Monarchy - S2 Ep4 - The Stuart Succession

August 1588. Europe is convulsed by religious war, and Protestant England faces the world's foremost Catholic power

With the Spanish Armada in the Channel, and a large and fearsomely professional Spanish army in the Low Countries, England is under dire threat

On the 18th of August, 1588, Queen Elizabeth I came to review her troops here at Tilbury

She wore a breastplate and carried a sword and addressed them in words that have echoed down the centuries

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman

but I have the heart and stomach of a king and of a king of England, too

and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain or any prince of Europe

should dare invade the border of my realm. But even as the Queen spoke, the moment of danger had passed

The English fire ships had broken up the armada's invincible formation off Calais

and coastal storms would do the rest. Nevertheless, despite the defeat of the Spanish Armada

England would not escape the horrors of religious war. And some of those who'd heard Elizabeth at Tilbury

might live long enough to see another English monarch raise his banner in defiance on English soil

But this time, the king's enemies would not be foreign princes, but his own people

Within a generation, the monarchy was to pass from the triumphs of Elizabeth

to the humiliation and defeat of her Stuart's successors. With the defeat of the Spanish Armada

Elizabeth's reputation stood at a zenith at home and abroad. Even the Pope, who'd helped finance the Armada expedition

expressed his admiration of her and only regretted that they were unable to have children together

Inheriting their combined talents, their offspring would rule the world, he said

Defending the realm was the most fundamental duty of an English monarch

and Elizabeth had acquitted herself admirably. But Elizabeth inherited a crown, the imperial crown

whose power had been greatly expanded by her father, Henry VIII's decision

to make himself supreme head of the church and control the religion of his subjects as well as their everyday lives

Could Elizabeth, mere woman that she was, maintain this lofty claim? The Monarchs' powers over religion proved to be a double-edged sword

for the crown had taken control of the church at a time of uniquely bitter religious conflict

Protestant fought with Catholic and different kinds of Protestant fought with each other

How could the monarch, a supreme head of the church, avoid being drawn into this conflict

which threatened to turn quarrels about religion into disputes with the crown

Elizabeth did her best in establishing a Church of England that was Protestant in its doctrines

but Catholic in the appearance of its ceremonies and clerical dress. Elizabeth's policy was successful in heading off much Catholic opposition

but it had the opposite effect of opening up divisions on the Protestant side

between those who wanted the rigorous, stripped-down Protestantism of the continent and Scotland

and those who followed Elizabeth in her attachment to bishops and ceremonies

This was not a struggle between government and opposition. Rather, it was a schism within the highest ranks of the Elizabethan establishment

with Elizabeth's chief minister and eldest confidant, William Sissel, on one side

and her archbishop of Canterbury, William Whitgift, on the other. The bad feeling between the two men burst into the open in the Queen's own presence

and Elizabeth came down publicly and heavily on Whitgift's side. Matters of religion, she insisted, were for her and her bishops alone

Neither the council nor parliament had any say in the matter. Instead, since her supremacy over the church came to her from God alone

She was answerable only to God for how she chose to exercise it

This was Henry VIII's own high view of the royal supremacy, and in sticking to it, Elizabeth showed herself every inch her father's daughter

But who would continue the difficult but necessary balancing act of the middle way in religion after the ageing Elizabeth

Her nearest blood relation was King James VI of Scotland, son of a Catholic mother

but brought up in the rigorously Protestant Kirk. The possibility of James' accession aroused wildly contrasting hopes

Whilst he was still only a claimant, he could flatter them all

But when, if he became King of England, he would have to choose

Crowned at the parish Kirk in Stirling on the 29th of July, 1567

James had been king of Scotland since he was a small boy

He was also heir to his mother's claims to England. James was the only child of Mary Queen of Scots' disastrous marriage to Lord Darnley

When he was barely a year old, his mother, widely suspected of murdering his father, had

been forced to flee to England by a Protestant revolt But cradle though he was James still needed rearing and educating like any other child

This boy, of great rank and greater prospects still, was largely brought up at Stirling Castle

It was a strange, insecure kind of childhood. A series of regents who ruled Scotland on his behalf

were murdered in quick succession, and the boy's own life was more than once in danger

In and among it all, James received an impressive education at the hands of his principal tutor, George Buchanan

Dour and self-opinionated, Buchanan was a leading figure in the Scottish Presbyterian Kirk

in which the supreme authority was not the king, as in England

but the general assembly of the clergy. Kings also, Buchanan believed, were mere servants of their people

who could and should be punished if they misbehaved. Buchanan's style as a teacher was important too

Like many 16th century teachers, Buchanan thought that sparing the rod spoiled the child

and he set about beating and birching his beliefs and learning into James with gusto

This treatment indeed succeeded in making James a considerable scholar. But in terms of religion and politics, it produced only an equal and opposite reaction

to which James was able to give expression with unusual force and clarity

And this is the result. It's the true law of free monarchies which James wrote and published in 1598

In it, he says succinctly, kings are called gods. They are appointed by God and answerable only to God

James grounded these assertions, just as Henry VIII had his claim to the royal supremacy

in the biblical story of the Old Testament kings. But James went beyond even Henry VIII

by claiming to be absolute in affairs of state as well as those of the church

In 1601, Elizabeth's leading ministers began to make moves to secure James's path to the English throne

The matter became pressing during the Christmas holidays of 1603, when both Elizabeth's health and her temper suddenly worsened

In mid-January, she moved to Richmond for a change of air, but within a few weeks, she was clearly dying

She lay on a pile of cushions on the floor of her privy chamber, refusing to eat and unable to sleep

Finally, she was carried to her bed, became speechless and died in the small hours of the morning of the 24th of March

after Archbishop Whitgift had lulled her into her last sleep with his impassioned prayers

Elizabeth had restored Protestantism, preserved the royal supremacy

protected her country from invasion and allowed nothing to challenge either her crown or her popularity

Above all, her studiously broad church religious settlement had brought peace, though at the inevitable price

of alienating extremes of all sorts. The great Queen dead, all eyes now turned to Scotland and to James

James VI of Scotland was proclaimed King James I of England within eight hours of Elizabeth's death

And his first parliament proclaimed that he was, by inherent birthright and lawful succession

the inheritor of the imperial crown of England and Scotland. It sounded good, but it was a dangerous doctrine

since it implied that James' title to the throne was above and beyond the law

as of course, James himself, as the author of the true law of free monarchies

firmly believed. CHOIR SINGS

In 1603, James arrived in London in triumph as the undoubted heir of his great-great-grandfather, Henry VII

Henry VII had commissioned the imperial crown here as the symbol of the recovery of the monarchy from the degradation of the Wars of the Roses

Now James, the first ruler of all Britain, would endow it with a larger significance still

James' aim was to be Rex Pacificus, the peacemaker king

He would reconcile Catholic and Protestant, thus re-establishing Christian unity at home and abroad

He would end England's debilitating war with Spain. and, above all, he would terminate the ancient feud between England and Scotland

and fuse instead the two warring kingdoms into a new, greater, united realm of Britain

It was an enormously ambitious programme, and, to realise it, James, in a strikingly modern gesture, summoned three major conferences

on peace, religion and union with Scotland. The Peace Conference and ensuing treaty at Somerset House

were commemorated in this painting. Through them, James ended the 20-year war with Catholic Spain

It was an auspicious start for James, the international peacemaker, but the result, paradoxically, was trouble at home

On the one hand, the Somerset House Treaty meant that the hotter Protestants were shocked to discover

that England, now at peace with the leading Catholic power, would no longer be the champion of their fellow Protestants in Europe And on the other hand the extrema Catholics were equalities made to find out that Spain had not extracted toleration for Catholics as a price of the peace

Abandoned abroad, such Catholics turned, in desperation, to self-help and direct action

at home. At the beginning of November 1605, James was shown a tip-off letter

warning that the political establishment of England would receive a terrible blow in the parliament he was due to open on 5th November

James immediately guessed that the wording of the letter pointed to an explosion

But in order to catch the plotters red-handed, it was decided not to search the vaults under the Parliament Chamber

until the night of the 4th. At 11pm, the search party entered

and found a man standing guard over a pile of firewood, 35 barrels of gunpowder, and with a fuse in his pocket

His name was Guy Fawkes. If the gunpowder had exploded as planned

it would have been the terrorist bombing to end all terrorist bombings

wiping out most of the British royal family and the entire English political establishment

Nevertheless, the immediate political consequences were small. To James's credit, there was no widespread persecution of Catholics in England

and the peace with Spain held. But in the longer term, the plot played an important part

in the development of the Catholic myth in England. The reality was that English Catholicism was a beleaguered minority faith

But in the fevered imagination of the hotter sort of Protestants, it became instead the fifth column of a vast international politico-religious conspiracy

masterminded by the Pope in Rome and aiming not only at the conversion of England

but at the subversion of English Protestantism and English freedoms, and by the foulest possible means

And so, at the second of James' great conferences to determine the nature of the religious settlement

under the new king, those hot Protestants, known pejoratively as Puritans, demanded that the English church be purged of what they regarded

as its damnable popish elements. But they reckoned without the seductive powers of the English monarchy

and the English royal supremacy. In Scotland, James VI had sat in the body of the church

to be admonished by the preacher high in his pulpit as God's silly vessel

But in England, as here in the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court

it was this same man, now known as King James I, who sat high above, enthroned in this magnificent royal pew

whilst the preacher, under correction, went about his humbler task far below

It was the most graphic possible illustration of the power of the royal supremacy

which James was determined to keep in England and, if he could, to extend to Scotland

Instead, therefore, as the Puritans had hoped of making the Church of England more like the Kirk in Scotland

James used the Hampton Court Conference to proclaim that he was satisfied

with the Elizabethan religious settlement as it stood, and was resolved to keep it as it was

He would not, any more than Elizabeth, soften Archbishop Whitgift's hard line

in enforcing ceremonies and vestments which the Puritans thought popish. And, above all, he would allow not an inch of movement

away from the English government of the Church by bishops towards a role for presbyteries or assemblies of clergy, as in Scotland

He even managed to subvert the Puritan demand for a new translation of the Bible

James eagerly agreed, since he detested this, the so-called Geneva version of the Bible

which was then used by Presbyterians in Scotland and Puritans in England because of its marginal notes

which showed a typically hot Protestant disrespect for kings and queens. The King James Version of the Bible, on the other hand

as the large and learned team of translators explained in this preface

was to tread soberly in the middle way between popish persons on the one hand

and the self-conceited brethren, that is, the Puritans, on the other. It was born out of a long-dead politico-theological dispute

and it's the only classic ever to have been written by a committee

Nevertheless, the King James Version of the Bible became the book which, more than any other, shaped the English language

and formed the English mind. James's other lasting legacy

was the union of the crowns of England and Scotland, and he set out his case for union in a speech from the throne

at the opening of his first English parliament in March 1604. His succession had united the kingdoms of England and Scotland

ending the ancient division of the island of Britain. Moreover, the king claimed, these divisions were largely in the mind

Were not England and Scotland already united by a common language, the Protestant religion, and similar customs and manners

was not the border practically indistinguishable on the ground. It was as though God had always intended the union to happen

To resist union, therefore, James concluded, was not simply impolitic but impious

It was to put asunder kingdoms which God himself had joined together

But the English Parliament impolitically and impiously decided to look the gift horse of union in the mouth Partly it was a question of straightforward anti xenophobia

but more fundamental causes were involved as well. These centred on James's apparently innocuous wish

to rename the Anglo-Scottish kingdom Britain. But a new name meant a new kingdom

It would be like, one MP said, a freshly conquered territory in the New World

There would be no laws and no customs. And James, by his own rules in the true law of free monarchies

would be free to set himself up as an absolute, supranational emperor of Great Britain

The English Parliament, in contrast, would be left as a mere provincial assembly

It wasn't an enticing prospect. for MPs who saw themselves as the great council of the realm

James's reaction was to try to enact the Union symbolically, using his own powers under the royal prerogative

By proclamation, he assumed the title of King of Great Britain. He redesigned the royal coat of arms

with the Lion of England balanced by the Unicorn of Scotland, and he insisted on a British flag known as the Jack

after the Latin form of the name James, again by proclamation. but not content with symbols

James also practiced a kind of union by stealth the English political elite had prevented him

from establishing an evenly balanced Anglo-Scots council but a king could do what he liked with his own court

so in revenge James filled his bedchamber the inner ring of his court

almost exclusively with Scots It was a pleasure, since James took a more than fatherly interest

in braw Scots lads with well-turned legs and firm buttocks. But it also suited him politically

since it compelled proud Englishmen to sue for patronage to his Scots favourites

And they had to bribe them as well. But James's policy of union by stealth had a fatal flaw

He had inherited a substantial debt from Elizabeth. He had a large family to maintain

and he wanted to continue pouring money on his favourites and his pleasures

For all this, the Crown's so-called ordinary income, from land and custom duties, was hopelessly inadequate

There was no choice but to ask Parliament to vote money. But the English Parliament saw no reason why taxpayers' money, their money, should end up in the pockets of Scots' favourites

And they said so rather crudely. How, asked one MP, could the cistern of the Treasury ever be filled up if money continued to flow thence by private cocks

Cox meant taps and, well, what it means now. So James's project for British Union remained an unfulfilled dream

whilst his relations with Parliament turned into a disaster. By the time of his death in 1625, he had gone into a sort of internal exile

abandoning the task of government and secluding himself with his favourites and his horses

Nevertheless, James managed to stick to the middle ground and to hold together the warring extremes of the Church of England on the one hand

and the differing religious polities of England and Scotland on the other

The result was a smooth succession on both sides of the border of James' son Charles

to the glittering inheritance of the imperial crown of Great Britain. But within a decade and a half, Charles, by his intransigence and his ineptitude, had thrown it all away

Charles was crowned King of England at Westminster Abbey on 2 February 1626

For James, divine rite had been an intellectual position. For Charles, it was an emotional and religious one

This was immediately made clear by his coronation service, which, meticulously choreographed by the up-and-coming cleric

William Lord, lovingly reproduced all the splendour, solemnity and sacred mysteries of the medieval Catholic rite

the ceremony is one of the best documented as well as the best organised of coronations

thanks to the survival of these two service books here this is Charles' own copy of the coronation service

which he used to follow the ceremony and this is Lord's version of the same text

which he used like a kind of score to conduct the service

He also made notes in the margins in a different coloured ink

to record unusual features of the ceremony as it actually took place

These notes take us into Charles' own mind. During the five-hour-long ceremony

the king was invested with the carefully preserved robes and regalia of Edward the Confessor, the last sainted Anglo-Saxon king

and Charles' attitude to these ancient relics was unique. Here Lord notes that he insisted on placing his feet inside the sacred buskins or sandals

and here that he actually used, apparently for the only time in the 1500-year history of the coronation

the Anglo-Saxon ivory comb, to tidy his hair after he'd been anointed on the head

This wasn't mere idle curiosity. Instead, Charles was treating each and every item of the regalia

as a sacrament of monarchy. With each touch of the precious oils and the ancient fabrics and jewels

God was washing away the merely human in him and leaving him purely, indefeasibly and absolutely a king

Or so Charles at least thought. Charles, as his behaviour at his coronation would suggest

was an aesthete, a lover, a beauty. Elegance and order. His tutor had been chosen not for his scholarship but for his taste in fashion

And Charles himself grew up to be not only fastidious in dress and manners

but also the greatest connoisseur ever to have sat on the throne of England

He built up a staggering collection of old master paintings and he commissioned portraits of himself and his family from the greatest contemporary artists

like Sir Anthony van Dyck. And it is van Dyck, above all, who shows us Charles as he wanted to be

suggesting the grandeur of his kingship on the one hand and the Christ-like wisdom and self-sacrifice

with which he hoped to rule on the other. Like most royal heirs, Charles defined himself

by espousing policies which were the opposite of his father's. He was pro-war, but Parliament, despite its vocal enthusiasm for a Protestant crusade in Europe

was never prepared to vote enough tax to make war a serious option

Frustrated by Parliament's unwillingness to put its money where its Protestant mouth was

Charles, instead of fighting the Catholic French, married the French, and of course Catholic

Princess Henrietta Maria, in 1626. On account of her religion, the marriage was extremely unpopular with Parliament

It didn't even succeed in cementing an alliance with France. The result was that Charles soon found himself in the worst of all possible worlds

without tax, with a Catholic wife, and fighting a hopeless war against both major Catholic powers, France and Spain

Charles, looking for a scapegoat for the debacle, found it in what he saw as Parliament's sullen obstructiveness

Charles decided that Parliaments were more trouble than they were worth and that, in future, he would rule without them

All over Europe, monarchs were dispensing with Parliaments. So, in attempting personal rule, Charles was simply following the European trend

But, unlike his European counterparts, Charles lacked the legal ability to tax his subjects at will

Only a parliament could legislate new taxes. So, like his father before him, Charles' only recourse was to squeeze more revenue out of his customary rights and prerogatives

Fortunately, he got a crack team of lawyers to help him. The most ingenious was the Attorney General William Noy

I moil in the law was the contemporary anagram of his name

and he moiled, that is, toiled or laboured, in the legal archives to great effect

But his masterpiece was ship money. Ship money was a traditional levy imposed on the port towns

to raise vessels for the navy in time of war, as, for example, against the Spanish Armada in the heyday of Elizabethan England

This was uncontroversial, even popular. But Attorney General Noy said that the law allowed the king to extend ship money

from the ports to the inland counties and to impose it in peacetime as well as during war

And all this at the king's mere say-so. The extended ship money was first imposed in 1634, and within a year it was yielding over £200,000 annually, and producing 90% of what the king demanded

This was the Holy Grail which had eluded English kings ever since the Middle Ages

a large-scale permanent income which came in regularly, year by year, without the bother of consulting parliaments

The idea of taxing without parliamentary consent was bound to cause grievance and Charles exacerbated matters by attempting religious innovation as well Whatever the formal rules of the Church of England

much of the country had seen the development of a stripped-down, fundamentalist Protestantism

very little different in practice from the Scottish Kirk. But richer, more ceremonious vision had been preserved in a handful of places

in particular in the Chapels Royal and the Greater Cathedral. Here, there were choirs, organs and music

candles and gold and silver plate on the communion tables and rich vestments for the clergy

William Lord, now Charles' Archbishop of Canterbury, determined to use the royal supremacy

to impose this opulent religious tradition on the whole country. He did so because he thought religion should be about sacraments

as well as sermons, an appeal to the senses as well as to the mind

In England, the policy, despite some foot-dragging and protest, aroused little overt resistance

Indeed, many welcomed it. Emboldened, Charles and Lord decided that it should be extended to Scotland as well

Here, the Reformation had been far more thoroughgoing and radical, and the risks of change were correspondingly greater

But Charles, confident as ever in his God-given rightness, was undeterred. He decided that a barely modified version of the English prayer book

should be used throughout Scotland, and he did so on his own personal authority

without consulting either the Scottish Parliament or the General Assembly of the Kirk

Charles was behaving as though he were the supreme governor of the Scottish Kirk indeed

But would the Scottish Presbyterians accept his authority? The answer came on Sunday, the 28th of July, 1637

when the new prayer book was used for the first time here in St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh

in the presence of the assembled Privy Council of Scotland. But as soon as the Dean had begun the service

a great shout erupted from the crowds at the back of the church

back of the church heavy clasped bibles and folding stools were hurled at the counselors

and the clergy and the rioters were only ejected from the church with difficulty by the guards and

even outside they continued pounding on the doors and pelting the windows until the service was finished

then the protest turned political and here in greyfriars kirk in edinburgh an influential group

of citizens and noblemen drew up and signed an undertaking to resist charles and the innovations

and evils he'd introduced into the kirk borrowing the name from god's solemn compact with the jews

in the Old Testament. The undertaking was known as the Covenant and its adherents were called Covenanters

The scene at Greyfriars was repeated in churches all over the lowlands

It was now the Covenanters, not Charles, who controls Scotland. Britain, which so far had escaped the wars of religion

that had devastated much of the rest of Europe, now faced the horrors of sectarian conflict on its own soil

By 1640, Charles's religious policies had brought about a crisis throughout Britain

Scotland was in the hands of the Covenanters, whilst in England, Charles's opponents drew strength

from events north of the border. But it was the recall of Parliament after 11 years which brought things to a head

Charles had no choice, since only Parliament could vote for money needed to suppress the Covenanters

But equally, Parliament proved an unrivaled forum for the king's opponents. Most dangerous of these was the hitherto obscure lawyer and MP for Tavistock John Pym Pym believed that Charles policies in church and state were the result of a Catholic conspiracy

to subvert the religion and liberties of England. But, instead of wasting his time in fruitless opposition

he'd used the 11 years without a parliament to build up a compelling dossier for his case

In the 1630s, Pym read voraciously, followed every detail of politics at home and abroad

and noted down useful headings and extracts in this little book here

The result was that when Charles was forced to recall Parliament, Pym was the best informed and the best prepared man in the House

ready with both a rhetoric of opposition to Charles' government and a plan of action for curbing royal power

Charles hoped to prey on English xenophobia to persuade Parliament to impose an immediate, vast tax

to crush the traitorous Scots. Pym countered by dragging up his list of political and religious grievances

against Charles' government of the 1630s. Charles then tried to break the deadlock

by hinting at the surrender of ship money. But the hint only emboldened Pym

Finally, Charles lost patience with a parliament which had, once again, failed to deliver

and dissolved it after less than a month. He would fight the Scots without a parliamentary grant

It was a catastrophic decision. These are the mighty ramparts of Berwick-on-Tweed

The border fortress built by King Henry VIII to protect England from the Scots

Expensively refortified by Charles, it stood as a seemingly impregnable barrier between the two countries

but in August 1640 the Scots army large well-disciplined well-armed and well-provisioned

took the daring decision to outflank Berwick cross the river Tweed further upstream and head

straight for Newcastle which in contrast to Berwick was only lightly defended

Only the River Tyne now stood between the Scots and Newcastle. They forced a crossing at Newburn and entered Newcastle

which had been abandoned by its garrison, in triumph on the 30th of August

Never had so many run from so few, and never had Scotland won a greater victory on English soil

or won with such momentous consequences. With the Scottish army encamped on English soil

Charles was forced to call Parliament again. Once again, Charles faced Pym

Pym cleverly focused on the financial and constitutional grievances against Charles. Here, Parliament was united in its opposition

and Charles was forced into a wholesale surrender of ship money and the rest

Boxed in by his opponents in the English Parliament Charles tried to break out by coming to terms with the Scots

In the summer of 1641 he journeyed to Edinburgh and in an astonishing change of front

accepted the religious and political revolution of the last three years He worshipped in the Kirk, agreed to the abolition of bishops

and filled the government of Scotland with the leading covenanters and his own sworn enemies

The king also played several rounds of golf and, reasonably confident that he'd solved one of his problems

returned in an excellent mood to England. Events in England also seem to be moving in Charles' direction

For, with Charles' surrender of ship money and the like, the religious divisions in the commons between Puritans like Pym and those known as Episcopalians who were sympathetic to Charles ceremonious religion were opening up

Pym tried to whip his troops into line by forcing the grand remonstrance to the vote

This was a searing condemnation of Charles's policies in state and especially in church

These amounted, the remonstrance claimed, to an all-embracing Catholic conspiracy to subvert the religion and the liberties of England

The king himself, it was careful to point out, had only been the unwitting agent of the conspiracy

Nevertheless, Charles's gullibility meant that he could never be trusted to choose his own advisers

or to command his own troops again. The remonstrance was normally addressed to the king

but in fact it was a manifesto for a constitutional revolution at least

perhaps even for an armed revolt. The remonstrance was also bitterly divisive

and after days of acrimonious debate it was only passed by 159 votes to 148

a bare majority of 11. The vote showed that the broad-based opposition to Charles had broken up

and the more Pym pushed the Puritan attack on Charles' church, the more his majority risked disappearing entirely

But then Charles overreached himself, convinced, probably correctly, that amongst MPs were traitors

who colluded with the invading Scots. Charles determined to bring five members of Parliament, including Pym, to trial on charges of high treason

On 4th January 1642, King Charles strode into the chamber of the House of Commons to arrest his principal opponents

His guards stood outside, fingering their weapons, as in an uneasy silence, the king sat himself in the speaker's chair

Where are the five members? the king demanded, calling them by name

In response, the speaker fell on his knees, protesting that he could answer only as the house directed him

In fact, the five members, forewarned of the king's movements, had made good their escape by boat from the back of the Palace of Westminster as Charles and his guards had entered on the landward side at the front

Instead, it was Charles himself who had walked into a trap By trying to seize the five members by force

He'd shown himself to be a violent tyrant By failing, he'd revealed himself to be impotent

As Charles left the chamber empty-handed He murmured disconsolately All my birds have flown

So, too, did most of his power. Battle lines were now drawn up

Charles' violent, ill-thought-out gesture not only preserved Pym's parliamentary majority, but also turned London decisively against the king

In the country, however, Pym's increasingly extreme Puritan attack on the church

won Charles a devoted following. following but in fact Charles was no longer really King of Great Britain or

even of England instead he was only the leader of a faction the history had come

almost full circle the attempt to expand the powers of the Imperial crown so as

that it ruled both church and state and Scotland as well as England had

Instead, England was about to return to the factional strife of the Wars of the Roses

and Britain to the national struggles of the Anglo-Scottish Wars. And it began at Nottingham, when Charles raised his standard

in a war against his parliament and half his people. MUSIC PLAYS