English revolution

I want to look now at the three main approaches historians have taken towards the English Revolution or civil war. There is a fourth point of view, taken up by most school children when they first meet the subject, but it can hardly be called historical. On the one hand, school children tend to have a romantic image of the cavaliers who were supporters of the monarchy, as aristocratic, charming, flashily dressed and up for a bit of fun. On the other hand, they tend to regard the roundheads or puritans, who were followers of Oliver Cromwell, as miserable, working class, dressed in black, and insisting on a life without luxuries. It isn't difficult then to take sides. The first approach, which prevailed up until the middle of the 20th century, was that the revolution was part of the age-old battle between Parliament and the monarchy, with Parliament representing the traditional rights of Englishmen against the attempt by the royal family to increase its power and dictate law. In reaction to this, the second approach saw it as a working class revolution and an important stage in the development of capitalism. In other words, they saw it as a class war and a forerunner of the French Revolution and those that came after. Historians who supported the third approach saw that things weren't as clear-cut as the others thought. Instead of seeing the revolution as the result of long-term trends in the country's history and therefore almost unavoidable, they focused on the details of the period immediately leading up to its outbreak and allowed for its unpredictability. The two sides also weren't so clear-cut, with some aristocrats supporting Parliament and some members of the working class fighting on the side of the monarchy.