I am doing some research on the ECW and the Glorious Revolution 1688. With all the religious factions, and the loyalty to the king or parliament. I just want to know how and why people chose sides in those days.
There was what was called horizontal and vertical loyalties. Because of the strict religious beliefs at that time, it was believed that the king was chosen by God - something called divine right. This meant that people wanted to be loyal to their king as it would, in turn, mean that they were being loyal to thier god. this was part of the Vertical loyalty. People were loyal to those of a higher status than themselves because it was more religiously, economically and politically benificial. Horizontal loyalties arose because people wanted to support their families and friends, ie their equals. there are reports of father and son, for example, choosing different sides. One man went on to the battlefield after one such skurmish and found his dead son. He swore then that he would not fight again as fighting against his king and country was just like fighting against his son. he bacame part of the nresistance. however, there are, of course, many other ways of choosing loyalities, and that was one of the reasons that the civil war especially was so confusing for the people actually living it, let alone those trying to study it. Good Luck!
Vertical and horizontal loyalties - an interesting way of putting it. I would say quite simply that the real arguement was between the Roman Catholics and the Puritans, and that in the new conflict only one side took regard of the king: Catholics thought that he was anointed king by God and ruled therfore by divine right. There was no such brief for the Puritans, the one supreme authority was God, and their lives were pre-determined by him. The religious conflict, more than any other (except perhaps making sure you chose the winning side) was what divided families in the Civil War
I wouldnt say it was nearly that simple. Although there was some blatant catholic vs protestant, the elizabethan religious settlement of 1559 had all but destroyed the catholic faith in england. although there were some exceptions the majority of the three kingdoms were at least anglican, if not protestant - even ireland had become anglican. Besides, catholics and protestants were not neccessarily against each other, there were many more causes to the civil war than just religion alone - there was also the problem of finance, trust, and not forgetting the personal rule of charles had caused no end of problems for him in the long run. Charles never claimed to be a catholic - in fact he was quite feverently protestant, although he did like some of the decoration of the catholic church. If you look closely, you can see that although charles entrusted his church to Laud, his other trusted adviser, Wentworth, did not always see eye to eye with lauds changes. I dont think it could ever be quite so simple as protestant vs catholic. During the run up to the first and during the second civil war, it more accurately became protestant vs protestant, as many different radical groups became involved with the fighting.
Yes, I appreciate what you are saying, but within the outward anglicanism, there was a not always hidden catholic agenda. Charles' queen was a catholic and celebrated mass. Although the anglicans generally went along with this, and there was a certain amount of religious tolerance under Laud, the ones who did not agree and were vociferous in their views, were the puritans who loathed Laud and were frightened of catholicism. What's more, they were not given to religious tolerance in their beliefs, and demanded that everyone subscribe to them. Sure, England had been through a period of what can only be decribed as religious "muddle" during the reigns of Henry (destroyer of the monasteries) Edward (passionate protestant) bloody Mary (passionate catholic) and Elizabeth. She was more tolerant than her forebears and siblings, but there were still many dissenters ie those who were plotting to get Mary Queen of Scots onto the throne. James was protestant.With all this change it is not surprising that England was confused. Sure, there were other reasons, but I feel this is the principal cause of the conflict.
This is such a complicated and complex question - how to choose sides. The whole background to the civil war has also to be seen in the wider European context. The Reformation and counter-reformation unleashed such powerful forces at a time when religious feelings were an inalienable part of the social and political structure. It is very different for us in our rational, secular world to get inside people's heads and understand how and why they thought as they did and why they were prepared to go to such extreme lengths in the name of religion. Nowadays, although nominally still a Christian and protestant country, we are not greatly exercised (in England at least) about any latent Catholic threat. We were even incredibly interested over the death and election of a Pope last year! In the 17th century however, there was a real fear that Catholicism would return, and in Laud and the Anglo-Catholics, the proto-puritans found this threat embodied.
Be that as it may, the real reason behind the civil war was the sheer incompetence and arrogance of Charles I. It was long established tradition and precedent in England that taxes could only be raised with the consent of parliament. Charles's determination to rule personally and to raise iniquitous new taxes to pay for this (like the infamous Ship Money) forced the issue and hardened sensible popular opinion against him. This was crystallised when the king was forced to recall parliament, and the ideological battle lines were already drawn at this point. Charles was a tyrant and showed this in his foolish attenot to arrest Pym etc in the Commons. Thankfully for our modern day liberties they escaped and lived to fight another day. If you need any further examples of Charles's arrogance and stupidity, remember that Cromwell gave him every chance to recant at his trial, throughout which he remained obstinately silent (Consider sire that you might be wrong...)
Finally, you also need to place the conflict into a local context. England was very differnt in those days with most people living their entire lives within 5/10 miles of where they were born. Mass communications and easy transport were unheard of. Thus people tended to take sides according to local influences, frequently taking the lead from the local nobility or gentry, who were in turn influenced by their own religious and political beliefs. I suspect more often than not many people had their sides chosen for them.
IMHO Charles I was possibly the worst king ever to sit on the throne - he had certain qualities as an aesthete, but talk about the wrong man at the wrong time.
No doubt others will have different views to mine, but isn't that the great thing about history. We can all take different views on the same facts whilst respecting others' points of view.
It would appear that James II was mirroring Charles I in the way he alienated himself. Trying to rule without parliament, placing catholics and favourites in exalted positions in the army, navy, the church etc. And both believed in the divine right.
I think Bretwalda hits on the key point really - despite the various political/religious divisions in the country, it was King Charles who really screwed-up and started the Civil War. Compared to the rule of his son Charles II and his father James I (VI of Scotland), he fares pretty badly, as neithers rule resulting in open civil war, despite enduring much the same internal tensions. His Uncle, James II (VI of Scotland) had similarly poor judgement, and was ousted after a few years.
Consider the lead-up to the conflict; and specifically think of the number of really bad decisions Charles made. He had no idea when to stop, and was a terrible judge of character.
In terms of where people placed their loyalties, I cannot think of a better example than given in Simon Schama's A History of Britain. He outlined the story of a country gentry family, where the father went to war on behalf of the King, and his son on behalf of parliament. The father was employed by the King in a personal capacity, and felt duty bound to the King. The son fought for the ideals parliament stood for.
The comparison with the date of James II is somewhat misleading. True, both kings were ousted by popular rebellion, but James lost his throne primarily because he was a Catholic and after 2 years on the throne was starting to have a brash confidence about increasing patronage to Catholics. He was deposed essentially because he was a Catholic king of a Protestant body politic.
Charles I on the other hand, despite his incompetence, arrogance and poor judgement was most definitely not a Catholic. He had been brought up a Protestant by his father, and despite marrying a Catholic princess (more bad judgement) and having high Anglican, anglo-Catholic tastes, he was no Catholic. The religious divide in his reign was far more of an intra-protestant affair, with the eventual puritans disliking Charles's high Anglicanism. Such a divide was probably inevitable given the nature of the Elizabethan religious settlement, leaving England possibly uniquely having a Protestant church governed along catholic lines with bishoprics, and a liturgy that still showed its Roman genesis. It would be the 18th century before this dichotomy was fully resolved with the advent of the major non-conformist sects.
Arguably the 17th century was the one with the lowest calibre of kings. With the possible exception of Mary II, who was genuinely loved and seems one of the best Stuarts, and William III who was tolerated because he was Protestant, the other Stuart kings were a poor shower. Indeed had the descendants of James II shown any common sense or real-politik and denounced their Catholicism for Protestantism, they would surely have been accepted back as kings ahead of the Hanoverians. It seems to have been the Stuart poor judgement gene that was their undoing.
Maybe the current Prince of Wales knows something too if the rumours that he wants to become George VII rather than Charles III are true......
But if James was catholic and of the same blood as his illustrious father then why didn't the monmouth rebellion succeed. After all Monmouth was charasmatic, a good soldier, protestant and a son of Charles II.
Good question but I think his illegitimacy had a lot to do with it and the timing of his rebellion. In 1685 perhaps people were still willing to give James a chance? Ultimately a legitimate protestant heir had to be be found, and the combo of the legitimate William III and Mary turned out to be a reasonable solution. I await perhaps more informed opinion from others though; I am no expert on the Monmouth rebellion.
As you say the rebellion was badly timed, would perhaps have been more appropriate in 88 in conjunction with William's invasion. Perhaps Monmouth could have become William's puppet king as he didn't really want to be in England all the time. More interested in fighting for his homeland against Louis X1Vth.
