Derry, the Boyne and Europe

It is old but it is beautiful, and its colours they are fine,                       

It was worn at Derry, Aughrim, Enniskillen and the Boyne,                  

My father wore it as a youth in bygone days of yore,                             

And on the 12^th I love to wear the sash my father wore.

The words of Northern Ireland's Loyalist anthem refer to places in a 1689-1691 conflict whose fault lines are still with us. Of course both sides of the Unionist-Nationalist divide have their own myths. But that’s no reason for the rest of us - including the rising numbers in Ireland, North and South, who disdain such tribalism - to accept them. Or is it, given the UK government's new cultural emphasis on fantasy history? In any case what’s the truth?

The background really goes back to France and the 1685 Edict of Fontainebleau, Louis XIV’s revocation of the 1598 Edict of Nantes. Earlier, French Protestants (often called Huguenots) had been granted toleration, civil rights and liberty of conscience. Nantes promoted unity, ending the religious conflicts which had plagued France in the 16^th century. But Louis revoked it, persecuting Huguenots, destroying their churches and closing their schools.

French mistreatment of Protestants

The result was seismic. And the move backfired badly. Up to 900,000 Huguenot refugees left France, settling in other European countries and beyond. Mainly educated, skilled, hard-working and enterprising people, they aided their domicile nations by starting new industries and improving the techniques in existing ones. And many signed up to fight against France in the conflicts that followed. 

Louis XIV 1685, on revoking the Treaty of Nantes

By the 1680s Louis XIV was the most powerful monarch in Europe, with France the continent’s richest, most populous state. Louis ruled as a dictator. His forces had won several victories and he’d bullied his way to extending French frontiers. He crossed the Rhine in September 1688 to force the Holy Roman Empire to accept his territorial and dynastic claims. The German princes resisted, fearing a permanently over-mighty authoritarian neighbour. When the Dutch States-General and William (of Orange) brought Holland and England into the war in coalition, Louis at last faced serious opposition.

The Nine Years' War

The result? The Nine Years’ War, or War of the Grand Alliance, or War of the League of Augsburg. On one side France, supported by England’s deposed James II and his ‘Jacobite’ backers. Against them the Dutch Republic, England, Scotland, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, Savoy, Portugal, and at first, Sweden. This coalition saw France as a threat to a stable European balance of power.

William III (of Orange) by Kneller

The Nine Years’ War was definitely not a religious war. The Grand Alliance put together and led by William included both Protestant and Catholic states. Uniformity of religion was never a goal of the players. But with competing colonial and trade interests at stake, the conflict spread from Europe to North America, Asia and the Caribbean.

So what of Ireland? William had become English king in December 1688. He’d invaded in strength with his Dutch army but with English and Scottish political support. As nephew and son in law of King James II he’d expected to be the effective English sovereign at some stage. But when Catholic James’ wife, against the odds, produced an heir, it completely changed the political dynamics. William’s Stuart wife Mary was no longer next in line. A short term problem had turned into the prospect of a new authoritarian Catholic dynasty.

The Grand Alliance and Ireland

In December 1688 James left London for France in a hurry. He then landed in Ireland three months later, in March 1689, with French money, troops and military officers. Louis backed him, wishing to divert William’s forces away from the key Dutch theatre. James and his local chief Tyrconnell besieged northern Protestant strongholds. Derry (later called Londonderry by Unionists) was defended dourly. It lost half its 8000 population, mainly to disease, but held out over 105 days until relieved by the Royal Navy. The siege and its fabled heroic acts are commemorated every year.

Battle of the Boyne 1690, Jan van Huchtenburg

In 1690 William and his military chief Gen. Schomberg mustered forces in Ireland. They counted 36,000 troops from several countries - Denmark (7000), Holland (6000), French Huguenots (3000), plus English, Scots and a few Ulster Protestants. James’ 23,500 army was of mostly untrained, pressed Irish peasants and some Scottish and English Jacobites. But he also fielded several regiments of French troops. Battle was joined on 1^st July on the River Boyne near Drogheda, some 30 miles north of Dublin.

The Battle of the Boyne was actually a relatively small affair, with around 1500-2000 dead and a win for William. The Irish Jacobites suffered disproportionately but it seems they withdrew in reasonable order after the defeat. James left for Dublin and then sailed for France, never to return. It was emphatically not a fight between England and Ireland, as popularly believed, nor between Catholics and Protestants. If you’re fighting for the Catholics and Pope Innocent XI and the Papal States are against you, you may be justified in thinking you've got problems.

Gen Godert van Ginkel 

The battle of Aughrim, a year later on 12^th July 1691, was a bigger, costlier and more brutal affair. William had departed the theatre but an Irish Jacobite and French force of about 20,000, led by the French Gen. St Ruhe, fought Gen. van Ginkel’s Alliance army of a similar size. This included Dutch, Danish, English and French Huguenot units. St Ruhe was killed and his force decimated - perhaps 7,000 dead or captured.

James II, artist unknown

This was effectively the end of James’ Irish Jacobite ambitions. There was a further siege at Limerick, which surrendered in December 1691. 12,000-14,000 soldiers, plus some of their wives and families, left the town for France after raising the white flag, and were allowed to depart with their arms and equipment. Some, like the strange folk hero Patrick Sarsfield (of English descent), later, perhaps a touch unsportingly, joined French troops on the continent against the Alliance.

Commemoration and legacy

Interestingly, the original 12^th July commemoration was of Aughrim. The first commemorative parade for the Boyne wasn’t held until 1791, 100 years after the event, when it displaced the more decisive battle. But the 12^th July date was retained. There were lots of non-Irish and non-English participants in the conflict. And often Irish and French soldiers on both sides.

The Nine Years’ War continued elsewhere until the 1697 Treaty of Rijswijk. Among its provisions France accepted William III as King of England. James really had no interest in Ireland. He just used it to try to regain the English throne, much as the Jacobites did with Scotland. Partly as a result he is not well regarded by history, either in Britain or Ireland. 

But William had little interest in Ireland either, apart from protecting his back door against an Irish threat strongly supported by France. In fact the Irish dimension, if burned large into the folk memories of successive generations from both traditions across the island, was in the whole historical context pretty small. In fact merely a sideshow in a wider international conflict.

1660 Restoration - the Merry Monarch

In May 1660 Charles II arrived in London from the Dutch quay of Scheveningen. The Protectorate had crumbled on Cromwell’s death. Parliament’s Rump was re-instated, but unrest among political and religious groups, and in the army, risked anarchy. There was popular relief at the prospect of a return to ‘normal’ rule. With Charles invited back, most people were pleased. Were their hopes met? Did Charles deliver on expectations? And is his sunny reputation deserved?

Charles II, by John Michael Wright

In early 1660 the Rump (Parliament filleted in 1648 of army sceptics), having actually been dismissed by the Army in October 1659, was now again in power. But 20 years of religious tensions persisted between those who wanted a new Church of England and a radical minority wishing to leave it behind. London street protests demanded a ‘free parliament’. The agitation seemed to presage a new civil war.

General Monck had marched his army down from Scotland and at first looked as if he would do Parliament’s will. But he changed his mind in February 1660, demanding new elections for a representative regime to carry authority. This was welcomed. But Charles’ return was no foregone conclusion. Some simply wanted a new Parliament, with maybe Monck as head of state. Things were certainly in flux.  

Charles' opportunism

But in April Charles presented himself as a unifying figure via his Declaration of Breda. In an opportunist move he offered a free pardon for ‘crimes’ against himself and his father, with Parliament to decide on exceptions; a ‘liberty to tender consciences’ with Parliament again to determine the terms of a religious settlement; and Parliament to decide on contested land rights. The pledges hit the right note. In May the Commons voted to restore the Stuart monarchy on this more constitutional basis. Charles II appeared in London a few weeks later.

He started well, choosing advisers from each side of the conflict. And he made good on his three main promises to Parliament. But in July the regime suppressed newspapers not under government control. In 1661 it severely restricted public grievance petitions. Ten so-called ‘regicides’ were hanged drawn and quartered as traitors.

Liberty of conscience?

Having promised to unify the country, 1661’s fanatically pro Royalist ‘Cavalier Parliament’ restricted freedom, being bent on preventing anyone ever again overturning its idea of law and order. Embittered, vengeful and in a mood of retribution it severely punished opponents.

Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon

In 1662 Parliament passed a Uniformity Act, part of the ‘Clarendon Code’ hobbling non-conformism and hugely boosting the re-instated Church of England. Office holders had to swear allegiance and the Common Prayer Book was made compulsory. It was hardly liberty of conscience. Puritan clergy then left the Church en masse. Despite being against the move Lord Chancellor Clarendon took the rap. The Test Act for religious conformity in public offices was a further blow to those who believed promises on liberty of conscience.               

Clarendon was impeached for treason in 1667 over the Second Dutch War. England’s fleet was destroyed in the Medway and its flagship Royal Charles towed back to Holland. A shocking episode after the Protectorate navy's success against the Dutch fleet. The king bore the main responsibility. He had ignored advice and been asleep at the wheel. But the monarch couldn't be publicly blamed so a scapegoat had to be found.

'Royal Charles', captured by the Dutch fleet

Secret French deal

In 1670 the Secret Treaty of Dover was signed with France. Charles would assist Louis XIV with 60 warships and 4000 soldiers in his war of conquest against the Dutch Republic. Charles got an annual pension of £230,000 with a bonus on a promised Catholic conversion. 6000 French troops would help him defeat any rebellion at home.

Louis XIV, after Lefebrve 

This was astonishing duplicity, even by Charles’ dire standards - and would have been incendiary if then known. The full damning terms were not discovered for 100 years. The Third Anglo-Dutch War followed the Dover Treaty. Louis benefited here, but not Charles, who underestimated Dutch resilience and misjudged his influence on nephew William, who won power in Holland without his help. Later, in 1679, Charles was bribed by Louis XIV to maintain England’s neutrality. Secretary of State Danby was unfairly blamed and sent to the Tower.

Despot rule

In 1679 Charles faced a hostile Parliament. Suspected of wanting to impose Catholicism, he sided with his brother on the Exclusion Bill. This sought to deny his Catholic brother James the succession. A huge political row saw Parliament dissolved four times. In his last five years Charles ruled as a despot, prosecuting pro-Exclusion Whigs and seizing their estates. Charles replaced judges and sheriffs at will and packed juries to secure convictions.

History’s treatment of Charles’ 25 year reign has often been gentle. Many in the arts community stress his re-opening theatres, and seem neither to know nor care much about the rest. That's indeed a common perception, On the other hand academic historians looking at statecraft have judged him far more severely. So what are the myths? Well, it’s really more about misperceptions.

He broke his promises and prorogued Parliament. An opportunist and self-serving unprincipled liar, who barely showed up for work, he spent most of his time at his own pleasure, had several illegitimate children and kept a string of mistresses at public expense. He greedily received cash from overseas powers and was happy to mortgage the country for his own benefit. Yet curiously, much of the press gave him a free pass.

Barbara Castlemaine, Peter Lely

He can be forgiven the Plague of 1665 and the Great Fire of London the following year. They occurred on his watch but were clearly just bad luck. On the admittedly sparse plus side he saw a chance to renew London after the fire, paying for it by levying a coal tax. And of course Charles was personal patron of architect Sir Christopher Wren. In the arts and sciences, he founded the Royal Observatory and supported the Royal Society.

Charles' corruption

But his hedonistic immoral lifestyle was notorious. Virtually drunk on sex - an obsession shared with the court - nothing would interfere with his social life. His queen, Catherine of Braganza, provided no heir, and was pretty shamefully treated. But other ladies produced at least 13 illegitimate children to him. One of these girlfriends, Barbara Castlemaine, alone had five. Charles deluged them with gifts and huge palace apartments. Barbara was allowed to siphon off massive sums that should have gone to the exchequer. At the Navy Board, Samuel Pepys said £2.3m was unaccounted for. The rumours were that Charles had lavished much of it on his mistresses.

’Orange-wench’ Nell Gwyn, plus Lucy Walter and Louise de Kerouaille, were other famous lovers. Louise, a Breton, was suspected of being a French Catholic spy. When an angry crowd shouted insults at Nell, mistaking her for Louise, she’s supposed to have smiled and shouted, “No. I’m the Protestant whore!” They, and all the others, were given titles and honours. Corruption on a grand scale, and even with a controlled press, it was most unpopular and strongly resented.

Nell Gwyn, Peter Lely

Historian Ian Mortimer has the Restoration as a tipping point between the medieval and modern world, in terms of calculation and rational explanation. “Worried about losing your goods to fire in 1660, your best hope was prayer. 10 years later it was fire insurance. Scientific problems came to be subject to calculation rather than supposition”.

Many from the 1660s just wanted a pragmatic return to regularity, not a succession of weak, short lived governments. It seems this was a prime reason for their backing Restoration. Until it ended badly the reign at least blocked a return to the earlier spell of confusion. This, rather than any great love for the king, was probably the main buttress of its public support.

There’s no getting away from Charles as a cynical, immoral, corrupt king. He “was a kick against the moral rectitude of late 17^th century Puritanism. He wanted to rub the Puritans’ noses in filth” says Mortimer. He converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.

1649-1660 Commonwealth and Protectorate

The 11 years between the trial and execution of Charles I in 1649 and the return of the Stuart monarchy in 1660 was an important phase of British history. England became a republic in all but name, for the only time. At its end the regime laid claim to the whole of the British Isles. It’s a period of great complexity, with rival players, forces and factions vying for influence. No stable government lasting for more than a few months was formed. But as usual there are some myths and misconceptions, or just events not always well understood.

The English element of the Civil War turned decisively for Parliament in 1644 at Marston Moor, and was all over bar the shouting in 1645 with Naseby. A few later battles were less serious in the context of the total picture. But though completely defeated, the Royalists would not come to terms. Charles first surrendered to the Scots and promised Presbyterian rule for them and England - wholly unrealistic. After three years’ manipulating faction against faction, he had forfeited any residual trust among the military. The Army then turned on Parliament, too. Pride’s Purge (a coup d’état), and the Rump removed those members opposing a political role for the military. The Army insisted Charles be held to account for what we’d now call war crimes. He was tried and executed in January 1649.

Scotland and Ireland

Scotland, via its more conservative Presbyterians, immediately decided to make Charles' son their king, and thus of Britain as a whole. He was in exile in Holland. The move angered the Army, which felt it had not fought a long and costly war only to go back to Stuart despotism. Cromwell emerged as the strong man of the new Commonwealth and invaded Scotland. He defeated a Covenanter army in 1650 at Dunbar. Scottish Royalist forces were finally decimated at Worcester in September 1651.

19th century depiction of the massacre at Drogheda

Ireland suffered in this ‘Third Civil War’. Its Catholic Confederation had allied with the English Royalists in 1648. Parliament sought to reconquer the country but in doing so the 1649 massacres at Drogheda and Wexford badly stained Cromwell’s reputation. No matter it was men at arms refusing to surrender who were killed, normal enough practice in 17th century Europe, but the episode poisoned relations with Ireland for centuries. Irish Catholics were regarded as barbarians, an attitude continued from the Tudors and Stuarts. Historians still argue about the number of civilians killed and how many were sent as slaves to the West Indies.  

Cromwell

According to Churchill, Cromwell was a great man. Despite his authoritarian instincts and behaviour, many historians might on balance agree. The key is that he was offered the crown but declined it, ruling through a Council of State. Was Cromwell an extreme Puritan? Well he himself didn’t live a life of rigid self-control. His love of music was famous, and he enjoyed hunting and bowls, a popular game at the time. His daughters’ weddings were opulent affairs, with much entertainment. And when feasting with ambassadors and other dignitaries at his preferred Hampton Court, Cromwell surprised many by really pushing the boat out. Showy behaviour like this attracted charges of hypocrisy from the godly.

Cromwell, by Robert Walker

The New Model Army is often credited to Cromwell, again wrongly. The key man was Fairfax. He recruited, organised and trained this impressive fighting machine and appointed the officers. Cromwell’s cavalry Ironsides were really the elite division. The navy is where Cromwell was indirectly perhaps more influential. By funding it properly he turned a small disorganised outfit into a large professional fleet. The navy sided with Parliament in 1642. Its leader, Sea General Robert Blake, overhauled English naval tactics and in the First Dutch War, 1652-1654, defeated Holland’s renowned fleet.

This was largely a trade war. But then Cromwell signed a treaty with France, and under his Western Design targeted the leading Catholic power, Spain, for political, colonial and commercial reasons. A strong fleet and 3000 marines under William Penn and Robert Venables tried to seize Hispaniola but failed abysmally. The remnants limped on to Jamaica, taking it from Spain and somehow holding it. Interestingly, it was perhaps the first time sugar had been the principal currency in a British trade war.

General at Sea Robert Blake 

Back in Europe Blake blockaded Cadiz, his whole fleet uniquely remaining at sea over the winter. He obliterated a treasure convoy at Santa Cruz, Tenerife, with daring and imagination. It disrupted Spanish trade and Spain’s economy took a hit of around £2m, billions in today's terms. Blake was relatively new to the sea, but proved to be a brilliant naval commander, one of the best the country has ever had. Jellicoe and Nelson, among others, definitely thought so. Blake died in 1657 and huge crowds came to his Westminster Abbey state funeral. But 1661’s vindictive ‘Cavalier Parliament’ had the body of this national hero disinterred and thrown into a nearby pit.

Army splits

During the whole period The Army was a hotbed of debate over religion and politics. More puritan than Parliament by 1649 it was divided into supporters of the army Grandees, like Cromwell, and (non-Presbyterian) Independents. From the latter side sprang the Levellers. They were more numerous than sometimes thought. Egalitarian in outlook, their demands were ahead of their time. They believed in fairer shares and indeed, their policies would not be out of place today. They scorned the idea that material well-being was a character test, with wealth the reward for the godly, as glib to the point of insult. Some of their leaders were hanged and the movement was finally crushed by Cromwell.

Battle of Scheveningen, Jan Abrahamsz

Various half-baked revolts erupted from the mid-1650s. But the Protectorate’s intelligence was smart. Its chief, Thurloe, had a strong network of informers so each outbreak could be countered before it happened. Most of these ‘rebellions’ were amateur, but Penruddock’s in 1655 was more serious. It led to the Rule of the Major Generals, where England was divided into 10 military regions. While only lasting a year this format was marked by some killjoy local decisions, creating a bad image of Puritan politics over the whole period. In fact the rules varied hugely from one region to another - some areas even allowed horse racing. The Major Generals’ unpopular regime was abandoned in 1657.

Puritanical leaning?

Parliament (not Cromwell) closed the English theatres in 1642. It’s an act that most arts folk abhor, and often lament. But theatres then were maybe not the sort we think of today. Bear baiting, gambling and brothels, often conducted in the same places, were simultaneously banned. This context is rarely mentioned. And rather against the modern perception it's worth noting that the first English opera, Davenant’s The Siege of Rhodes, was performed in 1656. Concerts were also  popular throughout the period. Some of Charles’ large art collection was sold at Somerset House in 1649. Philip IV of Spain and French statesman Cardinal Mazarin were among the buyers. 

Hampton Court Palace - a favourite of Commonwealth rulers

What of Christmas? People routinely say that Cromwell cancelled it. While it’s true that the Parliament of the ‘saints’ opposed public entertainment on holy days and passed decrees that Christmas should be treated as an ordinary working day, the moves were unpopular. These regulations were not really enforceable so they were honoured mainly in the breach. Any sanctions were lightly, if at all, enforced. And it is emphatically not true that mince pies were banned.

Commonwealth reputation

In its first two years the Commonwealth faced economic depression. By 1653 things had improved. Despite religious and political turmoil, there was industrial and commercial progress, with excise duties introduced and the reform of financial and credit instruments. A professional class grew in importance. If the British military state was regarded abroad with fear, it was also with much respect. France and Spain formally recognised it in 1653. A strong army and stronger navy backed a robust foreign policy. It was a state of affairs which would not survive the Restoration.

Britain under the Protectorate was clearly a military dictatorship. Today we have difficulty believing anything positive could come of such a governing model. But bear in mind that authoritarian rule of one sort or another was the normal pattern around the world. And indeed it still is. Cromwell died in September 1658 and the Protectorate effectively with him. 18 months later the Stuart heir Charles II was declared King and the hand of history gave the country another shove.

1642 Civil War (or Wars of the three Kingdoms)

There is much misunderstanding over the English civil war. For such a seismic event in the nation’s history, maybe this is surprising. There’s a poor general public knowledge of the episode. Myths abound. It was not at all Parliament’s aim to replace the king with a republic, or military rule, nor was it a struggle of aristocrats versus commoners. Many families were split in their allegiance. Religion did play a part, but maybe not in the way usually understood. And the conflict was not confined to England. It involved Scotland and Ireland, too, plus fighters from several other countries.

Scotland's starting role

The war really began in 1637 in Scotland. King Charles I thought the Scots, under a Union of the Crowns, should have uniformity of religion with England. He imposed a new prayer book on that country. It was predictably a disaster. The Scots formulated their protests through signing a National Covenant. It led to fighting and by 1640 a Scots army had beaten Charles, occupying most of the north of England. Having ruled for 10 years without it, the king at last recalled Parliament to obtain money to suppress the rebels. But the new assembly merely presented its grievances to Charles and opposed an English invasion of Scotland.

Riot against Anglican prayer book, 1637

Another more hostile so called Long Parliament then cut off royal revenue sources like the hated ‘ship money’ and the forced loans levied by Lord Strafford, the royal enforcer. Parliament demanded the latter’s head and against the king’s wishes he was duly executed. Charles now wanted to recruit forces from Ireland (then enduring awful waves of sectarian killings of Catholics and Protestants) to impose his will on Parliament. This threat frightened many people, including John Pym, who had opposed the power of arbitrary monarchy since 1621. The royal party resented Parliament’s demands, while Parliament under Pym’s leadership felt Charles was planning for an episcopal religious structure and despotic royal military rule. The drift to war was obvious to pretty well everyone.

Road to War

In January 1642 Charles, with 400 men, tried to arrest five members in Parliament, including Pym. There had been a tip off. Observing they had escaped he said “I see the birds have flown”. Speaker Lenthall asserted he could say nothing as he was a servant of Parliament, not the king, a constitutional convention that still applies.

With the battle lines drawn, so began the English revolution. It was a struggle between two clear ideas and philosophies of government - a representative body with defined rights, and a constitutional head of state; or the authoritarian Stuart doctrine of the ‘divine right of kings’. The result was to influence Britain’s affairs strongly throughout history.

Charles I , Anthony van Dyck

So where are the myths? To start with, Parliament took up arms to secure its traditional role and rights against authoritarian monarchy. It emphatically did not wish to replace Charles, still less start a military dictatorship. It just wanted him to act reasonably and constitutionally. The king precipitately left London, raising the royal standard at Nottingham. With a clear strategic advantage in communications, plus control of major power and economic centres, Parliament expected a quick victory, thinking Charles had no choice but to accept terms. They were wrong. The point was made later - while the Parliamentarians must beat Charles over and over again, the king needed but a single triumph. Once he won, they were all dead men.

An attenuated struggle?

Historians today talk of a second or third civil war, as later battles up to Worcester in 1651 are included. But this seems to miss the wood for the trees. Following 1642's Edgehill ‘draw’ the royalists did well. But in 1643 after the Earl of Essex at the battle of Newbury blocked a Royalist move toward London, Pym succeeded in winning Scotland’s support before he died in December. This initiative, by bringing in a strong Scots army to reinforce Parliamentary forces, turned the tide. With the battle of Marston Moor in July 1644, all of the north fell to Parliament. Only 25% of England, mainly in the less prosperous west and south west, was now in Royalist hands. From then on, the final outcome was pretty clear.

John Pym

It’s true of course that Naseby in 1645 was a major battle. But not really in strategic terms, despite the total rout of the Royalists. Its significance and renown lies more in its being the first action of the New Model, built by the army chief Fairfax with some help from Cromwell. This was Europe’s most professional disciplined combat force since Roman times. Fighting continued in Scotland and Ireland, and on sea, into the 1650s. Some historians now call the whole episode the 'Wars of three Kingdoms'. Strictly true, no doubt, but perhaps it complicates a period already difficult for many to understand. 

Who fought?

Another common misconception relates to who was involved. English armies of course, but augmented by Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates. Foreigners fought too. Early on Charles tried to recruit Spanish troops against his own people. Rupert, the Royalist cavalry leader later sacked by Charles, and Maurice, were the king’s German nephews. They came fresh from the 30 Years’ War. By the end, three French cavalry regiments were fighting for Charles. Some Dutch and French Protestants fought for Parliament as well, besides a few from further afield.

General Sir Thomas Fairfax

The Royalist ‘Cavaliers’ weren’t often aristocrats, and the Parliamentary ‘Roundheads’ weren't really commoners. In fact the older nobility with a background in government and at court, and the confidence to challenge, often fought against Charles. Royalist nobility tended to be from unpolitical families, or those new to the ranks of the lesser aristocracy, the ‘nouveaux’. Minor ranks fought mainly for money. When that ran out it was conscription. 

The war left around 220,000 dead. Of the total, 85,000 were killed in battle. The rest were related civilian deaths or those dying of disease. These losses were severe - 4% of the total 5.5m English and Scottish population. Pro rata this was twice the number of UK deaths in World War I. The equivalent in today’s terms would be a huge 2.5million. So this was a vicious and costly war. It caused years of disruption to the country’s political, economic and social life, and offered many people a chance to settle local scores.

Religion was a key factor on the Parliamentary side. Some Puritans thought they were fighting for God, and there’s no doubt that many among them felt they were defending religious liberty, a big motivator for them. Cromwell always avoided using religion as a justification for war. But he and his supporters felt it legitimate to fight a ruler breaking the law. Irish Catholics in particular suffered badly in the so called ‘second civil war’.

Legacy

The results of the conflict? There are so many it’s hard to list them, but one or two stand out. In 1649, Parliament, worried about clerical supremacy and the threat of a Scottish veto, told the Scots they were free to go their own way. Scotland’s Covenanters had wanted union with England but the country then backed Charles’ son as new king of the whole of England, Scotland and Ireland. In 1651 Cromwell defeated a Scots’ Royalist army at Worcester before invading Scotland itself. To avoid having to occupy that country England agreed reluctantly, and contrary to modern perceptions, to unite the two. The first Scottish MPs entered the Westminster Parliament in 1654.

Oliver Cromwell

Finally after 11 years of the Commonwealth and Protectorate under Cromwell, with spells of army rule and the closing of Parliament, factional strife led to a fear of anarchy. Against this background General Monck contacted Charles, the Stuart heir in Holland, inviting him back as king. The terms were public. So in 1660 the Stuart Monarchy was restored.

So was this after all a defeat for Parliament? Not really. The Restoration put a king back on the throne, but it was only with parliamentary consent. This was the basis of the constitutional monarchy the war had been fought over. The father had refused all compromise, but the son seemed to accept the change. And while it took 1688’s ‘Glorious Revolution’ to enshrine the principles in law via the Bill of Rights and later Act of Settlement, from the Restoration onward it would prove hard to sustain any return to authoritarian monarchy.

1620 - Pilgrims and Puritans

"Hobgoblin nor foul fiend, can daunt his spirit

He knows he at the end, shall life inherit

Then fancies fly away, he’ll fear not what men say

He’ll labour night and day, to be a pilgrim."

The last verse of this rousing Church of England hymn typifies the muscular Christian strand. The sincerity of John Bunyan’s 1684 words leaves the easy-going path for a more adventurous one, though mention of hobgoblins and fiends plus the whiff of self-righteousness may sit uneasily today. But these beliefs were widespread in the 17^th century, driving English politics and the settlement of America.

Politics and the Reformation

The European Reformation had fractured the straitjacket of the medieval church, and its power over thought, literature, culture and communication. In changing the direction of European history, it spawned new ideas and the rapid development of language with the rise of mass reading and writing. It was the clear precursor to the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. But the rise of Puritans, and their conflation with Pilgrims, causes confusion and has created a few myths.

In England, the Protestant settlement from the 1560s, if generally accepted, left a few groups dissatisfied. Apart from Catholics tied to the 'old religion' some on the Protestant side were unhappy, too.They thought the Church of England had not been fully reformed as it preserved some aspects of medieval Catholicism - church choirs, a formal liturgy, clerical vestments and an episcopal structure. In the 1570s the latter was a sore point, notably among those looking to the continental Presbyterian practice, with bishops displaced by elders.

Depiction of Puritan c. 1650

Rise of Puritanism

These ‘Puritans’ (originally a pejorative term) aimed to purify the Church of England of Catholic practices. They wanted a simpler form of worship and doctrine, and believed in corporate and personal piety. Never a formally defined version of Protestantism, the principally Calvinist culture spanned a wide spectrum between moderates and extremists. Puritans saw the Elizabethan settlement as just a first step - remain with the Church of England and reform it from within.

The ‘Pilgrims’ (the term was not used for the emigrant Plymouth Colony group until the 19^th century - their leader, Bradford, never heard the word in his lifetime), were Separatists. They were Calvinist Puritans who felt their beliefs so strongly that they could not follow them within the English church. There were pockets of them in the north and east of England. Not tolerated under Elizabeth or James, in 1607 a group left for Leiden in Holland. Many found it hard to learn Dutch and prosper there. Spain was threatening to grab more Dutch territory and some of the group haplessly got mixed up with religious unrest in Scotland. So in 1618 most decided to depart for a fresh start in America.

'Pilgrim Fathers' (or Forefathers)

In 1620 they left from Plymouth on the Mayflower, eventually mooring off what is now Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod - the second English American settlement after Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. Half of them died on the ship or soon after arrival. Once ashore they found a European hut and kettle - in case they fancied a cuppa? Some land had been cleared, but not being a practical bunch, they relied on the local Wampanoag people, one of whom had spent years in London and spoke English, to show them how to fish and grow food. Indeed at the start they respected the locals, who made up two thirds of the crowd at the fabled 1621 harvest feast, the basis of today’s Thanksgiving.

Interior of Old Ship Church, Hingham, Mass.

Their charter from London was not signed before departure. As they had no patent, a document later called the Mayflower Compact was drafted. Revered by some American historians, it promised cooperation ‘for the general good of the Colony’. Issues would be decided by voting. The Plymouth Rock document is now widely seen as one of the seeds of American democracy. But perhaps we'd better not try to stray too far into the myths of American history. 

So what were these people like? The Separatists (or forefathers as they were called in America), and their European counterparts, wore colourful clothes, rather against popular belief. They tended to be poorer than mainstream Puritans and less well educated. They usually ended up on the outside of society. But they were tolerant of others’ beliefs. Puritans, though, especially the better off ones, usually favoured black hats and dark colours. With their ‘City on a Hill’ they were intolerant of other views, sharing a divinely ordained arrogance, and explicitly rejecting religious freedom. They also believed literally and actively in devils and demons.

Puritan power

In England, Puritan influence grew from 1630 as Charles I began ruling without Parliament. Puritanism offered a way to cope with the contradictory demands of Christian belief in a modernising world. A Puritan group launched a well-financed venture, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1630. It was seen as a sound investment opportunity, with earthly prosperity a sign of divine approval. In 1629, pre departure, they designed a colony seal justifying the settlement - a nearly naked Indian, begging the English to ‘come over and help us’.

Replica of the Mayflower, Plymouth, Mass.

Within 10 years the Mass Bay group, centred in Boston, had grown to 20,000 settlers. They thrived as Plymouth wilted. Within 30 years they had basically taken over the 1620 colony. Independent of the Church of England in practice, they acted like Presbyterians, as did the Separatists. Puritan ethics of charity and self-discipline seemed well suited to a New World where opportunity was rich but the source of moral authority obscure. In current English usage, ‘puritanical’ often denotes prudery and aversion to sex. Yet these Puritans embraced sexuality, at least within marriage. Their birth rate was high - as remarked at the time, every family seemed to have 10 children.

Mass Bay Colony seal

At home, as part of the new commercial culture and as allies of the Scottish Presbyterians, Puritans became powerful in English politics. They were strongly represented in Parliament and played a major role in both the Civil War and during the Commonwealth and Protectorate. Many were prominent in several fields from business to education.

Legacy

The Restoration and 1662 Uniformity Act required all clergy to sign a new oath and follow the revised Book of Common Prayer, so almost all Puritan clergy then left the Church of England. The episode, called the Great Ejection, excluded huge numbers of people from public office. A few of the clergy went to America, but most continued in nonconformist denominations, especially Congregational and Presbyterian churches. Some Puritan ideals were absorbed by the Church of England, while others grew into new Protestant offshoots. Today’s Congregationalists are widely recognised as the direct inheritors of the Puritan tradition.

Puritanism as a force then died out fairly quickly in England. As a power it was gone by the end of the 17^th century, though of course it continued strongly in America for much longer. Indeed its legacy remains a key factor in US political, social and commercial life today.