How far do you agree that the outbreak of the English civil war in 1642can be blamed on the actions of Charles I?
Introduction:
The English Civil War started in 1642 when Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham. The split between Charles and Parliament was that neither side was willing to back down over the rules that they held and war was expected as a way in which all problems could be solved. The country split into those who supported the king and those who supported Parliament, this was the beginning of a civil war. The reason why the war broke out between Charles and the parliament in 1642 is very complicated and includes many long term and short term factors.
Charles is to blame:
Like James I Charles believed that kings were like gods and must be obeyed, he was too proud. He was married to a catholic woman and there were rumours that Catholics would take over. Charles spent large amounts of money on himself like expensive paintings and clothes. He rules without parliament but needs money. Since he needed a lot of money he made people pay special taxes and those who didn’t went to prison. He made William laud archbishop of Canterbury, William did not like puritans. William laud introduced statues, music and candles which puritans hate; he also forced many changes on the Scottish church. The Scott’s attacked England because they didn’t like the changes and Charles had no army or money to fight so he had to ask the parliament. Those were the main long term reasons for the cause of the civil war which were caused by Charles.

Charles shouldn’t be blamed:

Looking at the events, 1639-1640, Charles's actions, especially his attempt to arrest the five Members in January 1642, provoked the people to war. On the other hand, parliament was also to blame as after 1640, the 19 Propositions, gave Charles no alternative but war, for they were an attempt to take