Search for settlement 1646-47

HideShow resource information

Charles attitude to negotiations

  • Lay at heart of difficulties in drawing up settlement from start -- Attitude to Newport negotiations ''How to make a handsome denying answer is difficult,'
  • Private letters to HM revealed he never had any intention to compromise
  • Felt had lost war because of giving up divine power 1641-42 & allowing death of Strafford- god given duty to duty to reclaim them by any means possible,
  • Saw all of his enermies as rebels an dtraitors

HOWEVER- Parliament's original demands too harsh- unlikely that Charles would accept punishment of 58 royalists and Presbyterian state church (denied this in 19 propositions 1642)

  • Charles aware his enermies were deeply divided over future settlement- PPs + PIs- unable to agree
1 of 5

Politicalisation of the army

  • Introduced new factor into search for settlement with new demands- horrified old political elite
  • Growing religions / political radicalism horrified moderates (PPs) in parliament- when Army produced moderate petitions for pay widows pensions in 1647- par overreacted and condemned army in 'Declaration of Dislike'= army mutiny and issue their own demands - Heads of the Proposals' DETAILS

HOWEVER- Charles continued to negotiate in bad faith with army leaders, despite more linent army terms- only 8 royalists punished, bishops stay in chuch

Charles failed to see only army could enfore settlement= convinced he had more power than he acctually did.

HOWEVER- politicalisation of army convinved C even more his enermies were divided and to continue to play his enermies off against each other

J- Equal combination of Army politicalisation and Charles' attitude

2 of 5

Splits in Army 1647

  • Made a settlement even more unlikely- further convinved C to double cross his enermies
  • LEVELLERS- infiltrated rank and fil (low ranks of army) by late 47- turned them against senior officers Crom/ Ireton- made worse by growing pay arrears
  • Led to Putney Debates Oct 1647- Levellers and army agitators forced debate on future franchise- suggested army politically divided
  • Convinced C even more that his enermies were falling apart and he could emerge victorius

J- Equal between Army and Charles

3 of 5

Events of 1648

  • Emphasis interlinked factors mainly led to lack of settlement
  • Charles' Engagement' with Covenanters- agreed to state Presbyterian church for 3 yrs, in return Covenanters would provide army to crush NMA- C now had chance to sabotage chances of settlemt
  • However- divisions in enermies, especially army that had convinved C to double cross army and parliament- suggests both responsible
  • C continued to negotiate in bad faith in Newport Negotiations in Sept 1648
  • C's attitude now convinved Army has was a 'Man of blood' and should be tried for his crimes = Army Remonstrance, demanded Trial of king and Prides Purge (Dec 6th 1648) to remove any MPs that rejected trial

J- suggests both to balme for failre to negotiate settlement and instead abolition of the monarchy.

4 of 5

Judgement

It was the EQUAL combination of the politicalisation of the army and Charles I's attitude that were the main reasons for the failure to find a final settlement.

Other factors were important- parliaments demands too harsh and victors of CW were too divided over plans for final settlement- BUT army / king made it impossible to draw up a settlement that would satisfy all groups.

5 of 5

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar History resources:

See all History resources »See all British monarchy - Tudors and Stuarts resources »