• The dynastic change from the Tudor to the Stuart dynasty occurred after the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, resulting in James I becoming the first Stuart king.
• James I, who already ruled Scotland, had difficulty managing the English Parliament and faced growing tensions during his rule.
• Religious issues and social changes, resulting from economic, social, and religious developments, played a role in the evolving conflict between the crown and the parliament.
• James I’s attempt to reconcile different religious factions and theological disputes fueled the growing tension between the crown and the parliament.
• The Millenary Petition presented to James I in 1603 by puritan clergy reflected their concerns about abuses in the English Church.
• James I faced problems related to foreign policy, taxation, and the power of his ministers. His desire for peace with Spain clashed with the parliament’s calls for support of the Bohemian rebels.
• The antagonism between the king and the parliament grew, leading to disputes over issues like parliamentary grants, taxation, and prerogative rights.
• Francis Goodwin’s case in 1606, in which he opposed the imposition of higher import duties, revealed the first signs of conflict between the parliament and the Stuarts.
• England’s involvement in a disastrous war under Charles I’s rule created financial strain and further disputes with the parliament.
• Charles I promoted Arminian clergy and relaxed laws against Catholics, causing conflict with the Puritans.
• The parliament passed the Petition of Right in 1628, which forbade arbitrary imprisonment, non-parliamentary taxation, billeting, and the imposition of martial law.
• Charles I’s advisers, such as the Duke of Buckingham and Thomas Wentworth, faced opposition in the parliament.
• The parliament went without sessions for eleven years, during which Charles I imposed various taxes and measures without its approval.
• The Laudian regime and the policies of Charles I led to growing resentment against the crown. His promotion of Arminianism and other actions fueled opposition.
• Charles I’s policies and lack of flexibility resulted in an increasingly hostile relationship with the parliament.
• Tensions rose as a result of the king’s advisers and foreign policy, and the parliament insisted on being consulted on state policies.
• A revolt in Scotland against Charles I’s policies, known as the ‘Bishops’ Wars,’ led to further conflict and the summoning of the parliament in 1640.
• The Long Parliament, convened in 1640, demanded constitutional changes and reform before it resumed its functions. It impeached key ministers and introduced reforms, limiting royal powers.
• The Irish rebellion in 1641 and the subsequent civil war created a deep divide within England, leading to the formation of the King’s Party.
• The conflict between Charles I and the parliament escalated, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642.
• The war culminated in the defeat and execution of Charles I in 1649, marking a significant period of political upheaval in England.

Causes

• Historians have varying interpretations of the causes and nature of the English revolution of 1640-60.
• The revolution is seen as a ‘Great Rebellion’ against an unpopular king, an internal war driven by specific political circumstances, a Puritan Revolution, a struggle between liberty and royal tyranny leading to a parliamentary monarchy, and even a bourgeois revolution or a step toward modernization.
• The historiography of the English Revolution has evolved over time, with different historians offering diverse explanations.
• R.G. Usher observed that the English revolution was considered an enigma and remains complex today.
• S.R. Gardiner viewed it as a Puritan revolution with religion as a central driving force.
• Marxists like E.J. Hobsbawm and Maurice Dobb argue that it marked a shift from feudalism to a bourgeois phase, with the conflict between the bourgeoisie and decaying feudal classes.
• R.H. Tawney and Lawrence Stone focus on the rise of the gentry and changes in property ownership before the 1640s, suggesting the civil war aimed to restore property balance.
• H.R. Trevor-Roper contests the rise of the gentry, emphasizing the role of the ‘mere gentry’ in opposing the court system.
• Christopher Hill traces the revolution’s origins to socio-economic consequences of the Henrican Reformation, which shifted power from the big feudal families to ambitious gentry and yeomen.
• Hill sees it as a bourgeois revolution and a great social movement akin to the French Revolution.
• The revolution’s impact on property ownership, trade expansion, and manufacturing activities fueled the contest between rising groups and the feudal aristocracy.
• However, social interpretations fail to specify distinct feudal and capitalist classes, their divergent paths, and direct confrontation in 1640. It is argued that big landlords did not suffer economic difficulties, and the distinction between nobles and gentry became less clear.
• The top layers of the landed class transformed into capitalist-oriented landlords with political influence in government, court, and parliament.
• Leading nobles and great landowners were divided in their alignment between the crown and parliament.