How far was Charles I responsible for the wars of the three kingdoms?

Résumé du document

According to E.H Carr, "The study of history is the study of causes", and in order to understand the wars of the three Kingdoms that occurred in England, Scotland and Ireland during the reign of Charles I and that ended in the trial and execution of the King in 1649, various debates have occurred among historians about their causes, almost since the war was over. Already in the 17th century, the royalist Earl of Clarendon argued the causes were short-term and political, while the republican James Harrington claimed the wars were the result of long-term major changes in society. The debate has continued ever since, and there is still no consensus about it.

In the 1960s, some Marxist and Whig explanations emphasized the long terms causes of the conflict, respectively the economical and social changes, and the religious and political divisions. However, these views have quickly been considered as too narrow by revisionist accounts that emphasize the role of Charles I as the main cause of the war and not as the puppet of forces beyond his control. Indeed, for Conrad Russell "the existence of an unsuccessful king on the throne is perhaps the only thing capable of contributing to the questions about the causes of the civil war" .

However, it might seem a little reductionist to explain such a political event only by short-terms decisions made by a single man. More recently, some post-revisionist interpretations have emphasized the importance other long-term factors as well, like the geographical dimension of the kingdoms and the relationship between them. Indeed, the wars also have to be understood in terms of management of three different and complex territories, with different religious and constitutional traditions, which is why it is relevant to call it the "wars of the three kingdoms" rather than the "civil war".

Extraits

[...] The Thirty Years War left the State's finances in bad shape and forced the Crown to raise money by tax. It met formidable opposition, especially because the money was levied in an arbitrary manner. Indeed, the King exploited all way to enhance revenues like fining gentlemen who were not present at the birth of his sons and created suspicious patents like the “popish soap” patent. For Gardiner, Ship Money was explosive issue of the 1630s when the King tried to levy a tax without the consent of the Parliament. [...]

[...] As a result, the wars can be explained as the conflict between two clans: one supporting the authority of the King and the other supporting liberties, against the King. This way of ruling, which created political tensions with the English Parliament, has later precipitated the war because the absolutism of the King seemed threatening to the Ancient constitution. Similarly, the intensifying polarization between the interest of the Court and the country and the deterioration of the relations between local governments and the monarchy played a role. [...]

[...] Thirdly, Charles I's religious policy to unify the religions of the three kingdoms was in fact very divisive and was another precipitant of the wars. Firstly, his support to Arminianism, a doctrine promoting the beauty of Holiness with a revival of rituals and visual ornaments, was very controversial and alienated the Puritans who feared a return to Catholicism. There was the eternal idea of a Catholic plot, especially considering the marriage of Charles I with the Spanish Catholic Queen and the promotion of Laudinian clergymen. [...]

[...] The dismissal of the Grand Remonstrance and of the Nineteen Propositions, made by the Parliament to reproach the tyranny of the King and reduce his prerogatives, were the final act of the division between the King and the Parliament that became radical. The Civil War was declared between the parliamentarians and the royalists. So according to Stone, the short-term factors were mainly errors of policy of Charles which chose confrontation rather than adjustment. It seems clear that Charles I's financial and religious policies and its uncompromising attitude were determinant causes of the war. [...]

[...] However, to my mind the most convincing explanation is the post- revisionist one: it is the combination of these underlying problems and of Charles policy and attitude that were the causes of the war of three kingdoms. Bibliography: CARLIN Norah, The causes of the English Civil War (Blackwell Publishers, 1999) CRAWFORD Patricia, ‘Charles Stuart, that man of blood', Journal of British Studies (1997) CRESSY david, ‘Revolutionary England, 1640-42', Past and Present n81 (November 2003), 35-72 DONALD Peter, An uncounselled king: Charles I and the Scottish troubles 1637-1641 (Cambridge University Press, 1990) HUGHES Ann, The causes of the English civil war (Macmillan, 1991) KENYON J., ‘Stuart Despotism : myth or not ?', Journal of British Studies (1996) KISHLANSKY M., A Monarchy Transformed, Britain 1603-1714, chapters 'The Reign of Charles I', and chapter 'Rebellion and Civil War' (Penguin Books, 1997) LAKE P., ‘Anti-Popery: the structure of a prejudice', in R. [...]