The sentence gets part of the history right: the English Civil Wars were a violent conflict between Charles I and Parliament, and Historic Royal Palaces says Charles’s refusal to compromise over power-sharing helped ignite the war. (hrp.org.uk) But the claim is misleading in saying the war was fought simply “to be rid of” a monarch. Parliament’s own history pages show that the original struggle ended only later, after the second civil war and Pride’s Purge, when the Rump Parliament abolished the monarchy in March 1649. (parliament.uk) So the statement is too broad: it captures the conflict’s violence and Charles’s contested rule, but overstates the war’s original purpose. Sources: Historic Royal Palaces, “The execution of Charles I” (https://www.hrp.org.uk/banqueting-house/history-and-stories/the-execution-of-charles-i/?TrailId=59); UK Parliament, “The Civil War” (https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/); UK Parliament, “Pride’s Purge, 'the Rump' and regicide” (https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/prides-purge/).