Where to start? Firstly in writing this, my intention is not to try to write a biography of either of my two main characters, Oliver Cromwell or Charles I. Neither will I try to condense the events of the English Civil War into a few paragraphs. Rather my aim is to give you an idea of the causes, economic, political and religious, which led to Revolution and Regicide, and try to explain, not excuse, the actions and motivations of the two main characters, each representative of his background and interests. Most of my readers will no doubt have some knowledge of the period, but for a very easy guide to timelines, battles and short biographies this site may prove useful.
Under the early Stuarts, England was still predominantly an agrarian and feudal society ruled first by James I, who was succeeded by his son Charles 1. Both monarchs continued the customs of the Tudors, and Charles was still expected to “live of his own” to finance government from feudal dues, crown land and the customs. Parliament, summoned at the King’s absolute discretion, was theoretically only expected to vote taxes in an emergency, usually in the event of war. Domestic economic policy in so far as it existed, was highly regulated by the Crown and the early Stuarts regarded foreign policy as their own preserve, as they did matters of religion. This notion was handily reinforced by the Divine Right of Kings, a somewhat absolutist doctrine which as it transpired proved to be a woefully inadequate defence when Charles was tried for treason!
But under the rule of Elizabeth, trade and commerce flourished, and the wealth of a growing section of society, let us call them the Gentry had been growing in prosperity and political importance. They were those involved in trade and commerce. They frequently invested their money in land, and their political clout in rural areas, as JP’s and members of the Commons, had been established under the Tudors, but their powerbase was also in the cities and towns which were expanding in size in the early years of the Seventeenth Century. Coal and wool and a growing need to feed an ever increasing population also encouraged the growth of agriculture for commercial gain. It was the Gentry who were a powerful movement to limit the arbitrary powers of the Crown when it interfered, overtaxed and inhibited the growth of free trade and commerce. They rightly wanted a voice. Oliver Cromwell was their representative and battle was engaged in the Commons initially. The warring factions were largely as follows:
“A very great part of the knights and gentlemen of England . . . adhered to the King . . . And most of the tenants of these gentlemen, and also most of the poorest of the people, whom the others call the rabble, did follow the gentry and were for the King. On the Parliament’s side were (besides themselves) the smaller part (as some thought) of the gentry in most of the counties, and the greatest part of the tradesmen and freeholders and the middle sort of men, especially in those corporations and counties which depend on clothing and such manufactures.”
Oliver was a country gentleman who although not at first wealthy was related to powerful families who had benefitted from the spoils of the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII. He married Elizabeth Bourchier daughter of a successful London merchant who had been knighted and owned a country estate in Essex. He was also a JP and was elected MP for Cambridge, and a Puritan!
It was really no coincidence that the Gentry were predominantly Puritan in their religious beliefs. Although Henry VIII had split with Rome and Protestantism was the order of the day, there was still a very real paranoia about Catholicism, with its hierarchical structure and lack of social mobility. Religion played a much more significant part in the life of all Englishmen and women than it does today. The church and its bishops were also great landowners and had a role in most aspects of life: education, law, marriage, death. The head of the church was the King, so they had a vested interest in supporting his views. The Reformation and the rise of the nation state as opposed the absolutism of the Holy Roman Empire were also instrumental in the emergence of Puritanism which rendered the Bishops redundant and believed that each man was in control of his own destiny; education, hard work and knowledge of the Bible was all it took. Little wonder that Puritanism in all its various forms was more attractive to the Gentry than the High Church version of Protestantism with all its overtones of “Popery” and control.
So, this is the setting of the scene, and forgive my generalisations and omissions, which I hope to rectify in Part 11. I’m attempting to give you an idea of the situation which gave rise to a bloody and divisive battle, and the main protagonists. You may have noted that there has been little mention of those men and women who constitute the majority of the population, those who own no land and therefore little political power. This battle has little to do with democracy as we know it today, but it does pave the way. Their time will come, but not just yet!
Fast forward to 1640 in Part II
Boadicea's Chariot 
Thanks Araminta!
You are welcome, Boadicea.
It’s a start! I couldn’t contemplate doing the whole thing in one go.
Extract from St Giles without Cripplegate, London. Weddings 22nd August 1620.
Oliver Crumwell and Elizabeth Bourchier 22 lyc’
The cross at the side simply denotes that the couple married by licence and not by banns.
That is interesting, Boadicea. I don’t think it was that uncommon though. It would appear to be a status thing.
” Canon Laws of 1534 and 1603 stipulated that licences only be granted unto “persons … as be of good state and quality” and …”upon good caution and security taken”. In practice it was generally only those of a certain social status who could afford a licence anyway, although, in addition to gentry, small landowners, professionals and yeoman farmers, mariners and soldiers often took advantage of this convenient, private and speedy way of marrying. ”
I don’t think this was common until later, and I can’t remember when, marriage became a civil contract. I would guess during the Protectorate.
Araminta
The page from which this was taken – I can’t give a link because it is a ‘pay’ site – is splattered with crosses! I didn’t want anyone to think that some later vandal had defaced the registers!
Licences also seemed to be useful if the bride and groom lived in different parishes.
I’m not sure when marriage became a civil contract. I believe that the Church got into the act rather late and that it was sufficient to declare that one was married before witnesses in the early medieval period – hence the tradition of being married at the Church door or gate before going into the church for a ‘service’.
Anyway – I digress!
Good piece and I look forward to the next part! 🙂
I was going to ask you where you found it, Boadicea but I guessed it was from a “pay” site. I must confess that I know little about marriage during this period, but I’ll see what I can find.
Thank you, Boadicea. I found it very difficult to condense but forced myself.
I am working on the next part but will probably have exactly the same problem. It has been been an interesting exercise though.
Thank you, Bearsy, Cuprum and OZ for reading. 🙂
This is an odd bit of research I did for my family history CD. I think it’s fairly accurate!
Until the Middle Ages the church played a limited role in marriages. Vows were exchanged in a public place, often at the church door, before witnesses. Unlike the Continent, English law legitimised children upon the subsequent marriage of their parents. In England, property laws insisted that only legitimate children had rights and therefore it became increasingly important to ensure that everyone knew a ‘legal’ marriage had occurred.
Licenses were issued so that marriages could take place without banns being called. This was useful if both parties were away from their normal place of residence or did not want to wait for the three week period while banns were being called.
An ‘Allegation’, which was an affirmation of the intention to marry in a specified parish, was usually accompanied by a ‘Bond’. The Bond was an assurance by friends or relatives to ensure that the couple did marry in the church specified. There was a financial penalty, often as much as £100, if the wedding did not occur.
From 1653 to 1660, a marriage could only take place after a certificate had been obtained from the ‘Parish Register’ to state that banns had been called on three Sundays after morning service or on three successive market days in the market place. The marriages were solemnised by a Justice of the Peace.
After 1660 clandestine marriages, that is without license or banns, became common practice. St James Duke’s Place and Holy Trinity Minories accounted for over half of all London marriages in the late 1600s and attracted people from far and wide. A number of other such centres existed throughout England. The main problem with this was that England did not recognise divorce, and some young heiresses were abducted and forcibly married for their money. It was not until 1882 that a married woman was permitted to own property in her own right and not until 1893 that she had the same property rights as an unmarried woman.
Hardwick’s Marriage Act, which was limited to England and Wales, took effect from 25th March 1754 and was designed to stop clandestine marriages. It declared that a marriage could be solemnised only in a parish church or public chapel after the publication of banns or by a license issued by a bishop. The marriage had to be performed by a clergyman of the Church of England, although Jews and Quakers were exempt and allowed to marry in their own churches. Many Catholics married twice: in the Catholic and the Protestant church to ensure both the religious and secular legality of their marriage. Minors, under twenty-one, needed parental consent. Bann books and marriage registers were to be kept separately from those for baptisms and burials. An amendment of 1836 permitted marriage before a registrar or with religious rites other than Anglican.
In 1929 the age of consent was raised to 16 for both males and females, until then girls aged 12 and boys aged 14 could legally marry, although parental consent was required under the age of 21.
Until 1907 a large number of relationships were deemed to be within a ‘prohibited degree’, so that a man might not marry his deceased wife’s sister and cousins could not wed in church. Thus, these sort of weddings were conducted in Registry Offices.
Marriages usually took place in the bride’s parish.
How interesting, and many thanks for that, Boadicea. I will read it more thoroughly in the morning. 🙂
Nice piece, Araminta, it’s good to look behind the headlines.
Even after the 1907 act individual vicars could refuse to marry a man and his deceased wife’s sister, Boadicea. Husband remembers being told that his paternal grandfather had to get some sort of permission from the C of E to marry his deceased wife’s sister in the 1920s.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit Sheona – some clergy have always insisted that their ‘law’ is superior to the law of the land!
Many thanks, Bravo. 🙂
…and thank you too, Zen, for your “like”!
Hi Ara
Looking forward to your series.
Getting myself back up to speed on the period because I have, as usual, forgotten most of what I used to know. One of my courses at the Uni of Embra was ‘British and Imperial History’.
I see that your quote is from the Puritan Richard Baxter, who sounds like a principled individual, if google is to be believed. I also see that said quote is much beloved by Marxist historians, including Christopher Hill.
In that context, are you using the word ‘feudal’ in the Marxist sense when you describe England as being ‘….still predominantly an agrarian and feudal society…’ under the early Stewarts (sorry, but I don’t do the Frenchified affectation)?
As the boy Christopher says in http://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/
‘I use the word feudal in the Marxist sense, and not in the more restricted sense adopted by most academic historians to describe narrowly military and legal relations. By “feudalism” I mean a form of society in which agriculture is the basis of economy and in which political power is monopolised by a class of landowners.’
If so, fair enough. I am of the ‘more restricted’ persuasion myself and believe that it was the very fact that England effectively ceased to be what I would term a feudal society when Henry VIII dissolved things. That was surely why Ship Money bombed so spectacularly when Charles I, who was, as I am sure you know, the last King of Scotland to have been born in Scotland, tried to impose a feudal tax in peacetime?
Not that I’m suggesting that you Southrons chopped his head off just because he was a Jock, of course. He probably deserved it over the piece anyway, in my opinion.
Anyhow, I repeat that I am looking forward to your series and trust that you will be giving due and proper consideration to the many examples of us Jocks sticking our noses into your Civil War.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will be a bit of a Roundhead in any future debate, with a lot of time for Nolly C despite the fact that he was probably the most effective Sassenach invader of Caledonia (stern and wild) bar none, including Edward Isst aka Longshanks.
Hello Mr. Mackie.
I did have a chuckle or three when I read your comment; which I much appreciate, by the way.
I too have forgotten most of my early studies, so I had to do a rather speedy refresher course to write this, but sufficient information was dredged from my memory banks and Google to at least make a stab at it!
I make no secret of my Marxist historian bias, although I was careful not to use such inflammatory terms as Bourgeoisie, Proletariat, or Capitalist. You may remember that I confessed this in one of my very early posts Elsewhere, sadly now gone. Feudal was one I missed, ( wink ) but I think that at the beginning of the Seventeenth Century, Christopher Hill’s definition is not entirely unreasonable when compared to the changes which occurred over the next hundred years.
As to the other issues, you may rest assured that they will be covered in Part 11, and the Jocks will be mentioned in dispatches. Strangely, I think you may be guilty of being a tad harsh on your fellow countrymen, but your Roundhead tendencies have been noted, John. I actually share them, to a large degree, but emotionally, I’m a Cavalier.
Crikey, whoops and sorry, Ara.
I had forgotten that you learned your history at the corduroyed knee of Comrade Christopher. No personal insult intended.
All that I can offer you in exchange, tutor-wise, is Owen Dudley Edwards who was and is unique. Google does not do him justice. Still remember the day when he walked into the ‘Oxford Bar’ (properly known as ‘Willie Ross’s and immortalised by Rankin in his ‘Rebus’ books).
Willie had the cellar door open and Owen just kept walking down the steps. Willie went down to get him and the pair of them emerged totally stocious (ask Ferret) an hour later. Now that was a tutor, and a pub owner, in my opinion.
Chuckle, John. I’m not insulted at all. I regret, I didn’t have such a close relationship with Comrade Christopher, but I know someone who did! But my tutor enthusiastically pointed me in his direction. I thrived on a diet of Christopher Hill, Trevor Roper, and E P Thompson.
To be fair, I did give some of the others a glance but they weren’t so convincing.
Araminta, I came across this quite by accident, doing some late night work. I had no idea you were interested in this period in our history to such a degree. I share your enthusiasm, if not your politics (I’m a Cavalier!) My apologies to the site moderators. Not being a member I’m not sure if it’s quite the thing for me to comment al all. 🙂
You are very welcome, Ana.
If you would like to be able to post here as well as commenting, just say so and you will be added to the list of approved authors.
I love this from Christopher Hill.
“The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords. Parliament beat the King because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about. The rest of this essay will try to prove and illustrate these generalisations.”
Now there is a man with a clear agenda. He sounds like Citizen Smith
Good morning, Ana.
What an unexpected pleasure to see you here, and thank you for your comment.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread to John Mackie, I am emotionally a Cavalier too, but I am trying to be objective about both Charles 1 and Oliver Cromwell.
Tricky considering my introduction to the period was “Children of the New Forest” at a very early age, and Christopher Hill in my teens and early twenties at university. It was rather a long time ago, though.
I am aware of your much more recent expertise with regard to this period, Ana, and your political stance!
Hi Sipu.
To be fair to Christopher Hill, your quote was one of his earlier essays and by the seventies he had backed off, thankfully, from the more extreme Marxist rhetoric.
His later published works were extremely well regarded at the time, although the Marxist label did detract from his reputation with some.
Hello Araminta, yes, I read about Hill’s disillusionment with communism, though that essay was written at about the time that he was leaving the Party. Interesting though, that he was so lauded in his youth as an academic and serious historian and yet he was so clearly biased. One hopes, perhaps naively, that historians would strive for objectivity rather than seek to promote their own political ideals. I am reminded of the Soviet saying. “only the future is certain. The past is always changing.” It is the way of things in Africa too.
I too learned to love the Cavaliers as a result of Children of the New Forest and Lorna Doone, though to be honest, my family was never likely to countenance Cromwell and his Puritans.
“Down with actors down with plays
That was the cry in Cromwell’s days…”
I enjoy this kind of post, thanks.
Sipu, I’m so glad to find I won’t be the only “wrong but romantic” supporter here, even though a mere modern linguist myself. Anyway the Roundheads lost when all is said and done!
Amen to that, Sheona.
“The Roundheads lost”, Sheona?
Indeed the monarchy was restored, yes, but I don’t think that it was ever quite the same again.
But more in Part II! Corrected by the author. Thanks Sipu for spotting it.
Hi Ara, just catching up, and haven’t read all of this properly yet, but I like it so far. I’ll give it my full attention later this evening.
Ara, I am going to usurp Mr Mackie’s role as chief pedant and quibble over your use of Roman numerals. Part 11? Surely you mean Part II, or do you really have 10 more posts to go?
Hi Val.
Glad to know you are reading my post. 🙂
Sipu.
Oops! Quite right. I’m having enough trouble with the next one, so you will be relieved to hear that there will not be ten more! 🙂
Bearsy, thanks for your tremendously kind offer, which I am delighted to accept; it will be just like the old days. 🙂 Should I submit an application to join?
Hello again, Ana.
Great news!
You do not need to submit an application to join. Bearsy or Boadicea will sort it out when they wake up, later this evening.
Good Morning Ana!
All done – you are now an Author – post away! And welcome 🙂
Blimey, Boadicea. That was fast!
Good morning Araminta – don’t ask what I’m doing up at this time of day! 🙂
I woke up about half an hour ago and couldn’t go back to sleep – it happens sometimes!
I know the feeling, Boadicea. It happens to me occasionally too.
Araminta, yes, Richard Lovelace and dear old Boy!
I so admire your detachment; intellectually and emotionally I’m a right-wing version of Hill – the Roundheads were repulsive and wrong; the Cavaliers were romantic and right!
Actually, in relation to a point you made above, there was a period when the Restoration monarchy was just as absolute as that of Charles I’s personal rule in the 1630s. I’m thinking specifically of the period after the dismissal of the Oxford Parliament in 1681, which ended the Exclusion Crisis with a complete victory for Charles II. Brother James, being a bear of very little brain, threw the advantage away.
Anyway, I look forward to part II or part 11 or whatever. 🙂
Boadicea, thanks. I’m spreading myself rather thin these days. 🙂
As you are aware, I stagger to a halt just about the time the Stuarts enter the stage!
My emotions are inclined to favour the Royalists – I don’t have much time for the dour Puritan mindset. My head, however, is firmly on the side of the Parliamentarians, since I am opposed to any one person, or group of people having unlimited power.
Ana deep joy and welcome.
Not that I’m speaking to you after your description of Embra as ‘dirty’ in your recent post elsewhere. You’re not wrong, of course, but that does not ease the pain.
At least you were complimentary about East Lothian. You’re not wrong about that either, in my opinion.
I look forward to your participation in the forthcoming stramash. For some reason, your arrival has made me think of Prince Rupert.
Ana, absolutely. I also believe that when Cromwell was de facto” King”, he was pretty exasperated with Parliament.
I have a vague memory that as an MP he resisted the scheme to drain the fens, but changed his tune quickly when he, backed by the army, decided this was no longer in his interests.
Very much my feelings, Boadicea.
Araminta
I wonder how many people at the time thought much the same? I can’t imagine my yeoman ancestors being too delighted with Puritan austerity – I’ve read the inventories of their goods and chattels! But, equally, I can’t imagine that they would have accepted the notion of “Divine Right” either!
I don’t think either has much appeal, and I suspect that most people who lived through this era thought much the same.
How interesting that your ancestor were yeoman. I’m really envious that you know so much about them. I think I mentioned before, I really cannot go back that far, and I have no one left to ask, now I’m interested. It’s quite sad really, but I did ask my mother to make some notes a few years ago about her family, but she didn’t make too much progress either.
John, with Boy in company! I did say beautiful as well as dirty, so I hope I’m excused. 🙂 But East Lothian, especially Dirleton, is just beautiful. My weekend would have been complete if I had seen the ghost at Tantallon Castle. Do you think it might be old Archibald Bell the Cat in person? No, I suppose the fashion is too late for that. 🙂
Araminta, he certainly was, with all three of them! In the end he accumulated personal powers that would have made even King Charles the Martyr recoil in horror. I don’t suppose any English government has been more unpopular, especially during the period of the Major Generals.
Boadicea, I have an article planned on Captain William Kidd, the seventeenth century pirate, which I thought I would add here (just here!) after the weekend, my maiden contribution, since there seems to be so much interest in history. Sorry to go slightly off topic. 🙂
Ana
Go for it! 🙂
Going by what you say, Ana, you English did what the French did over a hundred years later. You got rid of a king, replaced him with what sounds to be a tyranny, and then ended up with a monarch again. I frequently ask French friends what was the point of executing Louis XVI and his family only to end up with an emperor in the person of Buonaparte.
btw, it’s a pleasure to “see” you again.
Ochone, ochone, Sheona. Don’t encourage the girl by welcoming her too much. Have you not seen that her future, promised post is going to be about yet another Jock who was done to death by the Southrons?
To be fair, she has formidable intellectual rigour, in my opinion, and I am confident that she will give a fairer trial to Captain Billy the Kidd than either Parliament or the Admiralty did at the time.
Actually, looking forward to her post when I think about it. Gie it laldy, Ana.
To be fairer still, I think that you will find that us Jocks might, at the very least, have been guilty of being involved art and part in the unfortunate regicide of King Charles the Martyr.
Oh I’m sure there were Scots complicit in the death of Charles Stewart, JM. I wouldn’t claim that all of us are perfect. Besides it does no harm to remind the English how many Scots they have slaughtered over the centuries, so Ana’s post will be fine.
Hello, Sheona. 🙂
John, do you know that there is a William Kidd in the Scottish Parliament? 🙂
Good morning Ara, thanks for the link to this interesting and well written account of the Cromwell/Charles period. I have looked for part 2 but cannot find it. Was it ever written?
Those were the days when cherished colleagues wrote posts and commented. 🙂
Maybe Will Kidd changed his name to A Salmond?
Perhaps those days will return Janus 😉
No, Billy the Kidd is still there under his own name.
Hi Gaz.
Thanks for reading. No, Part 2 is still a work in progress! I may get round to it in a few years. 😉
Boadicea, who is a proper historian, also used to do some interesting posts on her area of historical interest.
True, Janus. I must try to do better. 😦