• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

40. Gardiner, CD, pp. 347–52, quotation at pp. 349–50.

41. Gardiner, IV, p. 41.

42. Ibid.; for the text of Charles’s rejection see Gardiner, CD, pp. 353–6, quotation at p. 355.

43. Gardiner, CD, p. 356; for the previous proposal see above, p. 510.

44. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 319–23, quotations at pp. 320, 321 (italics in the original). The regicide was to make clear, however, that a willingness to kill the King, or see him killed, could co-exist with a commitment to the preservation of the House of Lords: Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974), esp. pp. 49–50.

45. Gardiner, IV, pp. 52–6; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 320–23; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 237–8: see the Commons order, CJ, v, 416, interpreted here as reviving the powers of the Committee of Both Kingdoms, with a reformed (all-English) membership and a new title. The Committee of Both Kingdoms was defunct after the Scots handed over the King at Newcastle and returned north: Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 160–62, 164–7; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 352. It may not have been formally dissolved, however, and it is not clear from the order if it is being revived, or reconfigured. I am grateful to Ann Hughes and Mark Kishlansky for discussing this with me

46. Gardiner, CD, pp. 348–9.

47. Gardiner, IV, pp. 60–61; A declaration of the Commons of England In Parliament assembled [11 February 1648] (London, 1648), TT, E.427[9]; Alastair Bellany, ‘The Murder of James I: Mutations and Meanings of a Political Myth, c. 1625–1660’ (unpublished paper).

48. Charles Carlton, Charles 1: The Personal Monarch (London, 1983), p. 328.

49. Gardiner, III, p. 309–10. For other indications of his apparent willingness to die rather than compromise his principles see Gardiner, III, pp. 134–7; and Cust, Charles I, esp. pp. 410, 421.

50. The authoritative study is M. D. Whinney, ‘John Webb’s Drawings for the Whitehall Palace’, Walpole Society, 31 (1946 for 1942-3), 45-107, esp. pp. 45, 81–8. There is documentary evidence that Webb visited the King in Hampton Court and Carisbrooke. A surviving scheme, marked ‘taken’ by Charles I, belongs stylistically with the work of Webb rather than Jones, and obviously predates 1649. It is therefore supposed to be the one that arose from these visits of Webb. For fuller context see Simon Thurley, The Lost Palace of Whitehall (London, 1998), pp. 17–28; for the comparison with the Escorial see P. W. Thomas, ‘Charles I of England: The Tragedy of Absolutism’, in A. G. Dickens (ed.), The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Royalty 1400–1800 (London, 1977), pp. 191–211, at p. 193. For earlier attributions of these designs See also J. Alfred Gotch, ‘The Original Drawings of the Palace of Whitehall Attributed to Inigo Jones’, Architectural Review, 31 (1912), 333–64; E. S. De Beer, ‘Whitehall Palace: Inigo Jones and Wren’, Notes and Queries, 177 (1939), 471–3. For Jones and Webb see John Newman, ‘Jones, Inigo (1573–1652)’, ODNB, 30, pp. 527–38; John Bold, ‘Webb, John (1611–1672)’, ODNB, 57, pp. 837–40.

19. To Preserve That Which God Hath Manifestly Declared Against

1. David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 98–105; Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–8 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 326–35.

2. Micheal Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999), ch. 5; Patrick J. Corish, ‘Ormond, Rinuccini, and the Confederates, 1645–9’, in T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and E. J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early Modern Ireland 1534–1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 317–35, at pp. 323–30; summary in Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 405; Gardiner, IV, pp. 102–10.

3. David Underdown, Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), p. 90.

4. Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640