Honestly, this history lark is better than a thriller

I mentioned the other day that I had just embarked on the reading equivalent of rowing the Atlantic single-handed by launching into The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I by John Adamson.  Of course, just picking up the 742 page volume is a test in itself which is perhaps the reason why I have only reached page 74 so far!  Even so, it's developing into a first-class thriller as I follow the dangerous machinations of the Earl of Warwick and sundry other Lords and Gentlemen, plus a goodly (or Godly!) number of preachers, as they manoeuvre Charles I into an impossible position in his defence against an incursion by ultra 'proddie Jocks' determined to keep themselves free of Spanish, ie, catholic, influence which Charles and his Archbishop Laud are eager to accept.

In effect, Warwick (the King 'unmaker', perhaps?) is determined to get Charles under the control of an English parliament which, given Charles's obstinate refusal and indeed his habit of proroguing it at the first sign of resistance, is highly unlikely.  However, the Jock incursion into northern England which, in an act very close to high treason Warwick and his fellow aristos encouraged, finds the King bereft of cash which only a Parliament can raise legally.  It is a massive political poker game!

And need I add that irony drips from every page.  The 'proles' have no influence except for the odd riot in London (so no change there then!), and these very early moves towards a system of parliamentary democracy are led entirely by aristocrats and Churchmen.  Also, the desire of these aristos to keep England free from foreign entanglements amounts, perhaps, to the first shots in the VOTE LEAVE campaign!

Comments

[H]

There is (as ever) an alternative reading. One of the reasons for Charles's unpopularity with the more fervent protestants was his refusal to support European protestant rulers (including his own relatives) in their various wars. Under his rule, England enjoyed (ironically, perhaps) a prolonged period of peace, bought at the expense of domestic discontent. So it is Charles, on this reading, who was the real 'outer', and the protestants who were the real Europhiles. Incidentally, I have yet to read an account of that time which did not say that Charles was the preferred choice of the masses - it was the aristocrats and merchants who opposed him who were unpopular.

[David Duff]

Indeed, H, and any attempt, especially by an ignoramus like me, to draw modern parallels are doomed to failure. Even so, I do relish looking back on these events and the highly dangerous manoeuvrings of those involved given, courtesy of hindsight, the totally unexpected results which ensued. Too, too delicious!

[Whitewall]

I'll be curious as to how Cromwell is treated when he appears. Wasn't it the masses who finally joined the rebellion?

[Cuffleyburgers]

Either reading leads me to believe we should cut Cameron's head off.

[David Duff]

I'm still in 1640 so Cromwell hasn't made an appearance yet although there are mentions of the fact that whilst this was an aristocratic rebellion, the bourgeoisie were in the background, not least in the City of London.

Well, Cuffers, perhaps there is a place for ISIS after all!

[mike fowle]

Sounds interesting. I read Veronica Wedgwood's books some time ago (The King's War and The King's Peace and others) and thought they had a terrific dramatic sense.

[David Duff]

Absolutely right, Mike, the more I read the more I wish Shakespeare had been around to write what would have been the greatest of his history plays.