scholarly journals The Reign of Charles I

1912 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 19-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. Firth
Keyword(s):  

The reign of Charles I opened with the celebration of the new king's marriage. Charles succeeded his father on March 27, 1625, and Henrietta Maria made her entry into London on June 16. A ballad entitled ‘Jack of Lent's Ballad’ celebrated the Queen's coming, and described by anticipation the pageants with which the citizens of London received her. In one place she was to be met by St. George with a welcome to St. Denis; in another Jonah was to appear out of the mouth of his whale and promise to supply her with fish on Fridays; elsewhere the Graces and the Fates were to hail her with appropriate remarks about her beauty and her good fortune. Besides these there was to be a figure symbolising the political significance of the marriage. At the Exchange, beside the three Fates,‘Spain's Infanta shall stand by Wringing her hands, and thus shall cry, “I do repent too late.”’

Author(s):  
Siobhan Keenan

The Progresses, Processions, and Royal Entries of King Charles I, 1625–1642 is the first book-length study of the history, and the political and cultural significance, of the progresses, public processions, and royal entries of Charles I. As well as offering a much fuller account of the king’s progresses and progress entertainments than currently exists, this study throws new light on one of the most vexed topics in early Stuart historiography—the question of Charles I’s accessibility to his subjects and their concerns, and the part that this may, or may not, have played in the conflicts which culminated in the English civil wars and Charles’s overthrow. Drawing on extensive archival research, the book opens with an introduction to the early modern culture of royal progresses and public ceremonial as inherited and practised by Charles I. Part I explores the question of the king’s accessibility and engagement with his subjects further through case studies of Charles’s ‘great’ progresses in 1633, 1634, and 1636. Part II turns attention to royal public ceremonial culture in Caroline London, focusing on Charles’s royal entry on 25 November 1641. More widely travelled than his ancestors, Progresses reveals a monarch who was only too well aware of the value of public ceremonial and who did not eschew it, even if he was not always willing to engage in ceremonial dialogue with his people or able to deploy the power of public display to curry support for his policies as successfully as his Tudor and Stuart predecessors.


Science ◽  
1964 ◽  
Vol 144 (3616) ◽  
pp. 267-270
Author(s):  
M. Viorst

1981 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moss

Deaths of sovereigns or political leaders are generally accompanied by dramatic representation and celebration of the political order over which they have presided. The circumstances of death, funeral rites and destination of the corpse (cremation, burial or public display) proclaim the value and necessity of the ideas embodied in the ruler's office. However practically deficient or scandalous any particular ruler's interpretation of that office, the activities which surround his death reaffirm the invulnerability of the transcendent order to any local or temporary individual failings. Sometimes, however, the circumstances of a sovereign's death can be appropriated by his opponents not merely to decree that death but to destroy the ideological underpinnings of the political system itself: the trials and executions of Charles i and Louis xvi were not simply the punishment of individuals for specific crimes but rather symbolic destructions of monarchy itself staged by Cromwell and the conventionnels (Walzer 1974). Such occasions have been rare. A radical political opposition can expect at most to intervene in the timing of the ruler's death, by assassination, but draw no benefit from this, since it is likely to be even more effective than peaceful death in stimulating public affirmation of the existing order.


2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
LLOYD BOWEN

ABSTRACTCharles I and his clerical supporters are often said to have been wary of print and public discussion, only entering the public sphere reluctantly and to comparatively little effect during the political crisis of 1642. This article challenges such views by focusing on the neglected role of official forms of print such as proclamations, declarations, and state prayers and their promulgation in the nation's churches. It traces the ways in which the king utilized the network of parish clergy to broadcast his message and mobilize support during the Scottish crisis of 1639–40 and again in the ‘paper war’ of 1642. The article argues that traditional forms of printed address retained their potency and influence despite the proliferation of polemical pamphlets and newsbooks. The significance of these mobilizations is demonstrated by the profound disquiet they caused among the king's Covenanter and parliamentarian opponents as well as the ‘good effects’ they had in generating support for the royalist cause.


Author(s):  
D.O. Gordienko ◽  

The article presents the results of a study devoted to the history of the British armed forces in the “long” 17th century. The militia was the backbone of England's national military system. The author examines the aspects of the development of the institutions of the modern state during the reign of the Stuart dynasty, traces the process of the development of the militia and the formation of the regular army. He reveals the role of the militia in the political events of the Century of Revolutions: the reign of Charles I, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Restoration age, the Glorious Revolution, and also gives a retrospective review of the eventsof the 18th century.


2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-379
Author(s):  
Michael A. G. Haykin

William Kiffen, a central figure in the emergence of the British Particular Baptist community in the seventeenth century, came to congregationalist and baptistic convictions in the political and religious turmoil of the reign of Charles I. By the early 1640s he was a key leader among the Particular Baptists in London, and went on to play a central role in their establishment as a distinct community over the next six decades. He was personally acquainted with not only Oliver Cromwell, but also Charles II and James II. His major literary work was a defense of closed communion, in which he opposed the views of John Bunyan. Kiffen won this debate, and so determined the shape of Baptist polity in the following century.


The Puritans ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 206-251
Author(s):  
David D. Hall

This chapter studies how, in the aftermath of his failure to subdue the Scottish insurgency by military means, Charles I authorized the election of two new parliaments. Its policies were so at odds with Charles I's understanding of monarchy and the true church that the outcome was civil war in England between supporters of the king and supporters of Parliament. Explaining this sequence of events tests every historian of 1630s and 1640s Britain. The puzzles are many. In the context of this book, the most significant of these is the relationship between civil politics and the politics of religion. Intertwined throughout the history of the English and Scottish reformations, their relationship tightened in the practice and rhetoric of Charles I and the party he favored, here known as the Laudians. Like his immediate predecessors, the young king took for granted that opposition to his version of true religion was equivalent to challenging his authority as king. At once, the religious and the political become inseparable. Before 1640, the political and the religious in Scotland had also become intertwined, but in a quite different manner. There, it was being argued that a monarch's policies were corrupting a perfect church. And there a unique event in British history unfolded.


Author(s):  
Joseph Arthur Mann

As the English people strode closer to armed conflict in the 1630s and early 1640s, the political disagreements between Charles I and his Parliament acquired a religious dimension. Not all Royalists were Anglicans, and not all Parliamentarians were Puritans, but it is undeniable that each group developed a unique political identity that included manner of dress and religious belief. As these identities solidified, each group used both their own identity and the opposing group’s identity to their advantage to inspire new supporters to join, strengthen in-group support, and inspire hatred against the opposition. Chapter one tells the story of how sacred and secular music was pressed into service by both sides of the English Civil War to serve a variety of propaganda purposes. Sacred music became a convenient political symbol for the religious differences between Anglicans/Royalists and Parliamentarians/Puritans that was easy to understand and thereby accessible to the largest possible audience of potential supporters. Likewise, secular music helped to ensure that the English populace was immersed in the political struggle even in their moments of leisure, and thereby at once more likely to maintain their fervent devotion to their side and their fervent hatred of the enemy.


2020 ◽  
pp. 182-226
Author(s):  
Yelena Baraz

This chapter follows the analysis of the Aeneid with an examination of the role that pride plays in the poetry of Vergil’s contemporaries, also engaged with the changing meaning of the concept alongside the political changes. Pride, especially associated with triumph, is an indication that excess of good fortune might lead to disaster in book one of Horace’s Odes and in Augustan love poetry, where Propertius develops a way of conceptualizing such pride as justified by the beloved’s qualities and not necessarily disproportionate. The most radical version of this development takes place in the metapoetic sphere, where the first positive reconceptualization of pride takes place: Horace’s attribution of positive pride to his Muse and Propertius’s response to the claim that his fatherland, Umbria, should be proud of his achievement. The concluding part of the chapter shows the poets’ pulling away from extending this rehabilitation of pride into the public sphere.


1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Stone

In recent years considerable attention has been focused on the role played by the Court and government office in the social and political evolution of Elizabethan and Early Stuart England. Professor Trevor-Roper has treated office under the Crown as a smooth highroad to economic advancement, one of the principal causes of such rise of the gentry as may have occurred. According to this view, the political antecedents of the English Civil War are best interpreted in terms of the polarities of Court and Country: it was reaction against an overgrown and corruptly lucrative Court that inspired the opposition in 1640; it was desire to dismantle the whole centralizing apparatus which inspired the policy of the Independents in the late 1640s and the 1650s. Others, including Professor Aylmer and myself, have subjected officialdom to detailed inspection and have concluded that its rewards were usually modest, especially under Elizabeth and Charles I, its personnel was restricted in numbers, and its more spectacular beneficiaries were a very small minority. The recently published letter of Sir Edward Stanhope to Thomas Viscount Wentworth, advising him to refuse the Deputyship of Ireland in 1631, has cast a flood of light on contemporary attitudes towards the acceptance of at least one high office. Forty-six years before, when Henry Carey, 1st Earl of Hunsdon, was offered the Lord Chamberlainship of the Royal Household, he received a similar letter of warning from a close follower.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document