Controversy Flashcards
1
Q
Historians and their theories which support the interpretation that class/social relationships were responsible for side-taking in 1642
A
- Storm over the Gentry
- Marxist interpretation
- Tawney and Lawrence Stone - Rising gentry pitted themselves against a falling nobility/aristocracy
- Brian Manning - Party of the peasants fought the party of the elite
- Everitt - rural society organised around rivalries between local landed families, lower classes had no political autonomy.
2
Q
Historians and their theories which do not support the interpretation that class/social relationships were responsible for side-taking in 1642
A
- Trevor-Roper - believed the opposite, war was between a falling gentry and a rising nobility.
- Also did not see the gentry as a homogenous group - large divide between Rising and Mere gentry i.e. those with court influence and those without
- Tyacke - No Bourgeois identity to form a pre-condition to Civil War
3
Q
Evidence for class - Parliamentarians
A
- Common people followed the lead of their local gentry
- August 1642 - Sir John Potts’ correspondant noted the Earl of Essex’s army was attended by a small proportion of the gentry, and a large proportion of the ‘middling sort’ i.e. craftsmen, tradesmen and yeomen
- John Corbet saw in Bristol that the ‘middle rank’ supported Parliament.
4
Q
Evidence for class - Royalists
A
- Majority of the gentry supported the King out of fear of a popular rising in which their own property/titles would be seized
- Underdown - examination of Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire shows the Royalist army was full of ‘middling’ people .e.g. tradesmen, butchers, bakers, blacksmiths.
- Bristol - both ‘wealthy and powerful men’ and the ‘basest lowest’ sort supported the King - class less of an issue for Royalists in certain areas, pointing to other factors
- Royalism prevalent in Parliamentary strongholds e.g. Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Rutland and Northamptonshire
- July - Lincolnshire, vast crowds of commoners turned out to meet the King, whilst the gentry promised to raise 400 cavalry for him - limited role of class
5
Q
Historians and their theories which support the interpretation that Religion was the main cause of side-taking in 1642
A
- John Morrill - Civil War was one of Europe’s “last of the wars of religion”
- Morrill - “Religion was the factor that drove minorities to fight and majorities to make reluctatant choices”
- Gardiner - “Consititutional reasons alone were not the sole ideological drivers”
- Lawrence Stone - Changed the Marxist interpretation, saw a divided gentry and nobility but differences based on religion rather than economics.
- Tyacke - on Laudianism, revolutionary in leading national anti-episcopacy and Puritan militancy.
- Morrill agrees with this.
6
Q
Historians and their theories which do not support the claim that Religion was the main cause of side-taking in 1642
A
- Ann Hughes and Richard Cust - Charles’ failures were the real reason for united opposition amongst the Puritans, Puritans were not inherently anti-monarchy
- Hutton - Religion was only a factor for Parliament’s side-taking
7
Q
Evidence that Religion was the main factor in side-taking for Parliamentarians
A
- Parliamentarians: largely Godly, religious people, obsessed by scripture and the idea of God and heaven - against swearing and drunkenness.
- Sir John Potts wrote to his countrymen in November - urging them to join Parliament “for maintenance of the Protestant religion.”
- Trained bands in Essex declared themselves ready to shed their “dearest blood” for liberty and peace, but also for “religion - more precious than both”
- Stour Valley, Essex - 1000s ransacked homes of local gentry, of whom all but the Lucas family were suspected of being Roman Catholics - anti-popery
- Coventry - preaching under Puritan Lord Brooke produced ‘a high state of Godly excitement’ and 1000s of volunteers for Brooke’s army
8
Q
Evidence that religion was the main factor in side-taking for Royalists
A
- Inherent lack of evidence suggests lesser importance of religion for Royalists - agreeing with Hutton’s claim.
- Royalist gentry were not so against things such as drinking and did not concern themselves with God so much - “made not so great a matter of every sin”
- “Cavalier” - associated with a nonchalant attitude, excessive lifestyle, the antithesis of Puritanism.
9
Q
Historians and their theories who support the claim that Local issues/Localism were the main cause of side-taking in 1642
A
- Morrill - People chose based on “how best to safeguard their property”.
- Everitt - Theory of County Community - local rivalries and political issues were instrumental and more important than national politics.
- Conrad Russell - Functional Breakdown i.e. Court vs Country
- Lucy Hutchinson - “Civil War in every county” - battle between committed minorities for allegiance of the Counties to a particular side
10
Q
Historians and their theories who do not support the interpretation that Local issues/Localism were the main causes of side-taking in 1642
A
- Ann Hughes - “highly integrated and centralised political system” - only Gentry applicable to Localism as they held economic and political power in localities
- Mark Stoyle - Everyone - even the peasantry, held an interest in politics at a national level
- Cust + Hughes - ideological factors were present in the thinking of the entire nation e.g. Divine Right of Kings
- Clive Holmes - used research on Eastern Association Army to display conflict was not always as simple as suggested by localism + that there was much wider political awareness.
11
Q
Evidence that Local issues/Localism were the main causes of side-taking in 1642 for Parliamentarians
A
- Parliamentarian Walter Long wrote from Essex to speaker William Lenthall “I am among strangers here”. Only because he was backed up by troops could he collect the weekly assessment from the county
- Colchester - stated their reliance on the cloth industry, and the way in which it had been ruined by Charles’ government, caused them to choose Parliament.
- London proved strongly antagonistic to the King in ‘42 e.g. was pro-Scots in the Bishops wars, moneyed men refused to lend money to the crown.
- Staffordshire gentry gathered a task force to keep “outsiders” away
12
Q
Evidence that Local Issues/Localism were the main causes of side-taking in 1642 for the Royalists
A
- August 1642 - Lord Mandeville’s correspondant in Huntingdonshire warned him of strong popular disaffection there, ‘nothing persuaded to accommodate the Parliament either with horse, army, plate or monies’
- Strong Royalist and anti-war sentiment among the gentry of Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire. Both countries were only secured for Parliament by the dispatch of troops from London.
- Tin miners of Cornwall and Devon - having long benefitted from royal favour, fiercely backed the King.
- Derbyshire lead miners - locked in a struggle with landowners, appealed to the King for support - when received, they sent 100s of volunteers to his army
13
Q
Historians and their theories who support the claim that Neutralism was the main reason people chose to take a particular side in 1642
A
- 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 the initial popularity of Parliament (long term signs of passive neutralism)
- Clarendon - “the number of those who desired to sit still was greater than of those who desired to engage their party”
- Coward - neutralism was the “commonest reaction”
14
Q
Historians and their theories who do not support the notion that Neutralism was the main reason people chose to take a particular side in 1642
A
- Sommerville (1989) - Deeply-rooted ideological division over extra-Parliamentary taxation and the Divine Right of Kings vs Social contract made neutralism impossible
- Cust - conflict between Charles’ desire to maintain authority and others’ desire to limit his powers (e.g. Ship Money, the Hampden case, Forced Loan)
- Trevor-Roper - “the attempts of those to remain neutral were in vain. Staying in the middle was impossible”
15
Q
Evidence for Neutralism (1)
A
- 22 Neutrality pacts + Treaty of Bunbury, Dec 1642
- 10 counties never formally accepted or declined the Commissions of Array
- In Yorkshire, 240 out of 680 gentry never committed themselves to either side
- Fear of the ruin caused by the 30-years war in Germany caused Neutralism - 70% of Germany were under the poverty line
- Unrest in the agricultural sector throughout 1642 - reinforced the desire for peace
