The cause that was most responsible for the English civil war was, “Charles did not rule according to the law 1625-1642”. King Charles I did many things that would turn people against him, like, selling land and titles to gain profit, creating the court of Star Chamber, and many other things. If he could break his own law for money, what would the people of England think of him? The other causes that were mentioned all have a way of fitting into the fact the Charles was breaking the law. For example, “Charles obtains money without Parliament’s consent”. He so strongly believed that he was truly chosen by god that he thought anything he did or said was in no way wrong since it was his kingly right. If Charles had not broken any laws while preforming his other deeds then the civil war might not have happened. If he had done all the things he did legally, less people would’ve realized the problem at hand; it might have just been swept under the carpet as if it were just nothing at all.
Charles invades the house of commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Parliament
The solemn league and covenant, the battle of Naseby, and when Charles escapes were the most significant components. Parliament had aligned itself with the scots during the solemn league and covenant, this strengthened parliament and now had support from a larger population. Without the help of the scots, parliament might’ve lost to Charles. The battle of Naseby was very important since this is when Charles lost a large portion of his army, disabling him for future battles. Charles escaping was an important event though it had very little long lasting effects; Charles negotiating with the scots and parliament while taking refuge in the Isle of Wight gave parliament even more reason to question his intentions. The battle of edge hill was the first battle of the English civil war and had no clear victor and was ultimately pointless. Charles surrendering was quickly countered by his escape.
1645. The Battle of Naseby was the key battle of the first English Civil War. Color print from circa 1850s
http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-26406867/the-battle-of-naseby
Parliament, army, Cromwell establishing a new government was the most significant consequence. The fact that they converted their government from a monarchy to a republic is a huge step and it gave the country a taste of what it’s like to be under the rule of someone who is not a monarch. The title Cromwell took on (Lord Protector) implies that he has different rights than a king would. When Charles was put on trial, they didn’t really get anywhere; Cromwell’s distaste for Charles only grew stronger when Charles refused to be trialed for treason. Charles execution was not planned, but it also wasn’t as big a deal as the trial was. When the army purged parliament, parliament had significantly shrunk in size only leaving roughly fifty members; this was also very important because, the army expelled those who they thought would point their country in a direction they did not want. These events could/would not stray Cromwell from his mission; based off what we know about him, he was stubborn, determined, and rash when it came to making decisions. He had it in for Charles and even if he were to be outnumbered by other members of parliament, where there is a will there is a way.
The Execution of Charles I.
http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/12/11/trial-and-execution-of-charles-i-summary/
Cromwell establishing military districts and governs by martial law and General Monck recalling parliament and inviting Charles ii to become the new king were the two most significant components/events. Cromwell’s strict and harsh rule was not popular with the people of England. The fact that his rule as lord protector did not go over well, didn’t really give the people of England a good view on a republic, which redirected England back onto the path of a monarchy. Cromwell dismissing parliament seems to be a reoccurring event and the effects of it seem to be minimal hence making it a less than worthy choice. Appointing Charles as lord protector seemed to be an event that had more short term effects then long; his laws had no long lasting effects on England. Same goes for the blue laws; while they were important they do not have any enough long lasting effects. Following Cromwell’s death, inviting Charles ii to become the rightful ruler of England, restoring the monarchy to its former glory was a very important move made by General Monck. Restoring the monarchy seemed to be for the better. In the long term but Charles ii didn’t have much impact on the world.
http://www.intaglio-fine-art.com/prints/portraits-historical.html
Parliament establishing Charles ii as a constitutional monarch was the most significant component. This was significant because, changing the way the country governs back to a monarchy is a huge step in a different direction. Cromwell’s rule was not a very innovative one. If England continued to be a republic England would have turned out very different. This change had many immediate effects and long term effects. Charles eliminating the blue laws was not as important since the laws were so unfair and absurd someone was bound to have ended them. Parliament passing the test had a few long term effects but the test act slowly died after James ii violated it. Charles punishing the regicides was childish and had zero long term effects; all he accomplished was killing off a few more people, and not to mention digging Cromwell up and hanging his dead corpse. The monarchy still lives on today and while the queen has little to no power, parliament seems to be pleased with their evolution over time.
http://todayinhistory.tumblr.com/post/117163392101/april-23rd-1661-charles-ii-crowned-on-this-day
James ii abdicating the throne (the glorious revolution) and Mary and William agreeing to the bill of rights were the two most significant components/events. James leaving the throne of his own accord is what made the glorious revolution glorious; if he had gone down screaming and kicking it might’ve erupted in another civil war. James was pushed/urged to step down due to his decisions. The bloody assizes were cruel but they did not have any long term effects making it one of the lesser component/events. When Mary and William were invited to the throne they did not have to agree to anything, they could have ruled just as cruelly as James did; when they agreed to the bill of rights parliament finally gained the power they so desperately fought for. Lastly James inviting Catholics to government positions had no long term effects.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/lessonplan/newideas_england.asp
