19. Mercurius Civicus, No. 7 (6–13 July 1643), p. 53 (E60/9); Mercurius Britanicus, No. 23 (12–19 February 1644), pp. 175, 177 (E33/21).
20. Mercurius Britanicus, No. 23 (12–19 February 1644), pp. 175, 177 (E33/21).
21. Margaret Toynbee and Peter Young, Strangers in Oxford (1973), p. 32.
22. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (1992), p. 93.
23. This took place in March 1643. Bodl. MS Carte 5, ff. 40r–v. Endymion Porter served as Ashburnham’s second.
24. BL, Add. MS 18980, ff. 59v–60.
25. Toynbee and Young, p. 10; Ann, Lady Fanshawe, Memoirs (1907), p. 56.
26. John Rushworth, Historical Collections of Private Passages of State, Vol. 5 (1721), p. 334 (20 June 1643).
27. Behind the scenes Charles was subject to the contradictory pressures of Royalists’ own war and peace parties. The war party, which was associated with the queen, wanted an outright military victory that would see their enemies punished, and not rewarded as part of a peace process. Their names included those of leading Catholics, but the men at its head were Protestants: amongst them the thoroughly Calvinist Prince Rupert. The Royalist peace party wanted Charles to offer enough concessions to strengthen the hand of the peace party in Parliament, and empower them to overthrow the ‘fiery spirits’ of the war party and their radical backers. They argued that Charles could then come in ‘honour and safety’ to London where he would be ‘repossessed… of his power’. With the war going well for the Royalists the war party had the upper hand in Charles’s councils. There is, however, fragmentary evidence of a plot between Royalist and Parliamentarian moderates that summer. Under new softer peace terms both armies would be disbanded, Parliament would keep all its privileges, but expelled members would be readmitted. The hope was that Essex would back this plan. It collapsed on the rock of inter-Royalist quarrels and jealousies. Rupert had persuaded Charles to sack another of his generals–Essex’s brother-in-law the Marquess of Hertford, who was a leading member of the Royalist peace party. It made Essex realise that there would be no future for him with the king restored to power. For all the details on this see David Scott, ‘Rethinking Royalist Politics’ in John Adamson (ed.), The English Civil War: Conflict and Contexts, 1640–49 (1973), pp. 46–7.
28. Sir Simonds d’Ewes, Diary, BL, Harl. MSS 165, 146b.
29. The soldier responsible claimed it was an accidental discharge; Samuel Rawson Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War (1886/1987), Vol. I, pp. 186, 187.
30. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. W. D. Macray (1888), Vol. III, pp. 194, 195.
31. Sir Edward Nicholas to William Hamilton, Earl of Lanark, NAS GD 406/1/1904.
32. Clarendon, Vol. III, p. 174.
33. Carlton, p. 139.
34. Journal of Sir Samuel Luke, ed. I. G. Philip (1950), p. 155.
35. Carlton, p. 227.
36. Clarendon, Vol. III, pp. 194, 195.
37. In November 1643 the first contingents of the king’s army in Ireland were already being shipped to England.
38. Michelle Anne White, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars (2006), p. 131.
39. Ibid., p. 133, note 61.
40. Memoirs of Prince Rupert (1849), Vol. II, letter of 22 June, p. 101.
41. CSPD 1644 (46i, ii).
42. Henrietta Maria had never been close to Louis but she wrote of her ‘affliction’ at his loss. Belvoir MSS QZ/23/31: ‘La Reyne d’Angleterre sur la mort du Roy. Juillet 1643. Mon cousin lafliction que jay eu de la perte que jay faite du Roy Monsieur mon frere vous sera ditte par le sieur de gressy: comme aussy les resentimants que jay des temoygnages que je resois tout les jours de vostre affection: que je vous prie de continuer vous assurant que vous nobligeres jamais personne qui en soit plus recongnoisante que moy: je me remest au sieur de gressy auous dire beaucoup de choses de ma part sest pour je finiray en disant que je suis Mon cousin. Vostre bien affectionee cousine Henriette Marie R’. There is a brief description (but no transcription) of this letter in Alfred Morrison, Catalogue of the Collection of Autograph Letters etc. (1885), Vol. II.
43. In October Anne had sent a diplomat to help negotiate an honourable peace with Parliament. In February 1644 the diplomat had returned to France in despair of success.
44. Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria, ed. Green, p. 149.
45. Ibid., pp. 249–50.
46. https://archive.org/stream/ReportTransactionsOfTheDevonshireAssociationVol81876/TDA1876vol8#page/n489/mode/2up.
47. Anne of Austria dispatched a doctor as soon as she learned of her sister queen’s condition and he recommended the spa. The ‘ancient and rugged castle’ from which the house of Bourbon took its name dominated the spa town, standing ‘on a flinty rock’. ‘In the midst of the streets are some baths of medicinal waters, some of them excessive hot,’ the arriving diarist John Evelyn noted. You drank the waters rather than bathed, ‘our Queen being then lodged there for that purpose’. Diary of John Evelyn, Vol. I, 24 September 1644.
48. Victor Cousin, Secret History of the French Court Under Richelieu and Mazarin (1859), p.165.
49. Erin Griffey, On Display (2015), p. 154.
50. Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria, ed. Green, p. 262.
51. Ibid., p. 258.
52. White, p. 133, note 61.
Chapter 17: Enter Oliver Cromwell
1. BL, Add. MS 70499, f. 198v. He had been the Prince of Wales’s governor until Parliament had him replaced. He had diverted the boy’s energy into horsemanship and dance and his natural intelligence to literature and music, science and mechanics–but not so much to theology.
2. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. W. D. Macray (1888), Vol. III, p. 383.
3. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (1992), p. 119.
4. Ibid., p. 120, quoting the scoutmaster Lion Watson.
5. ODNB.
6. In 1644 Prynne had his revenge, acting as chief prosecutor in Laud’s long-delayed impeachment trial.
7. Sir Philip Warwick, Memories of the Reigne of Charles I (1701), pp. 247–8.
8. Ibid., also John Maidston quoted in David Nichol Smith, Characters from the Histories and Memoirs of the Seventeenth Century (1918), p. 142.
9. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, quoted in Smith, p. 140.
10. Richard Baxter, http://archive.org/stream/englishpuritanis00tull/englishpuritanis00tull_djvu.txt.
11. Tristram Hunt, The English Civil War at First Hand (2002), p. 151.
12. Ibid., pp. 120–39.
13. Thomas Carte, The Life of James, Duke of Ormonde (6 vols., 1851), Vol. I, pp. 55–8.
14. Malcolm Wanklyn, The Warrior Generals (2010), p. 106.
15. Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle, The Life of William Cavendish (1872), p. 154; Hunt, pp. 120–39.
16. Simeon Ashe, A Continuation of True Intelligence (1644), p. 7; around 4,000 Royalists perished, twice the number of Roundheads.
17. Belvoir MSS QZ/24 f. 55, Lord Ferdinando Fairfax to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, 6 July 1644: ‘Right Honorable Wee wrote to your Lordships of the cullors Wee had taken from the enemey And have sent this gent who was an actor in the bussines of purpose to cary so many of them as upon a sudden wee could as yet receaue from the sowers who esteeme it a credite to keepe them. The victorie which God hath given us is very great And wee shall omitt nothing within our power to improve it to the advantage of the Comonn cause & the good of both Kingdomes Wee rest Your Lordships affectionat freinds & servants Leuen Fer:fairfax Manchester from the league befor York 6th July 1644 Wee haue ressaved your letter of the 3d.’
18. For the Newbury witch reports see http://roy25booth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/witch-at-newbury-1643.html; for more on Boy and his legend see Mark Stoyle, The Black Legend of Prince Rupert’s Dog: Witchcraft and Propaganda During the English Civil War (2011)
.
19. The Life, Diary, and Correspondence of Sir William Dugdale, ed. William Hamper (1827), p. 70.
20. Vernon F. Snow, Essex the Rebel (1970), p. 451.
21. Carlton, p. 244.
22. Ibid.
23. They won two victories that September.
24. BL, Add. MS 4106, ff. 205r–v., 6 May 1643.
25. Of 7,740 soldiers estimated to have come from Ireland between October 1643 and March 1644 only about 1,200 were Irish; see Mark Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers (2005), pp. 53–62 and 209–10.
26. Charles I, The King’s Cabinet Opened: or, Certain Packets of Secret Letters & Papers (1645), letter 9.
27. CSPD 1644–5 (159).
28. Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution (2003), p. 506.
29. The Junto, which had dominated the first year of the Long Parliament, had split into war and peace parties in the winter of 1642–3. The peace party had included men like Holland and Northumberland, who were anxious to make a moderate peace with Charles as soon as possible. The old war party had included those who had invited the Scots into England for the Bishops’ War of 1640, and who wanted to ensure that Charles was stripped of all meaningful power: Warwick, Essex, Saye and Sele, Pym (who had since died of cancer), Lord Brooke (killed in 1643) and others.
30. In the House of Lords they included such former war-party stalwarts as Viscount Saye and Sele, but also that former peace-party grandee Northumberland.
31. Equally the Spanish had close ties to a number of Independents who saw Louis XIV’s France as the great Catholic power and threat of the future, and men like Warwick as stuck in a fantasy of the Elizabethan past.
32. There were many MPs with a reverence for Presbyterianism who nevertheless backed Cromwell and his allies as the men who would defeat the king. Equally, many of the Presbyterian grandees disliked the notion of a Scottish-style system of church government with councils of elders, but were glad of Scottish military support against their rivals. Neither establishing Presbyterianism nor any other form of church government was the overriding concern. Most on both sides of Parliament were Erastian. They were prepared to accept a national Presbyterian church managed by Parliament, rather than Scottish-style councils of elders. London too was divided between a radical minority who supported the Independents, and the moderates who had dominated the City’s Common Council since the radical-led constitutional changes to the municipality in 1642. These wanted a restored monarchy that would back their magistracy and believed Presbyterian church courts and Scottish-style supervisory assemblies of elders would transfer local church government into their hands for the enforcement of discipline and order. They differed, therefore, from Parliament’s ‘political Presbyterians’ who wanted the state ruling the church. David Scott, Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms, 1637–49 (2004), p. 86; Brenner, p. 462.
33. The Self-Denying Ordinance was passed the following day.
34. The King’s Cabinet Opened, p. 7.
Chapter 18: Evil Women
1. ODNB.
2. CSPV 1643–7 (194).
3. Charles I, The King’s Cabinet Opened: or, Certain Packets of Secret Letters & Papers (1645), p. 24.
4. Ibid., Charles to Henrietta Maria, 9 January 1645.
5. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. W. D. Macray (1888), Vol. III, p. 502. The fate of his three younger children, all in Parliament’s hands, was also on Charles’s mind. Elizabeth and Henry had been placed by Parliament in the care of Lucy Carlisle’s eldest brother, the Earl of Northumberland. Lucy, like Holland, was a member of the Presbyterian party that wanted a negotiated peace. Northumberland was allied to the Independents who wanted Charles’s utter defeat and Charles distrusted him as ‘one in whom Parliament confided so much’; Clarendon, Vol. III, p. 449.
6. Jonathan Wilshire and Susan Green, The Siege of Leicester 1645 (1970), with images of MS letters, pp. 12, 18.
7. Richard Simmonds, The Complete Military Diary (1989), p. 51.
8. Clarendon, Vol. IV, p. 39; Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1857), p. 304.
9. Simmonds, p. 52.
10. Ibid.
11. Clarendon, Vol. IV, p. 39.
12. Samuel Rawson Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, 1642–1649 (1886/1987), Vol. II, p. 233.
13. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (1992), p. 177.
14. Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria, ed. Green, p. 304.
15. The King’s Cabinet Opened, p. 14.
16. H. C. B. Rogers, Battles and Generals of the Civil Wars (1968), pp. 208, 209.
17. Malcolm Wanklyn, The Warrior Generals (2010), p. 162.
18. Sir Henry Slingsby, Diary (1836), p. 152.
19. Ibid.
20. Clarendon, Vol. IV, p. 45.
21. Wanklyn, p. 165.
22. Ibid.
23. Gardiner, Vol. II, p. 250.
24. ‘A Most Perfect Relation’ quoted in Glenn Ford, Naseby (2004), p. 285.
25. Fewer than 1,000 Royalist soldiers were killed in the battle and its aftermath. Four times as many were simply taken prisoner.
26. BL, E.127 (39), ‘A True Declaration of Kingstons Entertainment of the Cavaliers’ (22 November 1642); Mark Stoyle, ‘The Road to Farndon Field: Explaining the Massacre of the Royalist Women at Naseby’, English Historical Review, Vol. 123, No. 503 (August 2008), p. 907; Diane Purkiss, The English Civil War: A People’s History (2006), p. 138.
27. Parliament’s Post, 14 July 1645.
28. He had even shielded her from knowledge of his own mental suffering, deleting words and phrases where he thought he was revealing too much. Sarah Poynting, ‘Rhetorical Strategies in the Letters of Charles I’ in Jason McElligott and David Smith (eds.), Royalists and Royalism (2007), p. 145. Also see Derek Hirst, ‘Reading the Royal Romance: Or, Intimacy in a King’s Cabinet’, The Seventeenth Century, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn 2003), pp. 211–29.
29. Marchamont Nedham, in his newspaper Mercurius Britanicus.
30. Eikon Basilike.
31. Laura Knoppers, Politicizing Domesticity from Henrietta Maria to Milton’s Eve (2011), pp. 44–66.
32. Clarendon, Vol. IV, p. 74.
33. Ibid., p. 78.
34. Gardiner, Vol. II, p. 363.
35. Mercurius Rusticus quoted in G. N. Godwin, The Civil War in Hampshire 1642–45 and the Story of Basing House (2010), p. 241.
36. The Kingdom’s Weekly Post, BL, E.304.28.
37. Godwin, p. 142.
38. Francis Bacon, Of the Advancement and Proficience of Learning (BL, Humanities, C.46.i.1.), annotation by Charles I. Cromwell would move into a house in Drury Lane the following year. Perhaps it was this death that opened the vacancy. Thanks to Sarah Poynting for this reference and transcription.
39. Hugh Peter, The Fall and Last Relation of Basing House (1645), pp. 2, 6.
40. New tax-raising powers had been instituted and an Independent-dominated executive committee created–the Army Committee, which oversaw army funding and recruitment.
41. Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution (2003), pp. 475, 476. London was a very different place from 1642. Then a radical campaign had ousted the rich, Royalist City elite represented in the Upper Chamber of the Court of Aldermen and handed power to the hosiers, fishmongers, goldsmiths and woolen drapers elected to the Common Council. Now these same councillors sought to crush political and religious radicalisation in order to maintain the status quo they had come to control. Their allies in Parliament did not, however, share their enthusiasm for Scottish-style Presbyterianism, with church government controlled by councils of elders. The ‘political Presbyterians’ led by the Earl of Essex simply wanted government of the Church of England by king and bishops to be replaced by government by Parliament, so extending the control landowners maintained over parish livings to oversight by MPs (most of whom came from the same classes). See note 32, Chapter 17.
/> Chapter 19: ‘The Golden Ball’
1. Desiderata Curiosa ii Lib. IX, p. 20.
2. Letters of King Charles I, ed. Sir Charles Petrie (1935), p. 176.
3. There remained a substantial body of Royalist opinion that opposed any dealings with the Scots and their French allies. These so-called ‘patriot’ Royalists wanted the king restored at English hands and were keen for him to return to his capital as soon as possible. The queen’s party differed. Indeed, the split between the Royalists was almost a mirror image of the Parliamentarian splits. The Parliamentarians were split between the pro-Scots Presbyterian party and the anti-Scots Independents. The Royalists were split between the pro-Scots queen’s party and the patriots who wanted no outside intervention (but did not, of course, share the Independents’ religious agenda). The French had their own agenda. Cardinal Mazarin wanted a weak but restored king, ruling with their friends amongst the queen’s Royalist party, the Westminster Presbyterians–who included old Francophiles like Holland–the Scots and also the Royalist Irish (but not the Catholic Confederalists, who had too many friends in Spain). David Scott, Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms, 1637–49 (2004), pp. 111, 113.
4. Lord Lothian, CSPD 5 May 1646 (13).
5. Scott, pp. 118–19.
6. 1635, http://www.localhistories.org/newcastle.html.
7. F. J. Varley, The Siege of Oxford (1932), pp. 142, 143.
8. Ibid., p. 142.
9. Belvoir MSS QZ/26: Original Manuscripts 1646 f. 11AA, June 1646.
10. Thomas Birch, The Court and Times of Charles I (1849), Vol. II, p. 410.
11. Ibid., pp. 409, 410.
12. Scott, p. 123.
13. Also present was his favourite sister, Frances, Marchioness of Hertford, who had been painted by Van Dyck wearing the relic of their father’s hair, and whose husband was a Royalist.
14. David Nichol Smith, Characters from the Histories and Memoirs of the Seventeenth Century (1918), pp. 218–19.
15. Samuel Rawson Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War (1886/1987), Vol. III, p. 186; Moderate Intelligencer, 24 December 1646.
16. Patrick Maule, Earl of Panmure to Sir Archibald Johnston, Earl Wariston, 23 January 1647, in Sir David Dalrymple (ed.), Memorials and Letters Relating to the History of Britain in the Reign of Charles the First (1766), pp. 190–1.
The White King Page 38
