Charles’ flight from the capital gave the separation into two camps physical form. Now King and Parliament began to lay out their stall, why their cause was just. And parliament acquires their philosopher.
Download Podcast - 382 War of Words (Right Click and select Save Link As)
Transcript
Well last time we heard one of those big moments in English history – thoroughly dramatic, and one of the best bits in the film Cromwell – Alec Guiness as Charles was at his most Alec Guinessy, although you, know, Crommers was not one of Five members, he was just a bloke.. Now with hindsight that looks like it – of course now it must be war. But sadly, people at the time were no where near as clever as we are now – a nation of Mr & Mrs thickies basically, and Charles’ flight from London was accompanied by the sound of jaws hitting toecaps. Bulstrode Whitelocke in particular was astounded at the king’s flight. He confided to his diary that it
was another and great wonder to many prudent men that the king should leave this city, the place of his and his predecessors usual residence; where most of his friends and servants were about him, the magazine of all provisions both for war and peace…this ought not to have been done advisedly[1]
Today, then, you and I are going to talk about the options facing Charles, and how he begins to recover from the disaster of his failed coup – how he and his chumps build a story, a message around which royalists could gather. The message of this and the next episode is this; that Charles had shown himself too incompetent to create unity in his kingdom. Sadly, he was now to prove that he was not sufficiently incompetent – because he proved rather good at building a party. One story of the civil war is that Charles was neither competent enough nor incompetent enough to avoid civil war; if he’d been too incompetent to create a party, he might simply have been sidelined.
Charles had fled so abruptly that when they arrived at Hampton court none of the beds were made or ready for them, and the whole family were forced to sleep in the same room, which is rather nice; it happened once to the Crowther family when we rented an old castle for a self catering holiday home, the little kiddies were all scared of ghosts and we all ended up sleeping in the same bed. Rather cute. But for the Stuarts in 1642 I don’t suppose it was much of a holiday atmosphere. Within a couple of says Charles had moved again to Windsor where he expected to establish his court, and so summoned his great men to attend him there. The response was not encouraging; the leaders of his household Essex, his Lord Chamberlain and Holland, his Groom of the Stool point blank refused. An MP who did go on 28th January to Windsor wrote that he
Found a desolate court, saw not one nobleman and scarce three gentlemen
It sounds all very lonely and a little desperate. However, 14 Peers at last did then come; whether that was a good thing for Charles or not is moot; their departure from the House of Lords changed its composition for ever, to something much more radical.
Back in London everything was very different. The very day after Charles and HM had fled news had spread like a rash and covered the entire city. The five Members triumphantly returned to Westminster and the House of parliament – and they didn’t go quietly, let me tell you, there are no lights being hidden any bushels. They took the Thames, in a flotilla of decorated barges, little pudgy Pym feeling like a hero, Hampden, Holles, Haselig and Strode no doubt lapping it all up. While they went by boat Phillip Skippon marched eight companies of his trained Bands down the Strand towards Westminster, 2,400 of them, drums beating, trailing pikes and shouldering muskets crowds cheering. The Trained bands had pieces of paper attached to their pikes and muskets, fluttering in the wind as they stopped to fire a volley in celebration. Between many houses, Londoners had pinned the same pieces of paper on poles. These were copies of the Protestation Oath, one to oath to bind them all and in the darkness find them. And indeed the Mariners had all got together in the ports an inns of the east end, and produced their own version of the Protestation, referring lovingly to the words of the great Thomas Cranmer
Woe be to England when there is no Parliament
The Protestation had become a symbol of allegiance to Parliament and its cause. Over the next few weeks, petitions continued, and all had a remarkable consistency in their demands.
A good example is a slightly different protest at the end of January, called the Anne Stagg petition, because it was led and pursued by a Brewster, Anne Stagg, and was a petition made consciously and specifically by women. It was presented at the end of January, and then on the 31st January, parliament was pursued by Anne and 400 female petitioners for a response. It repeated the familiar themes of the time – majoring on demands for help for the beleaguered and desperate Irish Protestants, and removal of the Bishops from the house of lords; it is part of a series of petitions presented by women in the civil war period, along with the peace petition of 1643 and Elizabeth Lilburne and the Levellers in 1646. They share some themes; they are not outwardly socially radical; Anne Stagg’s petition very carefully and consciously, like Katherine Chidley’s work, plays by the rules of the established patriarchal mores; the women’s petition therefore followed the accepted right of women to petition on behalf of their husbands and families; [2]
Husbands and Children, as dear to us, as the Lives and Blood of our Hearts
They wrote; but it is unusual because they petitioned specifically as women and referenced their experience as women, and defended their right to do so very clearly and obviously
We do this not out of any conceit or self pride seeking to equal ourselves with men either in authority or wisdom but according to our places to discharge that duty we owe to God and the cause of the church as far as layeth in us
The petitioners were therefore no social radicals; at very least they played the game by the rules. But they claimed the authority of their own experience as women as important and distinctive; and they made the point that they suffered just as men did. There’s another petition from the women of Southwark at this time that does the same thing; it was submitted by an MP who wrote that they brought the petition
From the women of Southwark whom he dare not displease because their sex suffers there
And finally Anne Stagg’s petition makes the same point as did Katherine Chidley; that in matters of theology and conscience, women were every bit men’s equal in right, liberty and authority. It seems to me to be a constant theme through the revolutions; that although socially very conservative, radical protestants nonetheless introduce, almost despite themselves, quite radical social ideas.
So, you might ask then, gentle listeners, where we are with the English Revolution generally and what are we going on to think about next over the next few episodes? Well the question in early 1642 are these. Did there remain any chance that conflict could be resolved without violence? It is worth noting that in January 1642 the vast, vast majority of the people thought not only that it could, but also, that it should. And secondly, in the event of the solution being found at the end of a musket, who was going to win, with what?
As an introduction to that second question, when I were but a tiny little boy with a hey ho the wind and the rain, here was the story of the start of the civil war; at the beginning parliament was at a terrible disadvantage because the king had all the posh, rich and well armed lords on his side, and plucky little parliament was jolly lucky, and did I mention plucky? To survive. But because their cause was just et etc etc. Well, I exaggerate for effect, but that’s the general tone. In fact, the image of Charles in his deserted court is a better indicator of the situation and how people viewed it at the time. Charles had a mountain to climb. If it was indeed to be war, he was nowhere; he had left all the engines of government behind him in London, parliament already controlled an army of 8,000 in the combined London Trained bands, they controlled the biggest armouries in the country, the Tower of London. To some, the use of force in some shape or form seemed almost inevitable now; by leaving London Charles had not only left behind an arsenal and an army; he had made the separation of two sides, physical; there was no escaping the idea of two camps now. Not only that, but the opportunity for face to face discussion was gone; if compromise was to be discussed at all now, it would be in a formal atmosphere of negotiation, not a series of discussions and informal understandings.
So we have ahead of us a task; How did Charles manage to survive the first year at all? And at least part of the answer was to lie in a war of words. Over the next 6 months or so, both sides would take to a propaganda war, to explain what they were about, and to bring the people of England to their side. A war of words. And Charles was to prove very, very good at it.
He didn’t start with a lot going for him, in terms of advice about how he should proceed, and the messages he should give. There was no mint as wafer thin as the team advising Charles in January. But he was not alone, and you might say there were two pressures on him – those of the Valkyerie or Freya. That’s a slightly rubbish way of putting it – victory by all-out war, or victory through the path of accommodation is what I mean. Henrietta Maria is now Valkyerie in this, and it is almost certainly her advice and plan that Charles would end up following.
HM had far fewer scruples than her husband in now following a violent and aggressive strategy, with the aim to crush these upstarts who had dared challenge the power of the king and threaten and insult her personally and her faith. She felt Charles had been way too flexible, she demanded he create advice for Horatio Nelson and go straight at ’em
If they saw you in action…perhaps they would speak after another fashion
It must be war; HM would head for the continent, with all the crown jewels; with those and with those and all the loans she could raise she would buy armaments and send them back to the king; meanwhile they would look for friends – HM with the Dutch and the French, Charles with the Scots and the Irish. And once HM was safely away, Charles would take himself to a different part of the country where he would find more support – to the north, and critically, to Hull, where was stored the biggest arsenal outside London. Then we’d see what we were dealing with – men or mice.
While Lady Macbeth whispered in one ear, the Goddess of caution and moderation whispered in the other. A group of moderate advisers, led by Edward Hyde urged the King to return to the path of party. Continue the work to convince the world that it was the king not Parliament, that was the force of order, that stood for the Ancient constitution, social stability, order and tradition. That Pym and his cronies were no more than common rebels, hungry for personal power. Let it become obvious that Charles wanted nothing but peace, and it was parliament would be satisfied with nothing other than war.
In the end, it’s Charles who made the decisions; and maybe HM’s advice would drive his strategy, to reduce his opponents to submission by force; but the likes of Hyde would drive the message and propaganda he put forward. That the king was the best chance for peace and stability. To make this stick, although the king and Queen were furiously preparing for war, it must look as though they were searching for peace. It was critical that it should not be he, Charles, that started a war.
But no sooner had he brushed the dust of London from his hose, than his first thoughts had turned to the sinews of war that he now assumed he must fight; and since the Tower of London was off limits, his thoughts flew to the Athens of the north – Hull. And he turned to the enormously rich and equally enormously cultured Marquis of Newcastle, William Cavendish, who was also something of a philosopher. Newcastle will play an important military role in the forthcoming argy bargy, and was a royalist through and through; it’s quite interesting, like many nobles he saw in the concept of monarchy ‘foundation and support of his own greatness’. Bring the monarch down, and the nobility would be just like everyone else. This is a string Charles will pluck for all he’s worth on the harp of politics. Newcastle had already delivered great service to Charles – giving him £10,000 to fight the bishops wars, and raising a troop of 120 for him.
Anywho, Charles ordered Newcastle to seize the fortress at Hull, which is evidence that, whatever follows, Charles was already thinking of conflict. When Newcastle’s man got there though, they found John Hotham, appointed by Parliament as Governor of Hull. Poor Newcastle was forced to report back that
the town will by no means admit of me, so I am very flat and out of countenance’
Poor lamb. I think you can take this as evidence that Parliament were also already thinking of violence. And indeed this is one of the occasions Cromwell puts his head above the parapet of history; he appears to be one of the ‘fiery Spirits’ people talked about by the diarist Symmonds D’ewes. On 14th January he moved a proposal that the house consider how to put itself in a posture of defence; it started the process that would lead to the Militia Bill, taking control of the militia away from its traditional commander, the King.
Most of what Charles does now is for the purpose of getting HM away to the continent. He realised that if Pym rumbled that Charles had committed himself to war, he’d do everything he could to prevent from escaping and enlisting support abroad. So Charles pretended to play the card of peace – he sent a request for parliament to lay out their proposals for the way forward, holding out a prospect for peace; but Parliament simply presented their demand that all the king’s ministers be removed and replaced by parliament. As Charles and HM travelled down to the south coast, he agreed to drop the charges against the five members; then he gave his assent to the bill excluding the Bishops from the House of Lords. By this time they’d arrived at Dover – phew! But who’d have thought it? Adverse winds. HM couldn’t leave for the continent. How frustrating – bloody weather. And then the ultimate insult to royal power arrived for his assent – a militia bill for all command to be placed under parliament. There can be little doubt Charles hated this, and HM was firm – control of the Military was critical to a monarch’s power and to his plan to free himself from rebellion. For the moment he prevaricated with parliament.
And on 23rd February the winds changed, the fair breeze blew, the queen embarked and the furrow followed free. There was an emotional scene, Charles promised he’d never make peace without her approval, he kissed his wife and daughter and they set sail; they would be welcomed by the Dutch Stadholder, and installed in a palace in the Hague, roll up their puffed sleeves, and get to work for the cause. The opinion round Europe now was that Charles must fight. From Brussels a Franciscan Friar wrote
As to Charles, the general opinion is that he will never again be king unless he draws his sword for it[3]
HM set about pawning the crown jewels.
Back home, Charles galloped along the cliffs of Dover to keep their ship in sight until they finally disappeared over the horizon. And then he disconsolately and sadly, shoulders drooping, turned his horse, and went to work.[4]
With HM free and clear, he had no need any more to be conciliatory – all he needed to do now was to seen to be working for peace, but also laying out his case – peace and stability would come from rendering unto casear that which was Caesars. So as a parliamentary delegation arrived, Charles remarked sotte voce to Hyde that he was now
Without any fear to please them.
Parliamentary peers hoped for a sort of compromise where they and other Nobles could rule on Charles’ behalf until he came to his senses. This idea was swiftly despatched to the coldest regions of the netherworld when Charles now summarily rejected the militia bill
You have asked that of me that was never asked of a king, and with which I would not trust my wife and children
So that’s a ‘no’ then. Though fair dos, not sure I’m trust my kids with command of tens of thousands or armed men either, pretty sure they’d take control of the TV remote Control. Now Charles was on pretty strong ground here – Control of the militia was unarguably the traditional role of the king, but darn the constitutional niceties, this is an emergency. So in response, the Commons declared the Militia bill to be an ordinance – an executive decision without the king’s consent; but one which, would have the strength of law, a statute. Ordinances had been justified before, when the king was in Scotland, on the grounds that the king would approve it later when he got back. But the king wasn’t absent from the country now; this was pretty much saying the king was no longer capable, no longer fit to rule[5] – like an Edward II or a Henry VI. Remember ages ago with Edward II, when the idea was created that there are two kings – the office, conceptual one, to which one must always be loyal; and the biological bit who might turn out to be a bad ‘un and if so one could put in a box for a while? This is this idea brought back to life. It was effectively a declaration of independence and parliamentary sovereignty. Maybe this was in fact a declaration of war, discuss? And it was a difficult message to put across, complicated; while the king’s message, render unto Caesar, was simple, direct, effective, appealed to tradition.
Charles now travelled with his son the Prince of Wales to find his new home. It took him first to Cambridge – where the University proclaimed and celebrated him, and the townspeople threw petitions at him – and then it was up the cold, rocky icy roads to York, by 19th March. From there, he would build his party, convince the country his cause was just and parliament nothing but two bit rebels out to destroy the perfect constitution, and talk peace until he was ready to make war. He had with him the grand court of 39 gentlemen, and 17 guards. He had a mountain to climb, but ladies and gentleman he was lacing up his climbing boots.
Those boots would first take him to the mighty city of Kingston on Hull, where lived the arsenal of the North, and its governor John Hotham.
HM pleaded with Charles to take the town by force, but Hyde wanted parliament to make the first move of the rebels, and advised against
Taking the town by force unless parliament begins
So Charles started a campaign; he sent a petition to Parliament asking why they’d occupied Hull, in contravention of the petition of right. It’s a nice flourish – his petition points out that parliament is in breach of England’s ancient constitution, and he’s got a point, however parliament might point out that his view of the ancient constitution differently wildly from theirs’. In response – Parliament ordered Hotham, as governor of Hull, to send the arsenal to London; for Charles this counted as the required declaration of war.
So, he packed his bags and gathered around him several key items, including 300 bandsmen he could now command, and his dignity, and on 22nd April he set off for Hull. But he sent ahead Charles Louis, the Elector of the Palatine who was still with him, and his lad Prince Charles – to warn Hotham that he was on his way and expected to be admitted. Hotham in response shut the gates.
The next day, 23rd April, St George’s Day, Charles turned up in front of the gates, to find them closed against him. There then followed a delightful shouting match, Charles in front of the gates, Hotham on the walls, where Charles huffed and puffed to be let in, and Hotham replied not by the hair of parliament’s chinny chin chin. Charles huffed off, and returned later with just 20 horsemen and said what about just us lot then? Hotham said no, and I believe hamsters and elderberries may have been mentioned, Charles tried to persuade the men on the walls around Hotham to defy their commander and admit their king, they just looked dazed and confused so Charles exploded with fury and humiliation and declared the lot of them traitors – and stormed off. The following day he wrote to parliament demanding they disown Hotham’s actions, which parliament duly refused and Charles stalked off back to York. In May, the arsenal was duly shipped from Hull to London.
Now this story is often used to demonstrate Charles’ abject defeat, and indeed to award him points for general silliness in an event that smacks of a Monty Python sketch too famous to name. But there is an alternative view. Why did Charles warn Hotham he was on his way? It could well be that Charles knew full well he would be refused. But what he was after was for a public declaration and demonstration that parliament were in rebellion against their king and his just regal rights. And in parliament’s written reply, he could claim he had just that. The affair at Hull could well be just one more stage in the war of words, part of a concerted campaign by Charles[6] to present himself as the defender of the constitution and the right order of things against rebels who were now seeking to tear England apart.
And indeed as is common in cold wars, this was indeed just one part of the war of words to win the heart and soul of the nation. The paper flew. There is proclamation and counter proclamation, and a lovely quote from the Venetian Ambassador who pitied
These unhappy people attacked by frequent appearances of these numerous documents so mutually contradictory
May I reassure you all that we are not going to talk about all of them, but we are going to talk about one particular exchange, which was in effect the production of a manifesto by parliament, and the royalist manifesto in response which together draw the battle lines. These are the issues over which the civil wars will be fought.
It’s June 1642 then and the Junto need to rally the people behind their programme, their view of a more equitable world. They called it, catchily and almost criminally sexily, The 19 Propositions. Don’t tell me Pym doesn’t know how to sell the sausage sizzle. The document was the by now normal mix of the secular and religious; religion was to be thoroughly reformed by an assembly of divines. It presented a picture of a king illegally destroying the basis of the glorious and ancient constitution, who needed therefore to be restrained. To do that, the executive was now to be subject to control of the people through parliament; ministers of the crown, the privy council, the judiciary and leading members of the household were to be not only appointed by the king only after parliamentary consent and discussion; but also monitored constantly and removed if they messed up, in the parliamentary view. Fancy, what a thought. Ooh, and they couldn’t be removed just by the ‘king’s Pleasure’ – parliament must be involved.
The royal and official Answer to the 19 Propositions published by Charles bore all the signs of the genius of Edward Hyde, amongst others. It made exactly the same appeal – our ancient constitution is in danger, from a parliament that was now going way beyond re-establishing the status quo, to radically transforming the constitution into something else; and look, cried Charles, look at all the concessions I have made – for no reason but to fight for peace and from the good of my heart. And on the way, parliament are threatening social revolution and turmoil, and to destroy the beautiful Church of England and Cranmer’s book of Common prayer, the perfect religion established by Good Queen Bess, capital G, Q and indeed E. In so doing they cleverly tapped in to the cultural antipathy to the demands of the puritans in local communities.
So the Civil war, then, was fought by both sides to preserve the ancient constitution of the land – are we all clear about the cause of the civil war now? All sorted? No? Strange.
The answer to the conundrum probably lies in a couple of things. One was the view of the constitution. For both parties, it was the perfect combination of monarchy, aristocracy and people, represented by three parties, Kings Lords and Commons. But the relative roles of these parties were at dispute. For Hyde and Charles, the king ruled by divine right, and the Commons
Was never intended for any share in government or the choosing of them that would govern[7]
For the parliamentarians, the king ruled with the peoples’ consent and their involvement was critical, the people must have a say in their own governance. And they saw Charles’s imposition of the new Arminianist doctrine as an attack on said church, an assertion of an overbearing royal prerogative based on a doctrine of divine right, which demonstrated the need for the people to have a say in their own governance. The Commons were the conserver of liberty. Essentially, as one historian has put it, they were making up Constitutional monarchy as they went, on the hoof[8].
Such an exalted view of the Commons according to the royalist point of view, was a short road to social chaos and the burning of all that was good, light and clean in the world. It was the monarchy that stood between the destruction of the church, and social chaos; without the monarchy, then, thundered the Answers
The common people [would] set themselves up for themselves, call parity and independence liberty
They would
Destroy all rights and properties, all distinctions of families and merit
It is indeed a horrible thought. Well actually I speak slightly sarcastically and from a 21st century point of view of course, but it is worth just remembering that many at the time would agree with the statement that this was the way the world was rightly ordered. The English revolution will release some startlingly radical thoughts, but most of England wasn’t ready for that yet. There are a few figures of medieval England who have become heroes of radicalism and early champions of social justice – Wat Tyler, John Ball, Robert Kett, Jack Cade just for example. It is precisely these kind of people that Hyde rolls out as a vision of the hell threatened by parliament
This splendid and excellently distinguished form of government [would] end in a dark, equal chaos of confusion, and the long line of our many noble ancestors in a Jack Cade or Wat Tyler
It was a very, very effective cry and many hearts leapt to hear a champion against such a prospect of a world turned upside down. The message of royalism was presenting Charles as the champion of social order, and a bulwark against chaos. And look around and you could see the evidence of chaos – all those petitions and marches, the iconoclasm and mass protests. And that wasn’t just in London. London was clearly at the front of this, and it’s interesting to speculate how things might have been different if Charles had called the 1641 parliament to Oxford; one royalist newssheet, Mercurius Civicus would write
In all England there is but one rebel, and that is London[9]
And certainly there was turmoil in London; Edward Pitts wrote
Moderate men are suspected, violent men are thought saint… fears and jealousies daily increase…his majesty’s servants…suffer most
But it wasn’t true that London alone was affected; all over the countries the middling sort, with greater wealth, higher rates of literacy, greater political awareness, were demanding a voice. The Londoner Nehemiah Wallington watched as cascades of petitions came into London from all around the country, and wrote of
Many hundreds of them on horseback with their protestations sticking in their hats and girdles
There’s that protestation oath again. The turmoil was everywhere; the pamphlets were breeding like mice; we now have over 4,000 from 1642, over double the previous year. The sense of things out of control seemed to legitimise protest – as we’ve seen from iconoclasm, but also there were enclosure riots in Yorkshire, a rash of protests in the Fens and west country; and some MPs were even beginning to talk about very radical ideas. Let me bring you back to Henry Marten MP, who had launched the idea of the Protestation, and will really get in trouble for where his head is going, which will effectively mean the king’s head ends up where it does. In 1642 he’s not quite there yet, but in July he caused a bit of a ruckus by saying
Though the king be king of the people of England he is not master of the people of England
Henry Marten would be one of the first people to start to ask whether or not we really need to have all this kinging going on to be happy and successful.
In response to all these ideas and protest, there was a deep and widespread desire for all of this to stop, for king and parliament to get it sorted out, for peace and a return to order. Among royalists and among parliamentarians now was emerging, in each, a peace party.
In response to Charles Answers to the 19 Propositions, Parliament quite by accident found for themselves a writer who saw clearly and could articulate the fundamental basis for the dispute. Henry Parker is not a well known name, but in the 1640s he became the most influential political thinker, working with committees and parliamentary leaders and thinkers; often behind the scenes, but as one MP wrote, with a
‘hand’ in ‘many seditious pamphlets’
So influential was he that he acquired a nickname. He became known, not as the black vegetable, but as the Observator. Probably because his most famous work was entitled Observations upon his Majesty’s late answers and expresses. I’m not sure I’d chose the Observator as a nickname by choice, but then nicknames, like families, are normally not a matter of choice, as I can confirm from personal experience having once acquired the school nickname of Bogbrush. So unfair.
Henry Parker should be better known. He was from a Sussex family, about 38 years old at this time, and a lawyer – I bring you back to an earlier episode of the Lawyers Vs Clergy thing – so often the cause of popular sovereignty and law came from legal minds. According to Parker, ultimate authority had nothing to do with some absolutist theory of divine right, nothing to do with an individual claiming an exclusive authority from God. Nope
Power is originally inherent in the People
Declared Parker. Nor is the argument about who is really defending the ancient constitution, any more the most important thing. What really matters, he wrote
The paramount law that shall give law to all human laws whatsoever is salus populi
Salus populi, the health of the people; voicing a thought to be picked up decades later by the great philosopher and political scientist John Locke, Salus populi suprema lex, the health of the people is the supreme law. Unrestrained, royal power could become tyranny; but representatives of the people, the Lords and Commons could not conceivably ordain anything that was not advantageous to them. OK, we might argue the point, given the dodgy nature of the franchise at this time, but it is the articulation of the guiding principle of the British Constitution, the sovereignty of parliament, Salus populi suprema lex.
In this situation then, argued Parker, where the king had proved his untrustworthiness by deserting parliament and withdrawing to York, it is parliament that must take control for the sake of the safety of the people. It is parliament that must be obeyed because it represented
The whole community in its underived majesty
Parliament had found it’s philosopher.[10]
So, the war of words, the petitions, pamphlets, ideas, theology and legal debate was out in the open – Charles had effectively built a powerful case as a defender of the ancient constitution; in which the commons had a role, but short of the chaos and disorder of a Kett or a Cade. Which stood for social stability, structure, the tradition of the church of England and the Bishops. Against it stood a party that warned that the constitution was not safe in this King’s hands, and that a new view was needed to preserve it – of a constitution which defined itself by the ultimate authority of the people in all it did, legislative or executive.
A choice now lay ahead for the people of England. Whether to choose the king, stability and tradition against an innovative parliament; or the sovereignty of parliament against an innovatory, untrustworthy and increasingly tyrannical king. Due to the work of Hyde and Pym on either side, they at least had a better idea of what they were choosing. Or in the words of Rush, they could choose not to make a choice. Next time we look at how the war of words will turn into a war of action as people are forced to make those decisions.
Until then, thank you all for listening and taking part, for your comments on website, Facebook and podcatchers ad things. Dood luck and have a great week.
[1] Hunt, ‘The English civil war at first hand’, p73
[2] Lee, P : ‘Mistress Stagg’s Petitioners: February 1642’, The Historian , WINTER 1998, pp241-256
[3] Jackson, C : ‘Devil-land’, p257
[4] Carlton, C: ‘Charles I’, p239
[5] Healey, J: ‘The Blazing World’, p166
[6] For different interpretations see Woolrych, A: ‘Britain in Revolution’, p220 and Cust, R: ‘Charles I’, pp340-1
[7] Healey, J: ‘The Blazing World’, pp167-8
[8] Woolrych, A: ‘Britain in Revolution’, p221
[9] Jackson, C: Devil-Land’, p257
[10] Woolrych, A: ‘Britain in revolution’, p 224; Healey, J: ‘The Blazing world’, pp168-9; Mendle, M: ‘ODNB Henry Parker’
