundage had normally been given to each monarch for life, this was debated during Charles’s first Parliament as only being a yearlong agreement, but was refused altogether. Charles’ method of ruling can also, to an extent, be linked to the ruling of his father, James I. James I ran his kingdom in a very similar fashion to Charles – he created a grave relationship with Parliament over his constant fiscal requirements and disbanded Parliament for ten years. This method of leadership gave Charles a negative relationship with Parliament since before he was king and proved to be an ineffective model of leadership to be subjected to follow. The additional factors were notable factors to the causation of the Civil Wars, however they were not as notable as the actions as result of the
The qualities of early English monarchs …show more content…
During the 1620’s, Charles and Parliament clashed numerous times, prompted by a number of various issues. Charles, and those closest to him, had a large role in the collapse of the relations between the monarchy and parliament. Charles’ extreme trust in those closest to him proved to be a fatal flaw the in the tense era. A notable example is George Villers, the Duke of Buckingham and a close friend to Charles. When Buckingham was murdered in 1628, Parliament revelled his death; infuriating Charles and increasing tension between the two powers which led to the disbanding of parliament. Additionally, there was much belief by Charles’ opposition that the prolongation of his personal rule would result in the kingdom being dominated by an absolute tyrant. Historian Kevin Sharpe, the author of The Personal Rule of Charles I, has argued that Charles never intended to rule indefinitely without the assistance of Parliament, noting that in 1629, Charles declared that he would call another parliament when his subjects would, "see more clearly into our interest and actions." However, the emphasis on the monarchy’s interest is obviously highlighting the wants of a tyrannical king, and not to the reinstatement of future parliaments. It is also often asserted that Charles was an obstinate leader and therefore …show more content…
However, his personality, which guided his actions, cannot bear the whole sole responsibility for the English Civil War and his loss of power. There were other factors that did lead to the start of the war such as the role of parliament and decline of the kingdom under James I. The English Parliament were hostile to Charles from the start of his reign. Parliament presented Charles with their many grievances while refusing to give appropriate taxation and limited his authority as King. An example was the Tonnage and Poundage restriction. From 1414, a king’s right to accumulate Tonnage and Poundage had normally been given to each monarch for life, this was debated during Charles’s first Parliament as only being a yearlong agreement, but was refused altogether. Charles’ method of ruling can also, to an extent, be linked to the ruling of his father, James I. James I ran his kingdom in a very similar fashion to Charles – he created a grave relationship with Parliament over his constant fiscal requirements and disbanded Parliament for ten years. This method of leadership gave Charles a negative relationship with Parliament since before he was king and proved to be an ineffective model of leadership to be subjected to follow. The additional factors were notable factors to the causation of the Civil Wars, however they were not as notable as the actions as result of the