Was the English Civil War a War of Religion?
Was the English Civil War a war of Religion?
The English Civil Wars of 1642 to 1651 had religious connections indefinitely, yet to say that they were wars of religion is slightly blindsided. Economics, national and foreign policy and the rule of King Charles I all played pivotal roles in the wars, in particular, the role of the King and his failings to rule. Such failings lost support for the King on a large scale and led to the argument that this was the beginnings of democracy where the people wanted to look elsewhere from the monarchy for a better governed country. The wars were not fought intently for religion but instead against the monarchy and the dreadful rule of King Charles I for a better led democracy. Such democracy was largely connected and associated with the Parliamentarians who offered opposition to the failing Royalists and hope for change. With the Royalists and the Parliamentarians fighting for power and for leadership of their country, two parties with no major religious qualms were set to go to war. For the Roundheads, the ultimate desire was not religious but was to “safeguard parliaments place in the constitution from the creeping threat of royal absolutism’ that had seemed to be prevalent since at the least 1626.” The parliamentarians offering opposition to the Royalists were in a political sense, seen as the answer in the search of democracy through which they gained mass support. However in answering the question, religious connections must be analysed with a mind on the importance to the civil wars.
Importantly, England was a strictly protestant nation after the Reformations of the 16th century and King Charles struggled with Parliament in connection to religion and caused much tension and ill feeling within England. In keeping with his high Anglican faith, the King appointed his main political advisor, William Laud as the new archbishop in 1633. The Protestant people of England accused Laud of Catholicising the Church of England and
The English Civil Wars of 1642 to 1651 had religious connections indefinitely, yet to say that they were wars of religion is slightly blindsided. Economics, national and foreign policy and the rule of King Charles I all played pivotal roles in the wars, in particular, the role of the King and his failings to rule. Such failings lost support for the King on a large scale and led to the argument that this was the beginnings of democracy where the people wanted to look elsewhere from the monarchy for a better governed country. The wars were not fought intently for religion but instead against the monarchy and the dreadful rule of King Charles I for a better led democracy. Such democracy was largely connected and associated with the Parliamentarians who offered opposition to the failing Royalists and hope for change. With the Royalists and the Parliamentarians fighting for power and for leadership of their country, two parties with no major religious qualms were set to go to war. For the Roundheads, the ultimate desire was not religious but was to “safeguard parliaments place in the constitution from the creeping threat of royal absolutism’ that had seemed to be prevalent since at the least 1626.” The parliamentarians offering opposition to the Royalists were in a political sense, seen as the answer in the search of democracy through which they gained mass support. However in answering the question, religious connections must be analysed with a mind on the importance to the civil wars.
Importantly, England was a strictly protestant nation after the Reformations of the 16th century and King Charles struggled with Parliament in connection to religion and caused much tension and ill feeling within England. In keeping with his high Anglican faith, the King appointed his main political advisor, William Laud as the new archbishop in 1633. The Protestant people of England accused Laud of Catholicising the Church of England and
Bibliography: 1. Coward, B. (1980) The Stuart Age; England 1603 – 1714. Pearson Education Limited 2 3. De Groot, J. (2004). Royalist identities. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 4. Hill, C. (1958). Puritanism and revolution: Studies in interpretation of the English revolution of the 17th century. London: Secker & Warburg. 5. Kishlansky, M. (1999) ‘Tyranny Denied: Charles I, Attorney General Heath, and the Five Knights’ Case.’42: 53 6 9. Sproxton, J. (1995). Violence and religion: Attitudes towards militancy in the French civil wars and the English Revolution. London ; New York: Routledge. [ 2 ]. Cust, R. (2002) ‘Politics, Religion and Popularity’, Charles I and popularity. (ed.,Cogswell, T. Cust, R. Lake, P.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 235 [ 3 ] [ 4 ]. Kishlansky, M. (1999) ‘Tyranny Denied: Charles I, Attorney General Heath, and the Five Knights’ Case.’42: 53 [ 5 ]