Thus, in a sense the real English revolution, which resulted in the abolition of the monarchy, occurred after the civil war and only because parliament, following its military victory, found itself with no alternative since the king persisted in his refusal to accept a negotiated solution. Advocates of what has become known as the “Whig interpretation” of English history have suggested, in effect, that the inability of the moderate majority of the commons to control events owing to Charles 1st self destructive stubbornness resulted in power’s being taken by the extremists and the ushering in of decades

In fact, while there would appear to be considerable validity to this point of view, it still does not explain the cause or causes of the rise of strong opposition which, while not necessarily anti monarchical in theory, was clearly directed against this monarch. Here, a multitude of factors and developments can be identified; all of which would demand inclusion in any comprehensive explanation. When Elizabeth 1st died childless and without surviving siblings in 1603, the crown went to her closest blood relative, James 6th of Scotland, the grandson of the sister of Elizabeth’s father, Henry 8th, who there upon ruled England from London as James 1st while remaining king of the separate nation of Scotland. James was originally well received in England, but religious and political tensions swiftly developed during his reign and escalated during the reign of his son Charles. Religiously James had expressed himself as strongly opposed to both Roman Catholicism and Protestant Dissenters, but Charles came to be viewed as favoring Catholicism even while continuing his father’s hostility towards dissenters. Politically, these two kings of the Stuart line appeared to view the role of the English parliament as no different from that of Scotland, which was docile where the monarch was concerned except for its requiring an oath to uphold the established Church, which in Scotland was Presbyterian. Where the Scots were concerned, because their interests were purely religious, English parliamentarians knew they could not be reliable allies, because while strongly opposed to James and Charles for what they saw as their betrayal of Presbyterianism the Scots were always prepared to accept any Stuart monarch who swore to uphold the articles of their church, as would occur with Prince Charles following the execution of his father, Charles 1st. This may help explain why we speak of the English Revolution, for while the Scots strongly differed with Charles 1st on issues of religion, they had no tradition of political rights of subjects against authority where secular matters were concerned.

The same period also saw the rapid growth of a middle class, which was especially inclined towards Protestantism. In view of what we have recognized as the close connection between religion and politics, it is hardly surprising that Marxist historians like Christopher Hill have seen the middle class as drawing upon religious doctrines of a radically Protestant nature which question royal authority to fortify their opposition to the polices of the monarchy like taxation and

Some topics in this essay:
Civil War, Baldwin Smith, Christopher Hill, Tomas Hobbes, English Revolution, Earl Clarendon, Anglican Church, House Lords, Dissenters Charles, James Harrington, charles 1st, civil war, english revolution, anglican church, middle class, seventeenth century, universities anglican clergy, people power, universities anglican, anglican clergy, monarch people, monarch people power,