Struggling to keep up with Charles I, Cromwell and Charles II's antics? Well no need to worry any more as you're in the right place! Here you will find useful notes and simple information to help you succeed in your A2 History (course 3D British Monarchy: The Crisis of State) exam in May! My name is Caitlin Hughes, I received A* at History A-level and currently on a gap year.

Saturday, 27 December 2014

The Rump and Religion 

  • The Rump was generally conservative. Most MP's wanted to promote Puritan "godliness," and to curb the excesses of the various millenarian sects
  • Acts were passed imposing penalties on adultery and fornication - the Blasphemy Act of 1650 was aimed at curbing religious extremism
  • Censorship was imposed in order to limit the propagation of millenarian pamphlets and a government journal giving the official version of events was published
  • An Act was passed in 1650 repealing the statute that required compulsory Sunday worship. This statute dated back to the reign of Elizabeth I and had been a mainstay of the power of the Anglican Church 
  • In 1652, a "Committee of the Propagation of the Gospel" was formed as a means of controlling the appointment of clergy
In general, the Rum was cautious in implementing Church reform, making a few concessions to the religious extremists.

Dec 1648 - The Rump Parliament

The Establishment of the Rump Parliament 

  • It was the name given to Parliament after Pride's Purge, December 1648. It was also known as the "Purged Parliament" as it consisted of a small group of Independent MPs
  • With the support of the Army, the Rump declared itself "the supreme power in this nation" on 4th of Jan 1649, with powers to pass Acts of Parliament without the consent of the King or the House of Lords
  • One of the first actions was to set up the High Court of Justice, especially convened for the trial of the King 
  • Following the King's execution, the Rump abolished the H.o.L and the monarchy itself
  • The Rum was in an unprecedented constitutional position. For the first time, Parliament was solely responsible for governing the nation 
  • There were no clear administrative guidelines for this new combination of executive and legislative powers. Much of its work was done through committees
  • This frequently led to problems of co-ordination and communication, made worse because the boundaries between the Rump and the Council of State were not clearly defined. 

Thursday, 11 September 2014

To Kill a King - an Act of Regicide

The trial of Charles I began on January 20th 1649 in Westminster Hall. The public were allowed access to the trial. 135 commissioners were appointed as judges and John Bradshaw, an inexperienced judge, was President of the Court. 
After Pride's Purge, it was difficult to assemble a Court to judge Charles as many stayed away from Westminster and many did not want to be associated with the trial of the Kind. Fairfax, although a leader of the NMA, only attended one meeting on the trial of Charles. When his name was called to register attendance at the trial, there was silence - his wife, who was in one of the public galleries, shouted "he hath more wit then to be here."
Only 68 out of the 135 commissioners attended the trial - with only 59 signing the death warrant. 
  • This suggests how radical the commissioners must have thought the event was. Also, there was also the possibility of one of Charles' sons or a member of the royal family becoming monarch again and the people who had allowed the execution of Charles would be hunted down, tried and executed themselves for treason. 
Charles was tried for crimes against his people and the laws of England. It was claimed that Charles had attacked the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom and also banned the people from their traditional right to government. 
Charles complained about these charges, due to the fact that the legality of the trial was in question. The Rump Parliament was different as it was biased and did not support the King, plus the fact that it had not been elected. Charles questioned their right to judge him as they were not a legitimate authority and they had no right to put the King to trial. 

January 30th - Charles' public execution 

Before his death, Charles' last speech declared that he had fought for the liberties of the people and declared himself a "martyr of the people."
After Charles' execution, some reports suggest that there was a stunned silence at the moment of execution. One 17 year old boy in the crowd at Whitehall recorded that the execution was met with "such a groan as I have never heard before, and desire I may never hear again." Similar views were repeated as one man claimed no king "ever left the world with more sorrow: women miscarried; men fell into melancholy."

Was the Trial of Charles I always meant to end in Execution?

Yes 
  • Many believe that Charles was responsible for two wars and this was his justice. He needed to be removed so there would be no more Royalists uprisings.
  • The NMA's success during the Civil Wars was seen as "God's providence" (God's doing) he was meant to be punished. Coward states that religious zeal pushed Cromwell to execute Charles.
  • The intransigent settlement negotiations had gone on for too long. Coward saw Charles as "blocking future peace" and "had to executed"
  • Pride's Purge appears to be calculated - Charles was going to suffer a punishment 
  • Kishlanksy states that in the weeks before the trial began "there was no turning back."
No
  • Settlement period was hugely unsuccessful due to Charles. Some saw the impending trial as a way to force Charles into settlement, not to remove him. Many MPs felt pressured into appearing as commissioners - execution was not the only option 
  • Starkey - the death warrant of Charles suggests there was indecision over the event. Starkey refers to the corrections made to the document - the date had been changed twice and the original executioner refused to be involved, so names were altered. 

So far...

  • The Engagement, December 1647 - Threat of the Scottish invasion - Charles made an agreement with the Scots for Presbyterianism to be in England for 3 years - Solemn League and Covenant. Charles' intransigence blamed as he could no longer be trusted.
  • Vote of No Addresses, January 1648 - An Act by Parliament where negotiations with Charles was banned 
  • Second Civil War, April 1648-1649 - In 1648, Cromwell squashed the invading Scots and people saw the New Model Army as "God's Instrument"
  • Remonstrance of the Army, November 1648 - Ireton made this, where it stated that Parliament should put Charles on trial. If parliament refused there would be a purge on Parliament and then the King's trial
  • Politicalisation - the nation had become more "politicalised" mainly due to the NMA, getting more involved in politics and having their say in how Charles' and the nation should be treated. 
  • Newport Treaty, December 5th 1648 - Parliament revoked the Vote of No Addresses and negotiated with Charles. A vote was held in Parliament where 129 MPs voted to continue with the Newport Treaty with Charles, with the 83 against reacting with the Remonstrance of the Army. Here, Parliament had become a barrier of settlement.

Pride's Purge

The vote in the House of Commons on December 5th, 1648, confirmed the Newport Treaty and Parliament's willingness to negotiate with the King. This made the Army act. 
  • December 5th, 1648 - a vote in Parliament with 129 for/83 against - confirmed the Newport Treaty and Parliament's willingness to negotiate with the King, This was a trigger point for the Army - Ireton and Independents held a meeting where they persuaded the army to use military action to force a purge on Parliament on all of the King's supporters
  • December 6th, 1648 - Troops led by Colonel Thomas Pride headed to purge Parliament. Pride had a list of MPs that were regarded as enemies of the Army and stood at the entrance of Parliament, deciding who should enter. Around 180 out of 470 MPs were prevented from entering. A small number were regarded as extremists (Holles) and were forced to fled London, but others were arrested. Around 100 MPs stayed away from London during the Purge. 

Who was involved?

  • Henry Ireton - organised the Purge
  • Fairfax - apparently had no knowledge of the event, and was said to be furious when he heard what had happened. 
  • Cromwell - opinions divided and no direct evidence of his involvmenent with the event, which stood in his favour. However, many do comment that he did approve the event, 

What were the Consequences?

All of the MPs who were leading, involved in or supported negotiations with Charles were excluded from Parliament during the Purge or had been warned to stay away. Only 80 MPs sat in the "Rump Parliament," leaving Cromwell and the Independent MP's. Consequentially, this left the NMA, mainly the Grandees, in an exciting situation - they could finally do as they pleased as they had eliminated all barriers to their aims. 

The Levellers - Who were they and why did they have such influence?

"Wee still find the Nation oppressed with grievances of the same destructive nature as formerly though under other notions." (Leveller Large Petition, March 1647)
The Levellers were a group of people who called for economic, political and religious reform due to the result of economic distress caused by civil war. They were influenced by the ideas of natural law and built an intellectual tradition of dissent. 
  • Natural Law - a law that is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere above human laws. Associated with natural rights that limited the power of the monarchy. 
The Levellers were led by John Lilburne, Richard Overton and William Walwyn. John Lilburne had suffered persecution in the 1630's by publishing literature against the Armenian reforms of William Laud. 

The Diggers - the "True Levellers"

The Diggers were another response to the political, economic and social effects of the Civil War. They established a commune as a solution to the social inequalities. They were led by Gerrard Winstanely who said "freedom is the man that will turn the world upside down." They believed in total political and social equality. 
Kishlansky argued that the "Digger movement appeared more ominous that it actually was" because the ideas and actions of the movement offered a fundamental challenge to the nature of politics and society at the time, but their influence was limited.

Why did the Levellers deny connections with the Diggers?

Their agenda of "leveling of all debates" - the amendment of private property rights - was too much of a radical step for the Levellers, who were attempting to negotiate a political settlement within the existing social order. 

What were the main aims of the Diggers?

  1. Communal cultivation of the land and end to property rights 
  2. People to support themselves by cultivating the waste and common land of England 
  3. Utopian communistic society

The Putney Debates

The Putney Debates, held in November 1647, were a series of discussions between factions of the New Model Army and the Levellers concerning a new constitution for England. They were held at the Church of St Mart the Virgin, Surrey. 
  • The Grandees failed attempt to negotiate a settlement with Charles had lost the support of the military and civilian radicals. The Levellers criticised Ireton in particular for being too lenient in his negotiations with the King and Parliament, and accused the Grandees of betraying the interests of the common soldiers and people of England. 
  • In October 1647, the 5 of the most radical cavalry regiments elected new Agitators - known as the "New Agents" - to represent their views. The New Agents issued a political manifesto: "The Case of the Armie Truly Stated" and endorsed the constitutional proposals drafted by civilian Levellers in the "Agreement of the People."
  • The radicals wanted a constitution based upon manhood suffrage ("one man, one vote"), biennial parliaments and a re-organisation of parliamentary constituencies. Authority was to be vested in the House of Commons rather than the King and Lords. Certain "native rights" were declared for all Englishmen - freedom of conscience, freedom from imprisonment into the armed forced and equality before the law.
  • Cromwell and Ireton regarded the Levellers' demands for manhood suffrage as "tantamount to anarchy"

The Agreement of the People, 1647

  • MP's should be elected in proportion to the amount of people in their constituencies
  • Parliament should be dissolved on the 30th September 1648
  • Parliaments should be held biennially and sit every other year from April to September
  • A biennial parliament should be the supreme authority in the land, with the powers to make/repeal laws, appoint officials and conduct domestic and foreign policy. 

The Whitehall Debates

  • After the King's defeat in the 2nd Civil War, an extended version of the Agreement of the People was promoted by Lilburne who hoped to find a middle way between royal despotism (or tyrannical absolutism) and military dictatorship. 
  • The new Agreement was discussed by Levellers, London Independents and the Army Council at Whitehall in December 1648 in the aftermath of Pride's Purge. 
  • Lilburne wanted to secure Parliament's acceptance of the Agreement before the King was brought to trial so that the trial would  have a basis in a legitimate and legal constitution. 
  • However, Lilburne and his colleague Richard Overton walked out of the discussions when Army officers, led by Ireton, insisted upon making further modifications to the Agreement before it was presented to Parliament. 

Why was this significant?

Here, both Cromwell and Ireton were trying to curb the extremism of the Levellers, particularly over a proposal that wanted to extend the vote to all adult males. Attempts to get support for the Agreement at a meeting of the Army at Cochbush field were forcibly opposed by the Grandees. Lilburne tried making a midway point between tyrannical anarchy and military dictatorship, but this still was not enough for Cromwell and Ireton. 
In the end, discussions continued without Lilburne's input. The revised Agreement was finally presented to the House of Commons as a basis of a new constitution on 20 January 1648, the very days that the public sessions of the High Court of Justice began. As Ireton had calculated, MP's postponed discussion of the Agreement until after the King's trial, and it was never taken up again by Parliament. 

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Debate centres around Charles' intentions during the settlement period:
By 1648, he knows there will be no settlement and now aims to be a martyr for the monarchy to be resorted in the future
Or
Charles never wanted a settlement (due to his "divine right"). He is the main reason why he is executed. 
Suicide or murder?

Charles after escaping Hampton Court fled to the Isle of Wight and hoped that his relative Colonel Hammond would protect him, then he planned to head to France. Colonel Hammond, however, was loyal to Parliament and turned him in, where he was imprisoned in Carisbrooke Castle. Charles then began corresponding with the Scots and in December 1647, he signed the Solemn League and Covenant in the English Parliament and imposed Presbyterianism for 3 years. He also agreed that Scotsmen would have greater influence in the English government with a view of eventually combining England and Scotland as one Kingdom. In return the Scots would take him to London to negotiate with Parliament, who if refused, the Scots would then send an Army to England to assist Charles. 

Why was the Engagement Significant?

It meant a real possibility of war or Scottish invasion and hardens views towards the King. It lead to the Vote of No Addresses in January 1648, which stated that there would be no further negotiations with Charles. 

Reading - July 16th, 1647


  • The Army's General Council met. Appeared to be signs that the general unity of the army that had held to date was beginning to break down. 
  • The agitators had become more impatient with the slow progress in achieving their demands and were pushing for a more immediate march on London to secure their demands 
  • At Reading, it became more clear that senior officers now had a fundamental design for settlement and were negotiating directly with Charles
  • These negotiations opened Ireton and Cromwel up to charges of hypocrisy. 

Heads of Proposals - August 2nd, 1647

  • Regular biennial parliaments 
  • Reform of parliamentary representation 
  • Parliamentary control of army and navy
  • Parliamentary appointment of great offices of state for 10 years 
  • Religious settlement that maintained national Church with bishops, but no coercive power
  • Act of Oblivion (pardon) that exempted only a few royalists from punishments 

Negotiations with Charles 

  • Their willingness to compromise with Charles brought division in the army to a head and would also be the basis of their own more hard-line attitude to Charles after the 2nd Civil War 
  • The Grandees of the NMA wanted settlement because they wanted a good working relationship with the King, with Berkley commenting that Ireton may able to get the "Heads" through the Army Council. 
  • Ireton modified the "Heads" after talking to the King and there is little doubt that Ireton and Cromwell went as far as they felt they could in trying to get Charles to accept the Heads
  • The tension between the Army and Parliament increased. The Political Presbyterians organised demonstrations in favour of peace on the 26th July, with the convenience of Holles, a mob invaded the Commons and forced the passing of a resolution to invite the King to London. 
  • By 3rd of August, the Army was just outside of London, where the Political Independents joined them after walking out of Parliament. 
  • Charles escaped from Hampton Court on 11th November. In response to the new military threat posed by Charles' escape and his negotiations with the Scots, the NMA officers reunited. An attempted Leveller inspired military in the army at Wore was crushed. 
After Charles' surrender, the New Model Army became increasingly politicised. This was due to their dissatisfaction with the settlements offered to the King by Parliament. They also had material concerns - wages were £3 million in arrears and Parliament had proposed to disband them in the Newcastle Propositions. As Parliament failed to address their concerns, the demands of the army became more radical.

When Parliament proposed to disband the Army, Fairfax ordered a meeting at Newmarket on 4th/5th June 1647. During this meeting a more formal political structure in the army was developed. A General Council was created to allow official strategies and possible settlement to be discussed. The General Council was made up of two officers and two agitators (more radical, pushing for change) from each regiment. This was led by Henry Ireton who had the role of Commissary General.

What were the Heads of Proposals?

The army had so much say during the settlement period because:

Physical control of Charles: 
Charles had been placed under semi-protective house arrest by Parliament after his surrender. He was based at Holmby in Northamptonshire. On 2nd June, 1647, the Army seized Charles from Parliament. George Joyce, a Coronet in the army arrived at Holmby House and said that he had Cromwell's permission to remove the King. Joyce had associations with the agitators. He was allowed to take custody of Charles and immediately took him to the Army's headquarters at Newmarket. Most of the garrison protecting the King went with Joyce. Fairfax was furious but it seemed as though Joyce had the approval of Cromwell and Ireton

The Solemn Engagement:
The first step of the army's demands that had been declared in the Humble Remonstrance were put into action through the documents of the Solemn Engagement which encouraged cooperation between the army's officers and the agitators. This document was mainly drafted by Ireton. In June, Cromwell, Ireton and Fairfax met with Charles and to reinforce the Solemn Engagement, impeachment charges were drawn against 11 MPs, including Holles (Political Presbyterian) - the army saw him as leading Parliament against them.

Humble Remonstrance 
Produced on the 4th June, 1647. The Remonstrance declared that the army would not disband until their grievances were met - i.e. indemnity (no prosecution or punishment for affairs during the First Civil War) and also the removal of the Political Presbyterians who wanted to disband the army.

"A Representation of the Army" 
Drafted on the 14th June, 1647 by Ireton, Lambert and Cromwell. The Representation outlined the army's political position and what they wanted. Main points focused on:

  • Purge of Parliament
  • Future Parliaments of Fixed Duration 
  • Guaranteed right of freedom or people to petition to Parliament (meaning free speech and say)
  • Liberty of tender consciences (religious freedom)


All these influenced what was to be in the Heads of Proposals 

In the winter of 1646-1647 the Newcastle Propositions were revised:

  • Demobilise the NMA but keep a smaller armed force to send to Ireland 
  • Create an alternative "safe" army based on London trained bands 

What was the significance of the Newcastle Propositions?

The approach that the Political Presbyterians took allowed an entrance for the New Model Army to negotiate on the terms of settlement, thus being the zenith of their politicisation 

Key Groups in the Settlement Period 

In 1646, the settlement meant making a deal with the King. There was no thought of making a deal for the future which did not include Charles I (at this point no man was thinking of regicide).

Why couldn't a settlement be reached?


  • Charles - attitude and intransigence made negoitation difficult. Arguably Charles could never have accepted any form of a settlement 
  • New Model Army - increasingly politicised. Relationship with Parliament had changed
  • Parliament - there was division and factions among groups who had their own different ideas - this was the rift of the Political Presbyterians and the Political Independents 
  • Radicalism - development of religious and political radicalism, especially within the NMA. 

Parliament during this time

Division within Parliament over how to fight the Civil War alerted Charles to the growing factions and he played on this - it was one of his political advantages over Parliament 
 
Political Presbyterians (Peace Party) V. Political Independents (War Party)
Political Presbyterians - Willing to accept settlement with the King on minimal terms
  • Most influential group in Parliament by 1646 
  • Conservative on social and political matters
  • Opposed to religious toleration 
  • Favoured negotiations for peace with the King 
  • Drew closer to the Scots 
  • Disenchanted by the NMA
  • Main aim to prevent social revolution 
Political Independents - Charles must accept limitations before NMA is disbanded (meaning security within the settlement)
  • Oliver Cromwell a member of this group
  • Dislike the authoritarianism of Scottish Presbyterianism 
  • Wanted increasingly religious tolerance
  • Allied with the NMA 
What was equally important at the time was what the nation wanted - Farr comments that "most of the country actually favours a quick resolution in order to gain peace." 
This is understandable as people didn't want to go to war in the first place. The war continued longer than many people thought it would have and therefore this made it easy to back the Political Presbyterians as they were willing to go back to the traditional system. 190,000 Englishmen died and this caused an appeal and need for settlement. 

Wednesday, 27 August 2014

There was a Second Civil War for many reasons...

Long term reasons:

  • Fractions with Parliament - between the New Model Army and Royalists - lack of unity
  • Failed settlement after the First Civil War
  • Charles' intransigence - repeatedly vague during genuine efforts of settlement 
  • Solemn League and Covenant - Did Parliament have time to uphold their promise to the Covenanters? 

Short term reasons:

  • The Engagement - the threat of the Scottish army invading Parliament if they do not accept Charles' acceptance of the Solemn League and Covenant. They would march to London, where Parliament was
  • Parliament and the NMA faced a Scottish invasion 
  • Still Royalist support - more than Fairfax had predicted
  • Charles' personality and intransigence. 

July 1646 - Newcastle Propositions: Parliament (Presbyterians) proposed that the armed forces should be controlled by Parliament for 20 years and that only Parliament could disband itself


May 1647 - Solemn Engagement: Army would not disband until they were paid


June 1647 - Declaration of the Army: said "we are not mercenaries" and demanded that anti-army MPs should leave. 11 MPs left as a result.


Summer 1647 - Heads of Proposals: army offered Charles a settlement where the Church would become independent of the State


August 1647 - Putney Debates: the Army debated what their political stance should be amongst themselves


December 1648: Pride's Purge. 


1642-1646: Timeline so far

Timeline 1642-1646

1642
  • October 23rd - The Battle of Edgehill - both sides claim victory
  • Stand off at Turnham Green 
1643
  • King aimed at 3 pronged attack
  • June - Newcastle won by the Royalists at Adwalton Moore, gaining the North
  • Main Royalist force removed from London
  • Cromwell formed "Ironside" - disciplined and trained cavalry 
  • Cessation treaty 
  • Irish Catholics sign a truce with Charles - Cessation Treaty 
  • Solemn League and Covenant 
1644
  • July - Marston Moor where Charles lost North and York which were surrendered to Parliament 
  • 2nd Battle of Naseby 
  • May - New Model Army created by Fairfax and Cromwell 
  • Self-Denying Ordinance 
1645 
  • June - Battle of Naseby where Parliament won 
1646
  • March - Royalists surrender at Stow on the Wall
  • May - Charles surrender to the Scots
  • June - last Royalist stronghold surrender 
  • July - Newcastle Propositions 
  • October - Bishops abolished by Parliament 

What position was Charles I in after he surrendered in 1646 and why?

At the time of his surrender in 1646, the King still had authority over England and his multiple kingdoms. Although the Parliamentarian forces may have driven him to surrender, Charles was still King of England and therefore upheld all authority over both forces.
Charles had received the throne via the "Divine Right of Kings" and was seen as God's defender of faith. To remove the King would be to some, especially Charles, blasphemy. To commit regicide would be an act against God and therefore a sin - ultimately going against the ideology of the New Model Army. 

What was the New Model Army?

  • They revolutionised warfare
  • Professional 
  • First standing army 
  • Regularly paid 
  • Motivated
  • Oliver Cromwell and Fairfax were the Commanders in Chief 
  • Many were/did become Puritans 
  • Religiously driven - motivated soldiers, perhaps more than any other side in the Civil War
  • Never lost a battle
  • Established in 1645 and lasted until the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 

This section of the course is a common exam question, for example June 2011 "The main reason for the defeat of the Royalist cause in the First Civil War was the leadership of Charles I." In these notes you will find key themes that would help you answer the 45 marker. 

Administration 

Oxford was the main Royalist stronghold, but it was limited in the range of its authority. Charles' diluted the power that was held in Oxford by opening another Royalist stronghold in Bristol, removing capable men like Hyde. 

Scotland 

Solemn League and Covenant September 1643 - Parliament had an advantage of the Royalists. Parliament had paid £30,000 a month for the Scots' army. At Montrose there were several defeats. This makes it crystal clear that the Covenanters caused masses of trouble for the Royalists. 

Division 

Henrietta Maria (Charles' French wife) and Hyde put forward different ideas. The Queen wanted to the war to continue - this subsequently affected Charles' honour. Hyde, on the other hand, wanted a settlement with Parliament. This and a combination of Charles' lack of leadership and ability lead to weak and incoherent policy. 

Indecisiveness

Charles failed to recognise that he needed to take direct advantages over the Parliamentarians on the battlefield. This was due to his indecisiveness with the gentry and lack of creative resources

Generals 

Charles had roped in "influential men" to gather support but instead, they divided opinion among the Royalist army. Some of Charles' soldiers were not trained properly, especially compared to the power of the New Model Army. The presence of the Princes of the Rhineland caused division 

Charles as Military Leader

Charles had appointed himself as Commander in Chief. He ignored advice from lower ranks and couldn't unite supporters. 

Charles' agreement with Catholics 

September 1643 - Charles signs an agreement with the Irish Catholics. This caused the fear that Charles would use Catholic soldiers against the Parliamentarians. Charles made this mistake again with another peace treaty in 1645

Others 

  • June, 1645 - Crushing Royalist defeat at the Battle of Naseby. Effectively ends any real resistance. 
  • May, 1646 - Charles surrenders at the Battle of Newark to the Scots, who then sell him to Parliament. 
  • June, 1646 - Siege of Oxford ends as Oxford fails (which had been a Royalist stronghold) 
"Charles was a poor war leader and was unable to provide strong leadership was the war turned in Parliament's favour." - Cust

The answer is YES!

Earl of Manchester, Commander of Parliament's Eastern Association Army at a meeting of the Council of War:
"Gentleman, lets consider what we do.... If we fight 100 times and beat him 99 times, he will be King still... but if he beats us but once... we shall be hanged."
This may have been a negative outlook, but the Earl of Manchester was kind of, correct. Manchester here is stating that because of Charles' legitimate authority it seemed that the Parliamentarians were engaged in a losing battle - Charles will always remain King due to Divine Right and if he were to succeed, they would be charged with treason. 
However, Parliamentarian radicals such as Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton did not share the same negative perception of the war and reacted to Manchester's comments in disgust. Others also believed that this attitude was preventing Parliament taking the final decisive victory. This theory helped push Parliament to remodel its army and war effort in creating the New Model Army in May 1645. 

The Royalists

  • Led by the King - legitimate authority and recognised lawful ruler whom inspired allegiance to the public 
  • Focused on taking of London - an area of wealth
  • Support from aristocracy and higher gentry - rich people who financed Charles' war. Often had military experience
  • Military aid abroad - allies such as the Princes of the Rhineland provided financial and military assistance

The Parliamentarians 


  • Finance: committee of both Kingdoms (England and Scotland). In February 1644 the Solemn League and Covenant was signed. Parliament had better means of raising money e.g. they could implement taxes - land tax. 
  • Holding London: centre of printing; finance through City Loans; manpower - 10% of the population; centre of industry; port town - can destruct ships supply Royalist equipment; Navy on the Parliamentary side. 
  • Local Administration and Communities - special communities set up; Charles controlled mostly poor areas; Navy having declared for Parliament made it hard for Charles to receive foreign aid.
  • Hutton - "it was the local community, not Parliament, which defeated Charles I."

  1. Both sides expected in 1642 that one early battle would be decisive. The Battle of Edgehill October, however, was a draw. 
  2. The prospect of fighting a long war frightened some MP's into resuming negotiations with the King. These negotiations, known as the Oxford Treaty January 1643 did not lead to a settlement 
  3. In 1643 things went very well for the King. The Royalists captured a lot of territory and several leading Parliamentarians were killed.
  4. The King's successes led to a crisis of confidence in Parliament. There were demands for the resignation of the Earl of Essex, but when the King's army besieged Gloucester, Essex commanded the army that was sent to its relief. 
  5. In 1644 the tide of war began to turn in Parliament's favour. The Scots joined with Parliament and the Battle of Marston Moor (July) destroyed the King's army in the north of England. 
  6. During 1644 political disagreements threatened to undermine Parliament's successes. The consequences was the Self-Denying Ordinance (December) and the formation of the New Model Army in May 1645.
  7. In 1645 the war turned decisively in Parliament's favour. Major victories at Naseby and Langport defeated the King's main armies and captured most of England and Wales
  8. The war ended in 1646 as Parliament captured the remaining Royalists castles and strongholds, such as Newark and Oxford. 


Key point - Charles' defeat was not inevitable

  • Charles had support from the Constitutional Royalists
  • Many people were loyal to the King 
  • His defeat was not written in stone, 
As King (a recognised authority) Charles had greater political sway for those deciding which side to join.
  • The Church - a key opponent in one's decision to join a side - Charles had this advantage over the Parliamentarians (why? Because it was seen as a stable institution). 
  • Divine right of the King and how Charles was "divine in nature" as God was on his side. 
Parliament had to use propaganda leaflets to persuade the public that they were a legitimate authority, especially when the King had ignored their counsel and taken dubious private advice. 
  • The King was seen as "tyrannical"
  • King and Parliament haven't functioned together for a very long time. 
Powered by Blogger.