Editing English Civil War (section)

===Later views===
In the 1970s, [[historical revisionism|revisionist historians]] challenged both the Whig and the Marxist theories,<ref name="Burgess">{{Harvnb|Burgess|1990|pp=609–627}}</ref> notably in the 1973 anthology ''The Origins of the English Civil War'' ([[Conrad Russell]] ed.).{{Sfn|Russell|1973|p={{Page needed|date=April 2017}}}} These historians focused on the minutiae of the years immediately before the civil war, returning to the contingency-based historiography of [[Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon|Clarendon's]] ''History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England''.<ref name="Gaunt 2000 page=60">{{Harvnb|Gaunt|2000|p=60}}.</ref> This, it was claimed, demonstrated that patterns of war allegiance did not fit either Whig or Marxist theories.<ref name="Gaunt 2000 page=60"/> Parliament was not inherently progressive, nor the events of 1640 a precursor for the [[Glorious Revolution]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Gaunt|2000|pp=60–61}}</ref> Many members of the bourgeoisie fought for the King, while many landed aristocrats supported Parliament.<ref name=Burgess/>{{Failed verification|date=June 2008}}

From the 1990s, a number of historians replaced the historical title "English Civil War" with "[[Wars of the Three Kingdoms]]" and "British Civil Wars", positing that the civil war in England cannot be understood apart from events in other parts of Britain and Ireland. King Charles I remains crucial, not just as King of England, but through his relationship with the peoples of his other realms. For example, the wars began when Charles forced an Anglican Prayer Book upon Scotland, and when this was met with resistance from the [[Covenanter]]s, he needed an army to impose his will. However, this need of military funds forced Charles I to call an English Parliament, which was not willing to grant the needed revenue unless he addressed their grievances.{{Sfn|Ohlmeyer|2002}}

By the early 1640s, Charles was left in a state of near-permanent crisis management, confounded by the demands of the various factions. For example, Charles finally made terms with the Covenanters in August 1641, but although this might have weakened the position of the English Parliament, the [[Irish Rebellion of 1641]] broke out in October 1641, largely negating the political advantage he had obtained by relieving himself of the cost of the Scottish invasion.{{Sfn|Ohlmeyer|2002}}

A number of revisionist historians such as [[William M. Lamont]] regarded the conflict as a religious war, with [[John Morrill (historian)|John Morrill]] (1993) stating: 'The English Civil War was not the first European revolution: it was the last of the Wars of Religion.'{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=175}} This view has been criticised by various pre-, post- and anti-revisionist historians.{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=175}} Glen Burgess (1998) examined political propaganda written by the Parliamentarian politicians and clerics at the time, noting that many were or may have been motivated by their Puritan religious beliefs to support the war against the 'Catholic' king Charles I, but tried to express and legitimise their opposition and rebellion in terms of a legal revolt against a monarch who had violated crucial constitutional principles and thus had to be overthrown.{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=196–197}} They even warned their Parliamentarian allies to not make overt use of religious arguments in making their case for war against the king.{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=196–197}}

However, in some cases it may be argued that they hid their pro-Anglican and anti-Catholic motives behind legal parliance, for example by emphasising that the [[Church of England]] was the ''legally established'' religion: 'Seen in this light, the defences of Parliament's war, with their apparent legal-constitutional thrust, are not at all ways of saying that the struggle was not religious. On the contrary, they are ways of saying that it was.'{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=198–200}} Burgess concluded: '[T]he Civil War left behind it just the sort of evidence that we could reasonably expect a war of religion to leave.'{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=201}}