1
Q
Social Class- Historians in favour (4)
A
- Storm over the Gentry
- Tawney + Lawrence Stone (1950s): Rising gentry vs falling nobility – Marxist interpretation (Capitalism overcoming feudalism)
- Brian Manning (1976): Party of the elite vs Party of the peasants
- Ian Gentles: Majority of highest nobility supported Royalists
2
Q
Social Class- Factual detail in favour (7)
A
- Gentry component increased from 50% to 75% in the 16th-17th century
- Price Revolution’- Gradual inflation wore away at land prices (Chris Hill)
- Royalist Propaganda emphasised opposition’s social inferiority (Over 100 discovered)
- Earl of Holland & Derby executed after the War
- Earl of Holland & Derby donated £250,000 to Royalist war effort
- Marquess of Worcester bought marquessate for £100,000 - their futures were reliant on Royal victory
- Stour Valley Riots 1642 saw discontented clothiers attack houses of the aristocracy
3
Q
Social class- factual detail against (6)
A
- 4000 Gentry on either side
- In Yorkshire, of gentry in financial decay who took sides, 3/4 chose Royalists
- 6 fathers and sons on opposing sides at Edgehill (Eg. Edmund Verney)
- Bristol 1643- Labourers + Sailors join plot to betray Parl’s city to Prince Rupert
- Majority of poor In East Anglia supported Parliament whilst the gentry seemed outspoken for Royalists
- Very easy to move between gentry class and aristocracy
- -> As of James I, gentry could by their Lordships (As the Marquess of Worcester did for £100,000 in 1643)
- -> A Lord’s younger sons would be ranked as mere gentlemen (gentry)
4
Q
Argument on Social class
A
Clearly not a war between classes. However, shouldn’t completely dismiss. For those at the extremes of either spectrum, class and particularly a fear of social disorder was a powerful motivator for side orienation
5
Q
Localism- Historians in favour (4)
A
- Morrill: “How best to safeguard their property”
- Alan Everitt, ‘The English Revolution’ (1968): Theory of County Community- local rivalries and more care about locality than central politics
- Conrad Russell: ‘Parliament & English Politics’ (1979): Functional breakdown (Court vs Country) + JPs cared more about locality
- Lucy Hutchinson- “Civil War in every county” - battle between committed minorities for allegiance of the Counties to a particular side
6
Q
Localism- Yes factual detail (6)
A
- Kent: Sandyses of Northbourne Abbey had history of opposition to Duke of Richmond & St. Legers- they went on to fight in opposing sides
- Staffordshire Gentry rose task force to keep away outsiders
- Leicester shut their gates
- Devon 1645- tactical alliance with Fairfax as Goring (Current leader) was a greater threat to provincial liberties than the NMA
- Summer 1642- Charles failed to convince any Yorkshire Gentry to accompany him to Nottingham
- August 1643- London Trained Bands chant “Home, home” as they are travelling to Gloucester
7
Q
Localism- Historians against (4)
A
- Ann Hughes: “Highly integrated and centralised political system” –> Only Gentry applicable to localism as they held economic + political interest in localities
- Mark Stoyle: Everyone- even the peasantry- held an interest in national politics
- Cust + Hughes: Ideological factors were present in the thinking of the entire nation eg. divine prerogative vs social contract
- Clive Holmes used research on Eastern Association Army to display conflict was not as simple as Localism portrays + wider political awareness
8
Q
Localism- Factual detail against (6)
A
- England had one Common Law & one body for national taxation (Compared to other European nations at the time, this was significant)
- Clubmen Association in Devon was shown to have strong partisan sympathies towards Royalists (Clubmen more for neutralism?)
- Goldsmith, Richard Bennet imprisoned for speaking seditious words about Parliament and Pym
- Greater political Awareness: 62 contested elections vs 24 (1640 vs 1629)
- Greater distribution of poltical propaganda- Increase from 450 prints in 1639 to 3500 in 1642
- Formation of Eastern Association Army in Dec 1642 out of 7 county militias displayed wider political awareness
9
Q
Localism Argument
A
Localism was important but was often overcome by ideological issues. Neutralism was a more significant factor in explaining attempts to look after the county as many held knowledge of national interests.
10
Q
Religion- Historians in favour (5)
A
War of Religion Debate
- John Morrill- “Not the First European Revolution; the last of the Wars of Religion”
- -> “Religion was the factor that drove minorities to fight and majorities to make reluctant choices”
- Gardiner Supports Morrill- “Constitutional reasons alone were not the sole ideological drivers”
- Lawrence Stone 1970s: Changed Marxist interpretation- still saw divide between gentry + nobility but differences based on religion rather than economics
- Nicholas Tyacke- Laudianism was the truly revolutionary force and led to national anti-episcopy and Purtian militancy
- Morrill supports Tyacke: “It is almost impossible to overestimate the damage caused by the Laudians”
11
Q
Religion- Yes factual detail (7)
A
- In Yorkshire, 1/3 of Royalist army were Catholic and 1/2 of Parliamentary army were Puritan
- In Norwich at Shrovetide 1642, 500 men wielding swords and pistols rallied to defend the Cathedral’s organ against Puritan iconoclasts
- Judith Maltby found petitions from 22 English and 6 Welsh counties defending the Book of Common Prayer and Episcopacy
- Nearly 500 banners for the field and regimental officers have survived: Of the Parliamentary ones, 72% make reference to religion, compared to 50% for the Royalists
- Parliamentary crowds in their thousands invaded and plundered the houses of the landed classes- with the exception of one prominent royalist family (The Lucases) all those attacked were suspected of being Roman Catholics
- Multiple acts of popular iconoclasm: attacks on the houses of catholics by Clothworkers in Essex and Suffolk and sailors on the East Coast
- Many supported Parliament for a desire for a Godly Commonwealth: Preacher, Stephen Marshall repeated his godly sermon, ‘Meroz Cursed’, over 60 times to different elements or the Parliamentary army throughout the course of the Civil War
Robert Douglas, a Covenanter, marched for 73 days between Mary and July 1644 and heard 35 sermons.
12
Q
Religion- Historians against (4)
A
- Ann Hughes & Richard Cust- Puritanism was not inherently opposed to monarchy but the failings of Charles’ I encouraged this united opposition
- Hughes + Cust: “do not share the tendency to see religion as a phenomenon hermetically sealed from other aspects of life” (Revisionist + PR)
- Hutton- Religion was only a factor for Parliament’s side taking (Royalists contained all sorts)
- Nicholas Tyacke: Couldn’t distinguish between Puritans & Anglicans (eg. George Abbot) and it’s only in hindsight that historians are developing these divides
13
Q
Religion- Factual detail against (5)
A
- In Yorkshire, 1/3 of Royalist army were Catholic and 1/2 of Parliamentary army were Puritan
- George Abbot, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury between 1611 and 1633 was a ‘Puritan’ by definintion i.e. believed in predestination, wanted rid of popish remnants of the church & concentrated on preaching rather than ceremony
- Lord Falkland said, “they who hated bishops hated them worse than the devil, and they who loved them did not love them so well as their dinner”
- 15,000 Puritans emigrated to New World during 1630s due to oppression of Laud (Religious grievances didn’t cause war or sides- Other forms of resistance)
- Wales was strongly anti-catholic and after the Irish rebellion (Oct 1641) saw itself firmly in the Parliamentary camp over religious reform BUT come 1642, Wales unanimously moved over to Royalist support
14
Q
Religion argument
A
Religion was a more important factor for Parliament than Royalists. Laudianism was the major instigator of religious tensions. Religion was not a sole factor, and was intermixed with other factors.
15
Q
Geographical Location- Historians in favour (3)
A
- David Underdown (1985)- Forests, Pastures + Clothing regions tended towards Parliament VS Arable + Downland tended towards Royalists
- Alan Everitt- Religion and tendency to rebel depended on the type of land you lived on
- Christopher Hill and Ann Hughes have noted how industrial, urban areas, cloth-towns and ports tended to be Parliamentarian + Progressive
16
Q
Geographical Location- Factual detail in favour (2)
A
- Underdown researched 3 counties, all coming out with conclusions supporting his thesis
- Yorkshire, one of the largest areas for arable farming, supported the King
17
Q
Geographical Location- Historians against (2)
A
Similar to localism arguments
- Ann Hughes + Cust: Centralised political system- locality wasn’t significant enough to overcome ideological factors
- Mark Stoyle: Everyone- even the poorest peasantry- held national political views
18
Q
Geographical Location- Factual detail against (5)
A
- Buchanan studied Sommerset, where Underdown had researched and found that he was wrong
- Wood found Underdown to be wrong in case of Derbyshire
- Edmund Waller claimed within London, 38% supported Royalists and 62% of suburbs supported Royalists
- Morrill studied Essex: By Underdown’s theory they should have been parliamentarian but Morrill found it was actually evenly split
- Heartland of Parliament’s support lay in the populous, arable farming areas of Midlands & East Anglia
19
Q
Geographical Location argument
A
Interesting argument on a local level but evidently not applicable to the nation as a whole.
20
Q
Neutralism- Historians in favour (4)
A
- John Morrill - “Fear of disorder drove some men into royalism; it drove far more into neutralism”
- Fletcher - Months into the war, there were a large number of petitions for peace after P previously being popular (Long term signs of passive neutralism)
- Clarendon- “The number of these who desired to sit still was greater than of those who desired to engage either party”
- Coward- The commonest reaction was neutralism
21
Q
Neutralism- Factual detail for (6)
A
- 22 Neutrality treaties amongst counties + Treaty of Bunbury Dec 1642
- 10 Counties never formally accepted or declined the Commissions of Array
- In Yorkshire, 240 out of the 680 gentry never committed themselves to either side
- Fear of the ruin in Germany (30 years war)- 70% under poverty line
- Agrarian unrest 1640-1642 reinforced desire for peace
- Throughout the course of 1645, Clubmen Associations were formed in 9 counties –> Each association numbered between 10-20k men
22
Q
Neutralism- Historians against (4)
A
- Sommerville (1989)- Deeply rooted ideological division over extra parliamentary taxation (which affected all) and the Divine Right of Kings vs Social Contract
- Cust: Conflict between Charles’ desire to maintain authority and others desire to limit his powers (eg. Ship Money, Hampden Trial, Forced Loan, 5 knights etc)
- Trevor-Royle: “The attempts of those to remain neutral were in vain. Staying in the middle was impossible”
- Anderson- “Neutralists plundered by both sides.” - Was not a factor
23
Q
Neutralism- Factual detail against (7)
A
- Of the 40,000 men in trained bands units for parliament, 2/3 were volunteers
- West Riding provided an army made up of 8000 volunteers for Fairfax
- Goldsmith, Richard Bennet imprisoned for speaking seditious words about Parliament and Pym
- Simon Seagar, miner, accused of sedition for discussing the treachery of the King
- Ann Hughes had noted signs of royalism amongst the common people in Warwick in 1642, despite the political dominance of the Puritan Lord Brooke
- Treaty of Bunbury did not last- Brereton enacted militia ordinance in area
- Staffordshire declared itself neutral but soon after opted for Royalism
24
Q
Neutralism argument
A
An immediate reaction by many, and fear of social disorder and war exemplified it in early stages (immediately post Edgehill) - Overcome by practicality, force or ideology as the War drew on
25
Economic factors- Historians For (3)
- Brian Manning- Labourers and gentry support Parliament VS Landed (gain money from land) and arable farmers supported Royalists
- Marxist Reading: Christopher Hill, Lawrence Stone & Tawney: Economically developing VS economically powerful (Bourgeoisie vs Aristocracy)
- Everitt- Similar to Localism- whoever would aid them more financially and maintain their economic prosperity
26
Economic Factors- Factual detail for (7)
-High Cotswolds was an area of Arable farming and supported Royalists VS Low Cotswolds Clothing town supported P
-City Merchants in particular seemed wary to not take sides as it would impact their normal economic activities
Between 1639-1642, London was strongly Parliamentary --> After being taxed £11,000/w in assessment, support dried with large scale peace demonstrations in August 1643 - the 2nd weekly assessment of July 1643 had to miss London
- Derbyshire lead miners regiment pledged allegiance to
- Royalists after receiving their backing in a dispute with local land owners
- George Goring was a financial Operator in Devon and North Cornwall and was subsequently able to raise a Royalist militia who were economically reliant upon him
- Prince of Wales said his financial exactions and monpolies in the SE would "very much hinder" his ability to raise troops there due to economic resentment
- Colonel Edward Massie of Gloucester said support of Parliament there seemed much less supportive after fall of Bristol to Royalists due to strong trade links between them
27
Economic factors- Historians against (2)
- Zagorin: Marxist historians made the mistake of concentrating too closely on centralised Rs propaganda about Ps economic inferiority
- Everitt: Only central P sources focused economic factors and most local people did not follow these trends
28
Economic factors- Factual detail against (5)
- In London, waterman and butchers expressed Royalist sympathies despite lower economically
- In Yorkshire, of gentry in financial decay who took a side, 3/4 chose Royalists
- Goldsmith, Richard Bennet imprisoned for speaking seditious words about Parliament and Pym
- 4000 Gentry on either side
- Little opposition to Distraint of Knighthood, Forest Laws or Ship Money until 1637 (Hampden) and even then was not enough for a war to take place
29
Economic factors argument
Economic factors tend to work for local interests. However, doesn't follow for the nation as a whole on a wider economic unity of sides (Eg. Marxist reading)
30
Constitutional factors- Historians for (4)
- Fletcher: "People thought because of spontaneous political conservation"
- Clive Holmes: Many Royalists were less drawn to Charles than they were repelled by Pym's and Junto's political policies
- Ann Hughes: "Opposition to Charles was concerned with the nature and direction of central government"
- Whig: JR Neale + Wallace Notestein- 'Rise of Parliament' as inevitable overthrow of Monarchy
31
Constitutional factors- Factual detail for (6)
- Hugh Peters called for Parliament and the army to uproot monarchy across Europe
- 8 November 1642, agreed by 151 to 110 that if King did not make acceptable constitutional concessions, it would be in "discharge of the trust which we owe the state and who we represent"
- Nineteen Propositions June 1642 focused on constitutional issues as the final hope for peace
- Edmund Verney argued that "majesty is sacred" and Parliament shouldn't try to change that
- Print explosion in 1640 woud mean people were well aware of national interests (450 in 1639 --> 3500 in 1642)
- Grand Remonstrance Nov 1641 vote 159 to 148 displayed how many saw constitutional factors going too far (Everyone who voted against GR was a Royalist when the war arrived)
32
Constitutional Factors- Historians against (4)
- Morrill- Those driven by constitutional issues got "Cold feet" when moving into 1642 -->Lacked momentum and needed religion to push England to war
- Gardiner- "Constitutional factors alone were not enough to cause the war to start"
- Lawrence Stone- "Those who opposed the King on constitutional grounds in the 1620s and 1630s tended to swing back to him in 1642"
- Russell- There was no High Road to Civil War - Before 1640s, no two sides to fight a war
- -> No issues of principle dividing King & Parliament - All disagreements were within Parliament or within the Privy Council rather than between the two
33
Constitutional factors- Factual detail against (4)
- Culpepper & Falkland were Parliamentarian supporters until 1642 when he swung back towards the Royalists
- Large number of Parliamentarians defected to King following stalemate at Edgehill and Military failures of 1642-1643
- Many of those who initially supported Pym's constitutional changes changed with the GR out of loyalty to King (Saw it going too far)
- Lord Paget explained in 1642, "I will throw myself down at the feet of the King and die a loyal subject" - Unwavering support for the King overcame any constitutional factors
34
Constitutional factors argument
Motivated more parliamentarians than Royalists. Pushed tensions upon which the environment for side taking was present, but wasn't a significant enough factor alone to prompt a war.
35
Court vs Country- Historians in favour (4)
- Everitt- country lacked confidence in the court- "as the court's influence declined, each county became more than ever before a little self-centred kingdom"
- Conrad Russell- 'Functional Breakdown' between court and country
- Kevin Sharpe- Functional breakdown in the localities as a result economic, political and administrative tensions over the Bishops' War
- Trevor Roper- Divide between 'Rising' and 'Mere' gentry displays conflict between those with and without courtly connections
36
Court vs Country- Factual detail in favour (5)
- Tax strikes in 1639 (Against Ship Money and Coat & Conduct Tax)
- Only 20% of Ship Money paid in 1639
- Over 800 recorded cases of laymen and peasants refusing to aid on patrols and pay writes in 1640
- Book of Orders 1631 and difficulty collecting Ship Money led to a 17% reduction in applications for county sheriff roles from 1630 to 1640- break down in feudal system of court and country
- Of the 493 MPs elected to the Long Parliament, at least 399 considered themselves ‘county MPs’ opposed to the king’s religious and economic policies.
37
Court vs Country- Historians against (2)
- Kevin Sharpe- The Personal rule was harmonious (Any court vs Country must have stemmed from 1637 onwards, unlikely to be enough time to cause war)
- Morrill- Drew distinctions between parochial gentry and county gentry and claimed the court and country could not be so easily defined & distinguished
38
Court vs Country- Factual detail against (5)
- between 1604 and 1629 Parliaments threatened to withhold taxes until grievances were addressed on only 4 occasions- they failed on each of these occasions : MPs (Country) had no power over the court until 1640
- Miners in Devonshire and Cornwall supported the King & In London, Porters, watermen and butchers expressed definitely royalist opinions
- Edward Hyde, a vocal opponent of Charles recalled the PR as "a decade of calm and felicity" --> Lack of constitutional conflict during Personal Rule
- The Parliamentary city of Cambridge was said to be dangerously malignant to the County Committee in the summer of 1643 (Parliamentarians rebelling against the Country)
- In July 1642, Grand Jury of Essex delivered address, pledging the "preservation of your crown and dignity"
39
Court vs Country Argument
Court and Country fought on both sides. Not simple enough to distinguish side taking based on this. Debatable whether any divide between the two even existed or whether it was merely an extension of ideological divides
40
Three Kingdoms- Historians in favour (4)
- New British History and Three Kingdoms' Debate
- Conrad Russell- 'Billiard Ball Effect' of Scotland 1637 causing conflict elsewhere- Interconnections between kingdoms (Particular influence of Scotland on sparking civil war)
- Kevin Sharpe- It was war in 1637 which led to functional breakdown in England
- Ronald Asch- uniformity vs 3 politically & religiously diverse Kingdoms led to issues in all three Charles couldn't control
- John Morrill, 'The Britishness of the English Revolution', wide ranging defence of 'British Approach'
41
Three Kingdoms- Factual detail in favour (9)
- The Irish rebellion of October 1641 was partially in response to the aggressive expansion of the Scottish Covenanters and led to growing political fears and tensions within England
- Strafford enforced the 'Black Oath' in 1639, according to which Scots in Ireland was forced to renounce the Covenant
- An Irish Remonstrance provided sufficient ammunition against Strafford for an impeachment from the English Long Parliament
- English Triennial Act appears to be modelled on the Scottish Triennial provision of 1640
- As the Scots crossed the border in Second Bishops' War, leading English dissidents presented Charles with the Petition of Twelve Peers, requesting that he summon a parliament
- April 1639: both Saye and Brooke refused to provide horses and men for the war effort with the Covenanters
- Saye's son, Nathaniel Fiennes kept the Scots informed of the finances and morale of the English army in the First Bishops War - the complicity of some Puritans forced them to side against the King (Treason would be punishable by death)
- Henry Darley criticised Charles' request for Yorkshire to pay for the billeting of troop in 1640 in the Bishops War
- Irish Rebellion (Oct 1641) and the revelations of Sir Philem O'Neil that Charles commissioned the rebellion (forged) called into question Bishops (12 impeached Dec 1641 and abolished Feb 1642) and King's control of his militia
42
Three Kingdoms- Historians against (5)
Nicholas Canny- Acknowledges pan-kingdom impact of Wentworth but otherwise attacks criticises 'British History' as narrow and unbalanced
John Morrill- Acknowledges some veracity in British Approach but claims each Kingdom experienced a different War and to a different extent
Morrill also accuses Russell of having the "Scottish tail wagging the English dog"
Keith Brown- Argues that few participants in the war had a truly British outlook and that Britain did not exist until the Act of Union in 1707
```
Jonathan Scott (2000)- English far more aware of European context than British Context until Act of Union 1707
--> European context emphasised throughout the 17th Century- with not only the Civil War but also The Exclusion Crisis (1678-81) and the Glorious Revolution (1688-9) - all of which held underlying fears in the context of European Catholic Monarchical forms eg. absolutist power and standing armies
```
43
Three Kingdom- Facts against (5)
- Each of the Kingdoms were fighting for a different religion (Scotland for Presbyterianism, Ireland for Catholicism and Parliament for religious toleration) and political motivations
- Before 1707, Britain did not exist and there is no evidence in any of the Kingdoms that anyone felt British
- The wars in each kingdom took place at different times and were markedly different, with different outcomes also
- 2nd Bishops' War finished in 1640, Irish began in 1641 and English War starts in 1642 --> Not directly correlated
- Geographical reach of Protestantism in Europe shrunk from 1/2 to 1/5 between 1590 and 1690 (European Context > British Context)
44
Three Kingdoms argument
Issues across Kingdoms caused tensions but time lags and different causes implies only indirect causation. Billiard Balls of different sizes and hits of different impact. 'Diminished Majesty' and willingness to rebel greatest impact of NBH
Jonathan Scott's retort interesting: European Context rather than British
45
Charles' Personality- Historians for (4)
Derek Hirst- "The most inept of all English Kings" & "Foolish to underestimate the part played by his personality"
Conrad Russell- "I find Civil War without him impossible to imagine"
Richard Cust- Conflict between Charles' desire to uphold his authority and the nation's desire to limit it
Johann Sommerville- Charles' belief in the Divine Right of Kings and his willingness to exact this through extra-parliamentary tax caused divides
46
Charles' personality- Factual detail for (9)
Grand Remonstrance- 206 Arguments against the King's rule
Majority of the gentleman and knights supported Charles except where the King and his army never went eg. Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex
Attempted arrest of 5 Members in Jan 1642 led the end of physical co-operation (Now Hampden Court vs London) and the direct militarisation of sides --> All of the 5 members fought for Parliament
The Incident, October 1641, meant that Argyll, Hamilton and Lanark eventually sided with Parliament following the SL+C
Cromwell was one of those charged with a Distraint of Knighthood Fine
Charles was awkward, stubborn and introverted- Repeated closure of Parliaments (i.e. 1629 & 1640) and close reliance on personal advisors and friends eg. Strafford + Buckingham
Extra Parliamentary taxation, such as Ship Money and Forced Loan was revolutionary from the King
Charles requested annual reports on the state of the Church from 1628 onwards and they had his annotations all over them (Influence in Church policy which proved deeply unpopular)
In Early 1639, Charles issued Proclomations of Traquair, declaring his support and commission of the Laudian Prayer Book in Scotland- forced many in the Covenant and England to take up direct opposition with him, and encouraged militarisation
47
Charles' personality- Historians against (2)
Kevin Sharpe- Personal Rule was relatively harmonious period
Ann Hughes & Cust- Deeper rooted ideological and functional issues at play than simple dislike of King; King's had been disliked in past without going to war
48
Charles' personality- Factual detail against (3)
Very little opposition in personal rule until Hampden Trial (97.5% Ship Money paid in 1635, Over 90% 1637)
Very little opposition to 'Revolutionary Laudian innovations' until 1637, King reported thousands of letters of support
A number of those who opposed Charles during the Personal Rule, went on to support him at the time of War (eg. Culpepper & Falkland)
49
Charles' personality argument
Dislike of his personality coincided with dislike of his religious and constitutional policy. However, not enough as sole factor for sidetaking. Fear of social disorder for example would be irrelevant to affections for the King's person
50
Diminished Majesty/Crisis of Confidence- Historians for (4)
Lawrence Stone- "James was suspect to the English from the Beginning" + James a "Drunken homosexual"
Everitt- By 1640, MPs seemed to have lost all confidence in the court
Derek Hirst- Charles' ineptitude played a part in the breakdown of trust towards the monarch
Conrad Russell- Termed the "Problem of Diminished Majesty" throughout the Three Kingdoms
51
Diminished Majesty/Crisis of Confidence- Factual detail for (7)
Over 800 cases of laymen and peasants refusing to assist on rounds in 1640
17% decline in applications to County Sheriff from 1630 to 1640
Protestation Oath 1641 & Grand Remonstrance 1641 both emphasised mistakes made by the Monarchy and so openly encouraged questioning of Divine Prerogative
Tax strikes of 1639, popular iconoclasm and riots emphasied diminishing authority
Keith Mallen, a Nottingham Butcher, was arrested for chanting "vulgar Proclomations against his highness"
Wisest Fool in Christendom' was a commonly used name for James I- diminishing respect for Monarchy
- Simon Seagar, miner, accused of sedition for discussing the treachery of the King
- Henry Darley criticised Charles' request for Yorkshire to pay for the billeting of troop in 1640 in the Bishops War
52
Diminished Majesty/Crisis of Confidence- Historians against (3)
Jenny Wormald- Historiographical disenchatnment with James I came from typical English dislike of Scots and
Scottish historians saw James as compotent
Gordan Donaldson- James I had "remarkable political ability"
Kevin Sharpe- Tension with King only came to fore from 1637 onwards (General Revisionist tendency)
53
Diminished Majesty/Crisis of Confidence- Facts against (5)
Found that Anthony Weldon, a minor household officer of James I, wrote 'A Perfect Description', fuelling many of the negative rumours about James and 'The wisest fool in Christendom can be traced back to him'
Similar to 'Opposition to Charles+Personality' - little opposition to Kingship until 1637 onwards, implying ulterior factors
Very little opposition in personal rule until Hampden Trial (97.5% Ship Money paid in 1635, Over 90% 1637)
Very little opposition to 'Revolutionary Laudian innovations' until 1637, King reported thousands of letters of support
A number of those who opposed Charles during the Personal Rule, went on to support him at the time of War (eg. Culpepper & Falkland)
54
Diminished Majesty/Crisis of Confidence argument
No sound evidence to suggest long term failing of Monarchy. Dissent towards Monarchy only seemed sustained from 1637 onwards, implying ulterior factors (eg. religion, functional etc). Did not seem a deterministic approach towards a conflict with monarchy
55
Socio economic historians against? (2)
Hugh Trevor Roper: Divide between rising and mere gentry (Conflict within the gentry- not a homogenous class)
Zagorin: Classes did not exist in 17th Century as they do today- failure of Marxism by trying to model past on modern sociology
History A2
flashcards
Decks in class (8)
# Cards
