How far was Charles I's religious policy towards the three kingdoms responsible for the outbreak of civil war in 1642?

Answer 1

It was responsible to an extent. New British historians such as Jane Ohlmeyer believe that the English civil war (or revolution) was just one of an interlocking set of conflicts across the Stuart empire. These conflicts originated from the conflict between Catholicism and Puritanism. Thus it can be argued anything that effects one country affects the other two � so religious policies in all three countries could have contributed to the civil war. There were firstly fears that Charles was secretly catholic, he was married to French catholic Henrietta. He also appointed William Laud archbishop of Canterbury in 1633. He bought back many reminders of Catholicism to puritan Britain such as statues, provoking anger from the puritans. The Scottish rebellion or the Bishop's wars were due to the archbishop of Canterbury William Laud introducing the English Prayer book. The book was a set of rules by which the church should be ruled. The book reminded Presbyterian (puritan) Scotland to rebel. This led to the Scots invading England. As the Stuart monarchy was poor Charles I had to recall parliament to raise taxes. The parliament was increasingly being filled with puritan Gentry due to their new wealth- look up the rise of the gentry; Tawney is the principal historian here. The parliament thus agreed however with the Scots and said that Laud was too Catholic an d when Charles was forced to recall parliament (he had dissolved the previous one- the short parliament) they impeached Laud and forced the king to make major concessions. This example has thus shown how one of the religious policies helped cause the civil war. Another example is in Ireland where there was a catholic uprising. The king raised an army to crush the rebellion. The parliament however feared that if the Catholics won Charles would use the army to destroy puritans in England and Scotland. Again another way religious policies caused the civil war. The role of other factors such as the rise of the gentry, foreign wars, increasing power of parliament, the difficulty of following on from the Tudors should not be under estimated.

Anglican Catholic !

Charles's religious policy was to protect the ancient Catholic Faith as was shown forth in the teachings of the Anglican Church and the supporters in Scotland of an Episcopal polity. He was opposed mainly by the Calvinists who were the most powerful group in the northern country as well as the possibly biggest group in Parliament. What we must ask is, what right had parliament to attack without any discussion or possible reason, a group that some 90 odd per cent of the population belonged to and agreed with? That had a history of some 1600 years. It can't be because they had a parliamentary 'majority' ? The voters were in the majority simply the middle sort of gentry and yeomen!People moreover, who one would suspect of being owners of property formerly belonging to the religious houses . The suspicions that Parliament had of Charles's use of the army might be justified? But what of parliaments use of force? The rioters in Westminster and London, the assault on a bishop outside the House of Lords . The attack on Lord Derby, a convinced Anglican Catholic at a dinner in Manchester where gangs of Calvinist Militia were brought in from the countryside by local protestant squires to over-awe the town! It must be remembered that Charles had an army of no more than some 700 to 1000 men,scattered between London and the southern port Portsmouth

Regarding the Scottish Prayer Book? If I remember aright the Church in England had no say in that . It being the work of Bishop Wedderburn a Scots Bishop and was in fact the envy of the English! The fact is Charles was the Supreme Governor of the Church , certainly in England and that Church was under attack from Calvinists driven by religious fervor and supported from Scotland. When English Anglicans produced peaceful petitions calling for the Laws on Religion to be used for protection of the Anglican Church the people who presented the petition were arrested and put in jail, the Calvinists in Parliament refused to even talk about the matter and threatened the the people involved with further penalties, what was left for Anglicans to do?

According to Wormald,'s publication [Clarendon,] what certainly must be the definitive book on the subject, up to this Tim Charles had no support! It was thee Anglicans who rallied to him after he promised to defend the Church in England from Calvinist attacks.

It was not ,to my mind,Charles's policy, but the single minded viciousness of the Protestant leadership in Parliament that was responsible for the war of religion that followed!

Further Reading. Clarendon's, History of the Rebellion .

Wormald's 'Clarendon' .1952.