History Bites

Tim & Joe-1175_websize_edited_edited.jpg

Tim has had a lifelong passion for history which started when his father bought him a 'Kings and Queens of England' book from Dover Castle in the early 90s. This love for history grew during his childhood with an almost obsessional interest for all things Ancient Egypt. He has a masters degree in history and specialises in 17th century history. He has written for several publications and museum reviews, as well as working as a researcher on several heritage projects and as a presenter on a documentary about the First World War. He lives in Birmingham with his husband and their two cats and can usually be found in one of the bars of Stirchley.

Articles

Mary & Elizabeth: Two Sisters, One Crown

Mud, Blood and Futility - The First World War Myth

Reviews

Has England's Greatest Murder Mystery Been Solved?

Mary & George: ludicrous but entertaining.

The Coming of Arthur: The Winter King comes to ITV

'The Favourite' - great fiction, questionable history.

Additional Content

Pax Carolana.

In the early 1630s, diplomacy under Charles I of England was marked by a cautious but determined effort to navigate the complex web of European power politics.

A key element of Charles’s diplomatic strategy was reconciliation with Spain. This marked a departure from the warlike policies of the late 1620s, which had been championed by the Duke of Buckingham until his assassination in 1628. Charles, influenced by his personal inclinations and the advice of figures like Sir Francis Cottington, pursued a policy of peace, culminating in the Treaty of Madrid in 1630. This agreement effectively ended hostilities between England and Spain, restoring commercial ties and affirming mutual non-intervention in continental conflicts.

At the same time, Charles sought to maintain a balanced relationship with France. Though he had clashed with Louis XIII during the late 1620s, particularly over English support for the Protestant Huguenots, relations improved in the following decade. The marriage of Charles to the French Catholic Henrietta Maria had once been a source of friction, but by the early 1630s, she played a significant role in fostering diplomatic connections between the two courts.

While Charles sought peace with major European powers, his diplomacy was also shaped by his connections to the wider Protestant cause. His sister, Elizabeth of Bohemia, remained a significant figure in Protestant circles, and Charles maintained an interest in the fortunes of Protestant rulers in the Holy Roman Empire.

However, his reluctance to commit English forces to the Thirty Years’ War meant that his influence remained largely limited to diplomatic manoeuvring rather than military intervention. His refusal to provide meaningful support to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, the great Protestant champion of the Thirty Years' War, frustrated many within England’s Protestant circles. While Gustavus Adolphus gained fame for his military successes, Charles kept his distance, fearing entanglement in European conflicts that could threaten his rule at home.

📜 Stuart Britain: 1631–1640 📜

This April, I'm exploring a decade that would push Britain to the brink of civil war. The 1630s saw Charles I tighten his grip on power, ruling without Parliament in what became known as the Personal Rule—but his attempts at absolute monarchy would only fuel resentment and rebellion.

👑 The Personal Rule (1631–1640): With Parliament dissolved, Charles I ruled alone, relying on controversial financial measures like ship money to fund his government. His policies alienated nobles, merchants, and common people alike.

⛪ Religious Tensions Rise: Charles and Archbishop Laud pushed for religious conformity, enforcing Arminian reforms that many Protestants saw as dangerously close to Catholicism. In Scotland, these policies sparked outright defiance.

⚔️ The Bishops’ Wars (1639–1640): When Charles tried to impose his prayer book on Scotland, the Scots rebelled. Lacking funds and political support, Charles was forced to recall Parliament in 1640—setting the stage for an even greater conflict.

💥 The Road to Civil War: The Short Parliament (April 1640) was dismissed after just three weeks, but the Long Parliament (November 1640) would be Charles’ undoing. As opposition to his rule grew, the kingdom edged closer to war.

This was a decade of rising tensions, rebellion, and the first cracks in royal authority. Join me as we uncover the key events, figures, and conflicts that led Britain toward civil war!

#StuartBritain #CharlesI #BritishHistory #17thCentury #CivilWar #EarlyModernEurope #PersonalRule

By 1630, five years into the reign of King Charles I, life in England, Scotland, and Ireland remained deeply structured by class, tradition, and religion. Society was rigidly hierarchical, with the monarchy, nobility, and gentry holding power, while the majority laboured as farmers, tradesmen, and servants. In the countryside, most people worked the land under landlords, while urban populations grew in crowded and unsanitary conditions. In Ireland, tensions rose as English and Scottish settlers displaced native landowners, deepening divisions.

Religious conflict was becoming more pronounced. Charles I’s firm belief in royal authority extended to the church, as he sought to impose Anglican practices across his kingdoms. In England, Puritans viewed his policies with suspicion, fearing a drift toward Catholicism. In Scotland, resistance grew as attempts were made to introduce changes to Presbyterian worship. In Ireland, Protestant rule increasingly marginalised Catholics, creating unrest among those excluded from power.

The economy revolved around agriculture and trade, with rural communities dependent on farming and livestock, while towns and cities thrived on markets and overseas commerce. Daily life was shaped by social class—food, clothing, and living conditions varied greatly between the wealthy elite and the lower classes. While the rich enjoyed imported goods and fine fabrics, the majority relied on simple, locally produced food and clothing.

Law and punishment were harsh, with strict enforcement maintaining order. Public executions, whippings, and branding were common responses to crime, while accusations of witchcraft led to trials and severe penalties. In Ireland, English rule enforced strict laws that disadvantaged the native population, fuelling resentment and the early stirrings of rebellion.

The realm might have appeared stable, but the seeds of discontent had been sown. The king had dissolved Parliament, ruling arbitrary, and as we will see next month, he spent the following decade on a collision with his own people.

The End of Parliament and the Start of Personal Rule (1629-1630).

By 1629, Charles I had grown deeply frustrated with Parliament. Since his reign began, MPs had challenged his authority, opposed his financial policies, and even forced him to accept the Petition of Right (1628), which limited his power to imprison subjects and raise taxes without consent. But Charles had no intention of sharing power. When Parliament continued to protest his collection of customs duties without approval, he took drastic action.

On 2nd March 1629, as MPs tried to pass resolutions condemning his policies, Charles ordered Parliament to be dissolved. When Speaker Sir John Finch attempted to leave his chair under royal command, rebellious MPs held him down by force, ensuring they could pass their resolutions before the session ended. Furious, Charles had several leading MPs arrested, including Sir John Eliot, who later died in prison.

With Parliament dissolved, Charles embarked on what became known as Personal Rule (1629–1640)—eleven years of governing without Parliament. To finance his rule, he turned to controversial money-raising methods, such as Ship Money, a tax traditionally imposed on coastal towns during wartime. Charles extended it across all of England in peacetime, provoking widespread resentment. He also revived outdated fines, such as penalties for encroaching on royal forests, further alienating landowners.

While his domestic policies stirred unrest, one event in 1630 brought Charles personal joy: the birth of his son, Prince Charles (later Charles II), on 29th May. This secured the Stuart dynasty’s future and gave the king hope for stability.
At the same time, Charles sought peace abroad. He ended England’s involvement in the Thirty Years’ War, signing treaties with France (1629) and Spain (1630) to avoid costly military campaigns. However, his growing reliance on unpopular financial policies and his refusal to call Parliament deepened divisions within England.

Though Personal Rule seemed stable at first, it was built on fragile ground. Beneath the surface, tensions simmered—tensions that, in time, would explode into civil war.

The Assassination of the Duke of Buckingham (1628): A Nation Divided.

On the morning of 23rd August 1628, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, was stabbed to death in a Portsmouth tavern. The reaction to his murder revealed a kingdom divided: while King Charles I was plunged into grief, much of England celebrated. Church bells rang, crowds rejoiced in the streets, and pamphlets hailed his killer as a national hero.

Buckingham had long been England’s most hated man. Rising to power under James I, he retained influence under Charles and controlled much of the government. His reckless foreign policies led England into disastrous wars with Spain and France. The Cadiz Expedition (1625) ended in humiliating failure, and the La Rochelle Expedition (1627), meant to aid the Huguenots, left thousands of English soldiers dead. Parliament tried to impeach him in 1626, but Charles dissolved Parliament to protect him.

Among those who suffered from Buckingham’s failures was John Felton, a disgruntled officer wounded at La Rochelle and left unpaid. Bitter and disillusioned, Felton convinced himself that Buckingham was responsible for England’s decline. On 23rd August, he slipped into the Greyhound Inn in Portsmouth and, as Buckingham passed, plunged a dagger into his chest. The duke staggered a few steps, cried out, and fell dead.

The response was immediate and telling. When news reached London, crowds flooded the streets, cheering his death. Some sang in celebration, and others lit bonfires as if marking a great victory. In contrast, Charles was inconsolable. He locked himself away in mourning, refusing to see anyone but his wife, Henrietta Maria. His grief quickly turned to anger—not just at Felton but at the people who rejoiced.

Felton, convinced he had acted for the public good, did not flee. He surrendered and was taken to the Tower of London, where he was later executed. Yet, in death, he was seen as a martyr by many who believed he had rid England of a tyrant’s corrupt influence.

Buckingham’s murder left a void in Charles’s court, but it did not ease tensions between the king and his people. If anything, the celebration of his death only hardened Charles’s resolve.

The Five Knights’ Case

By 1627, King Charles I was locked in a bitter struggle with Parliament over his authority to raise money without its consent. Parliament had already refused to grant him funds for his costly and unsuccessful military campaigns, particularly the failed Cadiz Expedition (1625) and the disastrous attempt to aid the French Huguenots at La Rochelle (1627). Desperate for money, Charles resorted to a forced loan, demanding payments from his subjects without parliamentary approval. Those who refused were imprisoned without trial.

This heavy-handed tactic alarmed many in England, particularly the landed gentry, who had traditionally supported the monarchy but also valued their legal rights. Among the most notable dissenters were five prominent knights: Sir Thomas Darnell, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir Edmund Hampden, and Sir John Heveningham. They refused to pay the forced loan, arguing that imprisonment without cause violated Magna Carta (1215) and the principle of habeas corpus.

Charles, determined to assert his royal authority, had the knights arrested and jailed. Their imprisonment led to a legal battle that became known as the Five Knights' Case. The knights’ lawyers argued that the king had no right to detain subjects without due process, while Charles’s supporters claimed the crown had special prerogative powers in times of emergency.

The case was brought before the Court of King’s Bench in November 1627. The judges, under immense pressure from the king, ruled in Charles’s favour—but their decision was vague. They avoided directly stating that the king had the absolute right to imprison subjects at will, leaving the issue unresolved. While Charles saw this as a victory, it only deepened the mistrust between the monarchy and Parliament.

The Five Knights’ Case became a rallying cry for Parliament in 1628, leading directly to the Petition of Right, which sought to limit the king’s power by reaffirming that imprisonment without cause was illegal. Although Charles reluctantly agreed to the petition, he soon ignored its terms, further escalating tensions.

Charles' First Year: setting the tone for a disastrous reign.

On March 27th, 1625, Charles I became King of England, Scotland, and Ireland after the death of his father, James I. At 24 years old, Charles inherited not only the throne but also a kingdom simmering with religious tension, financial struggles, and political discord. Unlike his father, whose preference for diplomacy had maintained a fragile peace, Charles had a more rigid vision of kingship—one rooted in divine right and unwavering authority.

His first year as king was marked by immediate and pressing challenges. One of his first acts was to marry Henrietta Maria of France, a Catholic princess. Though politically advantageous, the union fueled Protestant anxieties in England, as many feared the growing influence of Catholicism at court. The king’s devotion to High Anglicanism and his disdain for Puritanism would sow further discord in the years ahead.

Charles also inherited the lingering consequences of his father’s foreign policy. England was drawn into the Thirty Years’ War, with Parliament eager to support Protestant allies against Catholic Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. Yet Charles struggled to secure the necessary funding from Parliament, which distrusted his closest advisor, the Duke of Buckingham. When Parliament refused to grant him sufficient subsidies, Charles dissolved it—foreshadowing the turbulent relationship he would have with his governing body.

Militarily, Charles’ first year was a failure. Under Buckingham’s direction, England launched an expedition to Cadiz in late 1625. Poorly planned and executed, the campaign ended in humiliation, further damaging Charles’ reputation and increasing Parliament’s opposition to Buckingham. As criticism mounted, Charles remained steadfastly loyal to his favourite advisor, deepening the divide between himself and his subjects.

Though still early in his reign, these conflicts foreshadowed the struggles that would ultimately define Charles I’s kingship and lead England down the path to civil war.

Was James I murdered?

On March 27th, 1625, James I of England (and James VI of Scotland) —died at Theobalds House in Hertfordshire. Officially, his death was attributed to a long struggle with ill health, particularly gout and kidney disease. Yet whispers of foul play have echoed through history, with some suggesting that the king may have been poisoned.

James had ruled England for 22 years following the death of Elizabeth I, uniting the crowns of England and Scotland. By the time of his passing at the age of 58, he was no longer the commanding figure he had once been. His health had been in decline for years, plagued by arthritis, kidney stones, and recurring feverish episodes. In his final months, he suffered increasingly from what was described as "tertian ague," likely malaria, and attacks of gout so severe that he became bedridden.

However, suspicions about his death arose due to the involvement of his physician, Sir William Paddy, and later, George Eglisham, a former court doctor. Eglisham published a pamphlet in 1626 accusing the Duke of Buckingham—James’s powerful favourite—of poisoning the king. He claimed that Buckingham had administered a fatal potion under the guise of medicine, hastening James’s death to secure his own influence over the new monarch, Charles I.

At the time, Buckingham was already a controversial figure, blamed for England’s foreign policy failures, and seen as a manipulator of both James and his successor. Though no formal investigation was launched, Eglisham’s accusations fed into existing political tensions, reinforcing fears that Buckingham wielded unchecked power.

Despite the claims, historians remain sceptical of the poisoning theory. James’ symptoms align with natural causes, and no contemporary autopsy was performed to confirm foul play. Additionally, while Buckingham had much to gain from James’ passing, Charles I was already inclined to trust him. If murder was involved, it was neither proven nor pursued.

Whether James died of natural illness or was the victim of a covert assassination, his death marked the end of a relatively peaceful reign, a complete contrast to his son's, which would be Britain's bloodiest.

The Spanish Match: Part 3 - From Diplomatic Disaster to War.

What began as a bold romantic gesture quickly became a humiliating diplomatic failure. Prince Charles had expected to impress the Spanish court, win over Infanta Maria Anna, and finalise the long-delayed marriage treaty. Instead, he and the Duke of Buckingham found themselves trapped in endless negotiations, facing demands they could never meet.

The Spanish never intended to rush the process. King Philip IV and his chief minister, the Count-Duke of Olivares, saw an opportunity to gain major concessions from England. They insisted that Charles convert to Catholicism, allow full religious freedom for English Catholics, and wait at least two more years before marrying Maria Anna.

These terms were impossible. Back in England, anti-Catholic sentiment was at an all-time high, and Parliament would never accept such demands. Worse still, Charles’s efforts to charm Maria Anna had failed—she wanted nothing to do with him. The Spanish court was merely stringing him along to gain diplomatic leverage.

As months passed, Charles and Buckingham grew furious. Buckingham, in particular, believed that Olivares had insulted them and deliberately humiliated England. The once pro-Spanish Charles now turned vehemently anti-Spanish.

By September 1623, they had had enough. Charles and Buckingham abruptly left Spain, their mission a complete failure. When they returned to England in October, they blamed Spain for the fiasco and urged King James I to break ties with Philip IV. Parliament, which had always opposed the Spanish Match, celebrated the failure. Anti-Spanish sentiment exploded, and the once peace-seeking James was forced to abandon all hopes of an alliance.

When Charles became King Charles I in 1625, his first major act was to declare war on Spain, dragging England into the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). A journey meant to secure peace had instead led to war. It also solidified Buckingham’s influence over Charles, leading to more disastrous foreign policies—and ultimately, the tensions that contributed to the Civil Wars.

The Spanish Match: Part 2 - A Prince in Disguise.

In February 1623, Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham embarked on one of the most daring and reckless diplomatic missions in English history. Their goal? To personally negotiate Charles’s marriage to Infanta Maria Anna of Spain and secure an alliance between England and Spain.

But there was a catch—no one in Spain was expecting them.

The journey itself was dangerous. Charles and Buckingham travelled in disguise, using false names (Charles was called “John Smith”) as they crossed France on horseback. At the time, England and France were not on good terms, and the pair risked being captured or recognised at any moment.

When they finally arrived in Madrid, the Spanish court was completely shocked and unprepared. Diplomatic negotiations were a slow, carefully orchestrated process, and the arrival of the heir to the English throne without warning was unheard of. Spanish King Philip IV and his powerful advisor, the Count-Duke of Olivares, were immediately sceptical. They saw Charles’s impulsive visit as reckless, a sign of desperation rather than strength.

Things got worse when it came to the Infanta herself. Spanish court protocol was extremely strict, and Charles was not allowed to meet Maria Anna in private. The Spanish royal family viewed marriage as a matter of dynastic strategy, not romance, and they were in no rush to hand over a Spanish princess to a Protestant prince.

Charles, however, was smitten. He tried to woo Maria Anna, even attempting to watch her from a balcony as she walked in the palace gardens. But the Infanta—raised under the rigid traditions of the Spanish court—showed no interest in him. Meanwhile, Buckingham’s behaviour made things worse. Used to the more relaxed English court, he offended Spanish nobles with his arrogance and impatience.

Next, we’ll explore how negotiations dragged on and how Charles and Buckingham’s frustration turned into humiliation.

The Spanish Match: Part 1 - The Gamble.

In the early 17th century, England and Spain were bitter rivals. Their relationship had been defined by decades of war, religious conflict, and political manoeuvring. Despite this, King James I of England (r. 1603–1625) believed that securing a marriage alliance between his Protestant son, Prince Charles, and a Spanish Catholic princess, Infanta Maria Anna, could bring peace between the two nations.

This proposal, known as the Spanish Match, was met with intense opposition in England. Anti-Catholic sentiment ran deep, fueled by events like the Spanish Armada (1588) and the Gunpowder Plot (1605). Many feared that marrying a Catholic princess would allow Spanish and papal influence to corrupt the Protestant Church of England. Parliament was particularly vocal in its resistance, arguing that the match endangered England’s religious and political independence.

However, James I was determined to maintain peace with Spain. He saw the marriage as a diplomatic tool that could secure an alliance, prevent costly wars, and even restore his son-in-law, Frederick V of the Palatinate, to his lands in the Holy Roman Empire (which had been taken by Catholic forces in the Thirty Years’ War). James believed diplomacy, rather than war, was the best path forward.

Negotiations between England and Spain dragged on for nearly a decade, with little progress. The Spanish kept raising new demands, including requiring Prince Charles to convert to Catholicism and guaranteeing full religious tolerance for English Catholics—conditions that Parliament would never accept.

Frustrated by the slow pace of diplomacy, Prince Charles and his closest advisor, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, decided to take matters into their own hands. In February 1623, they set off on a secret mission to Spain, believing that Charles’s presence in Madrid would convince the Spanish to finalise the marriage.

It was an audacious and dangerous plan—a royal heir travelling across enemy territory in disguise, with no guarantee of success.

Next, we’ll explore how his sudden arrival in Madrid shocked the Spanish court!

Puritans vs. Sunday Funday.

In 1618, King James I issued a 'Declaration Concerning Lawful Sports', a proclamation that aimed to settle a growing cultural and religious divide in England. However, it wasn’t until 1622 that James reissued and reinforced the declaration, making it a significant point of contention between the monarchy and the Puritans.

At its core, the declaration permitted certain recreational activities—such as dancing, archery, and maypole celebrations—on Sundays after church services. James saw this as a way to maintain social harmony, particularly in rural communities where such festivities were long-standing traditions. The king also believed that leisure activities promoted good health and discouraged idleness.

However, Puritans saw the declaration as an attack on their strict interpretation of the Sabbath. They believed Sundays should be reserved for worship and rest, free from any secular distractions. Many Puritan clergymen refused to read the declaration in their churches, considering it an endorsement of sinful behaviour.

The document also had a political dimension. James hoped to reduce religious tensions by offering a middle ground between Protestant and Catholic customs. By allowing traditional festivities, he reassured Catholics that their cultural practices were not entirely forbidden. However, this only deepened Puritan resentment, as they viewed Catholic influence as a threat to England’s Protestant identity.

Despite its controversy, the 'Declaration Concerning Lawful Sports' reflected James I’s broader policy of religious moderation. He sought to balance different factions within the Church of England, but in doing so, he alienated Puritan leaders who sought stricter moral reforms.

The declaration remained a point of division into the reign of his son, Charles I, who reissued it in 1633, further fueling tensions that would contribute to the English Civil War.

The Parliament of 1621: A foreshadowing of Civil War.

In 1621, after seven years without a sitting Parliament, King James I reluctantly summoned one. His decision was driven by financial troubles and growing concerns over England’s position in European politics. The Thirty Years’ War had begun in 1618, and James’s son-in-law, Frederick V of the Palatinate, had lost his lands to Catholic forces. James, who had long preferred peace over war, now faced mounting pressure to intervene on behalf of Protestant allies. However, war required money, and James’s personal finances were in disarray due to extravagant court spending.

Parliament saw this as an opportunity to reassert its influence after years of royal dominance. From the outset, MPs were not simply willing to grant funds without addressing broader issues. They quickly turned their attention to corruption in government, notably impeaching Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon on charges of bribery. This marked the first time in history that Parliament had used impeachment to hold royal officials accountable—a significant step toward constitutional government.

Foreign policy also became a battleground. Many MPs wanted James to take a firmer stance against Catholic Spain, particularly regarding the controversial “Spanish Match” between Prince Charles and the Spanish Infanta. Parliament feared that such a marriage would bring Catholic influence into England. When they attempted to debate foreign policy, James saw it as an intrusion on his royal prerogative.

Tensions reached a breaking point in December when Parliament issued the Protestation of 1621, asserting their right to discuss matters of state. Furious, James tore the document from the record and dissolved Parliament. Several MPs, including Sir Edward Coke, were arrested.

Though short-lived, the 1621 Parliament set a precedent for Parliamentary authority. It demonstrated that MPs could challenge the monarchy on key issues and shaped the conflicts that would ultimately lead to the English Civil War. What began as a financial necessity for James I became a turning point in the struggle between Crown and Parliament—a struggle that would define the century.

📜 Stuart Britain: 1621–1630 📜

This March, I'm diving into one of the most fascinating and turbulent decades in British history—the 1620s! This was a period of political tension, religious conflict, and royal ambition, setting the stage for the later crises of the Stuart era.

👑 James I & Charles I: The twilight years of James VI & I saw increasing struggles with Parliament, financial troubles, and the controversial Spanish Match. By 1625, Charles I had ascended the throne, bringing his own vision of kingship—one that would soon put him at odds with his subjects.

⚔️ War & Diplomacy: England found itself embroiled in the Thirty Years' War, with disastrous military campaigns and an expensive, unpopular foreign policy.

⛪ Religion & Rebellion: Tensions between Protestants and Catholics grew sharper, while Charles I’s preference for Arminianism and his marriage to a Catholic queen raised eyebrows.

💰 Power Struggles: Parliament and the monarchy clashed repeatedly over money and authority, leading to the dramatic dissolution of Parliament in 1629 and Charles’ move towards personal rule.

Join me as I explore the events, personalities, and conflicts that defined this crucial decade in British history. Stay tuned for posts on key figures, major events, and fascinating stories from the era!

#StuartBritain #History #JamesI #CharlesI #17thCentury #BritishHistory #EarlyModernEurope

Britain in 1620: A Nation on the Brink of Change.

In 1620, Britain was a nation in transition, facing growing social divisions, religious conflict, and political tensions that would shape its future. While the wealthy enjoyed increasing prosperity, much of the population struggled under economic hardship, and the monarchy’s authority was beginning to face serious challenges.

At the top of society, the nobility and gentry thrived, benefiting from rising land values and expanding trade. The enclosure of common lands allowed them to increase their estates, but it also displaced many rural workers, leaving them landless and desperate. These displaced farmers joined the growing urban poor, who faced overcrowding, disease, and low wages in cities like London and Edinburgh.

Religious divisions were deepening. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland, both under royal control, faced mounting criticism. In England, Puritans—strict Protestants who sought to remove Catholic influences—were becoming increasingly influential in Parliament. Some, frustrated with restrictions, left on the Mayflower in 1620 to seek religious freedom in America. In Scotland, tensions between Presbyterians and the monarchy were rising, laying the groundwork for future conflict. Meanwhile, Catholics remained marginalised, facing persecution and suspicion, especially in the wake of the failed Gunpowder Plot (1605).

Politically, King James I ruled both England and Scotland, believing in the divine right of kings. However, Parliament was becoming more assertive, challenging his financial demands, and seeking greater influence. Though open conflict had not yet erupted, these tensions foreshadowed the English Civil War (1642-1651) and later struggles in Scotland and Ireland.

Despite internal divisions, Britain was expanding its global reach. Colonisation in Virginia was growing, trade was booming, and Britain was beginning to shape its role as a global power. Yet beneath this progress, the country was deeply divided.

#StuartHistory #BritishHistory #StuartDynasty #17thCentury

The Journey to the Mayflower.

The roots of this journey can be traced back to the reign of Mary I (1553–1558). Determined to restore Catholicism, Mary launched a brutal persecution of Protestants, leading to the execution of hundreds of religious dissenters. This period, known as the Marian burnings, left a lasting impact, reinforcing the Protestant cause and making religious freedom a central issue for many reformers. Under her successor, Elizabeth I, the Church of England, was officially Protestant, but it did not go far enough for radical Puritans who sought to purify the church of remaining Catholic influences.

The Act of Uniformity in 1559 made attendance at Church of England services mandatory, forcing many Puritans to choose between conformity and resistance. Some remained within the church to push for reform, while others, known as separatists, believed the only solution was to break away entirely.

Many separatists fled to the Netherlands, where religious tolerance under William of Orange allowed them to worship freely. However, this freedom came with new challenges. Without a common enemy, divisions emerged within their communities. Moreover, as they spent decades abroad, concerns grew that their children were losing their English identity.

When James I ascended the throne in 1603, hopes for greater religious freedom in England were quickly dashed. Some separatists reconciled with the Church of England, but others sought a new home where they could practice their faith without compromise.

By 1617, a congregation in Leiden, Netherlands, decided that America was their best option. Ironically, they were not fleeing persecution but rather the excess of religious tolerance in the Netherlands, which they believed was weakening their faith. Additionally, they wished to preserve their English culture, something they feared would be lost if they remained in the Netherlands. In 1620, the Mayflower set sail for the New World.

The Mayflower’s voyage was not just a bold journey across the Atlantic but the final step in a long and painful struggle for religious autonomy.

#history #Mayflower #EnglishHistory #puritans

Was James I gay?

While James was married to Anne of Denmark and fathered several children, historical records suggest he had intense emotional and possibly romantic relationships with several male courtiers. Letters and recorded interactions indicate that James had a deep affection for three men in particular: Esmé Stewart, Robert Carr, and George Villiers.

Esmé Stewart, a French nobleman and cousin of James, arrived in Scotland in 1579 and quickly became James’s favourite. James, only 13 at the time, bestowed titles and honours upon Stewart, which caused outrage among the Scottish nobility. Their close relationship was considered inappropriate by some, leading to Stewart’s exile.

Later, James grew deeply attached to Robert Carr, whom he showered with wealth and influence. Carr’s sudden rise to power raised suspicions, especially as James openly expressed his fondness for him. However, Carr fell from favour due to a scandal involving his wife and an infamous poisoning case.

The most well-documented relationship was with George Villiers, whom James elevated to the title of Duke of Buckingham. Surviving letters reveal James referring to Villiers in intimate and affectionate terms, even comparing their bond to a marriage. In one letter, James wrote:

"I desire only to live in this world for your sake."

Such language, unusual for political relationships of the time, has led many scholars to conclude that James harboured deep romantic feelings for Villiers.

Despite these indications, whether James I was truly "gay" in the modern sense is difficult to determine. Concepts of sexuality in the early modern period were different from today. Emotional, even passionate, male friendships were not uncommon in James’s era.

Recent dramas such as 'Mary & George' have played heavily on James' 'homosexuality'. Whether he was or not, we'll never know, but James I's close relationships with male courtiers, combined with his strained interactions with women—including his political marriage to Anne of Denmark and his notorious obsession with persecuting witches—suggest a possible discomfort with traditional heterosexual roles, and perhaps homosexuality.

James I and Witchcraft.

Unlike his predecessors, who largely dismissed the idea of witches as superstition, James believed in their power and saw them as a direct threat to his rule and to Christianity itself. His reign was marked by a fearsome crusade against witchcraft, one that left hundreds dead and cemented his place in history as a king of paranoia and persecution.

James’s fascination with witches began in 1590, when he was still ruling Scotland. That year, his voyage back from Denmark with his new queen, Anne, was nearly ruined by violent storms at sea. Convinced that witches had conjured the tempest to kill him, he ordered an investigation that resulted in the infamous North Berwick witch trials. Dozens of people, mostly women, were accused of gathering in covens to plot against the king, with some confessing—under extreme torture—to unholy dealings with the devil.

This event set James on a path of relentless persecution. He personally oversaw some trials and even wrote a book on the subject, Daemonologie (1597), in which he outlined his beliefs on witchcraft, Satan, and the proper methods of rooting out witches. His book encouraged the use of torture, and his ideas fuelled a climate of fear across Britain, leading to widespread accusations and brutal executions.

When James ascended to the English throne in 1603, he brought his fear of witches with him. England had seen witch trials before, but James’s influence intensified the hunt. The Witchcraft Act of 1604 made it a capital offence to invoke spirits or practice sorcery, leading to a rise in accusations and executions. The famous Pendle witch trials of 1612, one of the most notorious in English history, occurred during his reign, demonstrating the far-reaching impact of his beliefs.

Yet, towards the end of his reign, James began to question some of the more absurd accusations of witchcraft. He even intervened in certain cases, expressing doubt about whether all accused witches were truly in league with the devil. Despite this late scepticism, his early actions had already set the stage for decades of persecution, influencing witch hunts in both England and the American colonies.

#history

In 1617, after fourteen years as King of England, James I (James VI of Scotland) returned to his homeland for the first time since departing in 1603. Though he had ruled Scotland since childhood, his long absence had created tensions. His return was meant to reaffirm his authority, but instead, it revealed just how much Scotland had changed without him.

When James inherited the English throne in 1603, he eagerly left Edinburgh for London, embracing the wealth and prestige of the English court. He hoped to unite Scotland and England under a single monarchy, but Scotland remained an independent and often unruly kingdom in his absence. Power in Scotland fell increasingly to the Privy Council and the Presbyterian Kirk (Church of Scotland), both of which resisted James’s attempts at imposing his vision of royal and religious authority.

By 1617, James was eager to assert control over Scotland. His return was marked by lavish ceremonies, but underlying tensions soon emerged. One of his key goals was to introduce Anglican-style religious practices into the fiercely Calvinist Scottish Kirk. He believed in the divine right of kings and saw himself as head of the church, but Scottish ministers, who favoure a more democratic church structure, deeply opposed his policies.

The defining moment of James’s visit was the Five Articles of Perth, which aimed to introduce Anglican elements such as kneeling during communion and religious feast days. These reforms were seen as an attack on Presbyterianism, and despite James’s efforts, they sparked significant resistance. Many Scots feared a return to Catholic-style rituals, and the dispute widened the divide between the king and his northern subjects.

Beyond religion, James was also shocked by the state of Scotland’s nobility and governance. While he had embraced the grandeur of the English monarchy, Scotland remained a poorer and more politically fractious kingdom. His efforts to enforce English-style rule alienated many nobles, and his brief visit did little to strengthen his grip on Scottish affairs.

James left Scotland in 1617, never to return, but the tensions his visit exposed would last beyond his reign.

The Valentine's Day Marriage of the Winter Queen.

On February 14, 1613, Elizabeth Stuart, the daughter of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, married Frederick V, Elector Palatine, in a grand ceremony at Whitehall Palace. This was no ordinary royal wedding—it was a political and religious statement that would have far-reaching consequences for Britain and Europe.

Elizabeth, often called the “Winter Queen”, was a beloved princess known for her intelligence, charm, and strong Protestant faith. Her marriage to Frederick V, a leading figure of the Protestant Union in the Holy Roman Empire, was carefully arranged to strengthen England’s ties with Protestant Europe against the growing power of Catholic nations like Spain and the Habsburgs. The match delighted English Protestants, who saw it as a stand against Catholicism. The wedding itself was a spectacular affair, reflecting the wealth and prestige of James I’s court.

After the festivities, Elizabeth and Frederick left for Heidelberg, the capital of the Palatinate. Their marriage was initially a happy one, and they became important figures in European politics. However, their fortunes changed dramatically in 1619 when the Bohemian nobility offered Frederick the throne of Bohemia, challenging the Catholic Habsburgs. Encouraged by Elizabeth, who embraced her new role as queen, Frederick accepted.

Their reign was short-lived. In 1620, the Catholic forces of the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II crushed Frederick’s army at the Battle of White Mountain, forcing the couple into exile. This defeat marked the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War, a devastating conflict that engulfed Europe for decades.

Elizabeth, now known as the "Winter Queen," because her reign in Bohemia lasted less than a year, spent the rest of her life in exile, fighting for her family's cause. Her descendants, however, would have the last word—her grandson, George I, became King of Britain in 1714, establishing the Hanoverian dynasty.

The Overbury Scandal.

In the early hours of September 15th, 1613, Sir Thomas Overbury died in agony in the Tower of London, where he had been imprisoned for six months. His body showed signs of poisoning—yellow pustules on his stomach, discoloured skin, and a foul stench. It was later revealed that he had been slowly poisoned with arsenic, nitric acid, and mercury sublimate, administered through his food and medicines.

The mastermind behind Overbury’s murder was Frances Howard, the ambitious wife of Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, and lover of Robert Carr, Viscount Rochester, King James I’s favourite. Frances sought to annul her marriage to Essex to marry Carr, a marriage between Frances and Carr would consolidate their political influence at court.

However, Overbury fiercely opposed this relationship, viewing Frances as manipulative and fearing her influence over Carr. His knowledge of their affair posed a threat to Frances’s annulment case, which relied on claims of her husband’s impotence.

To silence Overbury, her uncle the Earl of Northampton orchestrated his imprisonment under the guise of a diplomatic appointment, which Overbury refused—an act of contempt that landed him in the Tower. There, Frances arranged for his slow poisoning, aided by corrupt Tower officials, including Sir Gervase Elwes, whose negligence—or complicity—proved fatal.

Initially, Overbury’s death aroused little suspicion. Frances secured her annulment just ten days later and married Carr, now Earl of Somerset, in a lavish ceremony. But in 1615, whispers of the truth reached Sir Ralph Winwood, a government official slighted by Somerset’s political maneuovering. Winwood learned from the Countess of Shrewsbury—who had heard from Elwes himself—that Overbury had been murdered. After subtly confronting Elwes, Winwood extracted a confession and eventually revealed the plot to King James.

The subsequent trial in 1616 shocked the nation. Frances and Somerset were convicted of murder but spared execution, unlike several of their accomplices, including Elwes, who was hanged. The scandal exposed the corrupt nature of the Jacobean court.

My first printed history publication is now available.

Edition 23 of @thehistoriansmagazine includes my article.

'Murderer or Martyr? Northamptonshire's reaction to the trial and execution of Charles I'

In January 1649, the English took the unprecedented decision to put King Charles I on trial for treason, an act that would see the end of the monarchy. However, this decision was reached by only 59 commissioners in London and by no means reflected a national consensus.

During the civil war, Northamptonshire was steadfast in its support for the Parliamentary cause, but the responses to the king's execution highlight a divided community representative of Parliamentarians across the country.

Edition 23 can be purchased via the link in bio.

#history #historian #historians #historiansmagazine #civilwar #StuartHistory ##17thcentury #EnglishHistory #monarchy #stuartdynasty #stuartsaturday #CharlesI #Cromwell

In 1612, the untimely death of a prince would change the course of British history.

Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, was a beacon of hope for early 17th-century England, embodying the ideals of a future monarch destined to lead with vigour and virtue. Born on February 19th, 1594, to James VI of Scotland (later James I of England) and Anne of Denmark, Henry was the eldest son, positioned to inherit the entire British Isles following the Union of the Crowns in 1603.

From an early age, Henry displayed remarkable intelligence, charisma, and a commanding presence. His education was rigorous, steeped in classical learning, military training, and the arts. Tutors crafted a prince who excelled in languages, philosophy, and physical prowess.

Henry’s popularity was immense. He was seen as the antithesis of his father’s perceived indecisiveness and extravagance. Where King James favoured scholarly debate and political caution, Henry exuded martial spirit and a strong sense of moral purpose. His interests in naval power and colonisation hinted at an ambitious vision for England's future on the global stage.

However, the promise of his reign was never realised. In the autumn of 1612, Henry fell gravely ill, succumbing to what contemporary accounts described as typhoid fever on November 6th, at just 18 years old. His death plunged the nation into profound mourning, with widespread grief reflecting the collective loss of a prince who symbolised England's aspirations.

Henry Frederick's untimely death altered the course of British history. His younger brother, Charles, ascended as heir, eventually becoming King Charles I—a monarch whose reign was marked by civil war and eventual execution.

#history #BritishHistory #StuartHistory #StuartDynasty #EnglishHistory #scottishhistory

The King James Bible sparked controversy but shaped faith, language, and culture for centuries.

In 1611, England witnessed the publication of one of the most influential books in history—the King James Bible. Commissioned by King James I, this translation of the Scriptures was intended to unify religious factions, assert royal authority, and provide an English Bible that was both accurate and majestic. However, its reception was far from immediate acceptance.

The translation process began in 1604, when Puritans, dissatisfied with previous English versions, urged James to authorise a new one. He assembled 47 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster—some of the finest minds in theology and languages. They drew from previous English Bibles, such as William Tyndale’s pioneering translation, as well as ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts. Over several years, they crafted a version designed to reflect both doctrinal fidelity and literary beauty, making it accessible for clergy and laypeople alike.

Upon publication, the King James Bible faced a mixed reception. It did not immediately replace older versions like the Geneva Bible, which was favoured by Puritans for its detailed commentary. Many Protestant reformers, particularly in Scotland, distrusted the King James Version, seeing it as too closely tied to royal authority. Others criticised its elegant but sometimes complex language, arguing that it was less accessible than earlier translations.

Despite initial resistance, the King James Bible gradually gained dominance, especially as King Charles I and later Anglican authorities suppressed the Geneva Bible. Its poetic language, memorable phrasing, and use in church services cemented its place in religious and literary tradition.

What began as a king’s effort to unite his kingdom became one of the most enduring texts in human history—revered, debated, but never forgotten.

#history #StuartHistory #kjvbible #KingJamesI #Bible #kingjamesbible

This February, we’re continuing our journey through the early 17th century.

From the publication of the King James Bible to Shakespeare’s final years, and from the rise of the East India Company to the Mayflower’s journey to America, we’ll be exploring the defining moments of Britain between 1611 and 1620.

Expect posts on:
📖 The King James Bible (1611)
🔥 The Globe Theatre fire (1613)
⚖️ The Overbury murder scandal (1615)
⚔️ Sir Walter Raleigh’s final days (1618)
⛵ The Mayflower’s historic voyage (1620)

#HistoryLovers #BritishHistory #17thCentury #KingJamesBible #Shakespeare #GlobeTheatre #Pilgrims #Mayflower #EastIndiaCompany #Stuarts #HistoryMatters #HistoricalEvents #HistoryPage #StuartHistory #stuartsaturday

As January comes to an end, so does our journey through the early years of Stuart Britain.

By 1610, the union of crowns under James had survived plague, plots, and the transition of dynasties.

Stuart Britain was secure, for now, but the seeds of future tensions had been sown, and the relative calm of this period would be short-lived.

#StuartHistory #history #JamesI ##UnionOfCrowns #StuartDynasty #BritishHistory

The Ulster Plantation: The Seeds of Division and the Roots of the Troubles.

The Plantation of Ulster, launched in 1610 under King James I, was not just a colonial land grab—it was the foundation of a conflict that would shape Ireland for centuries, culminating in the Troubles of the late 20th century.

Designed to Anglicise and Protestantise the north of Ireland, the plantation created deep divisions between the native Catholic Irish and the newly arrived Protestant settlers. These divisions hardened over time, leading to cycles of violence and political unrest that continue to reverberate today.

The plantation followed the Flight of the Earls in 1607, when Gaelic lords, defeated in war, fled Ireland, leaving their vast lands open for confiscation. James I saw an opportunity not just to extend English rule but to create a loyal Protestant stronghold in Ireland’s most rebellious region. Over 500,000 acres of land in Ulster—covering present-day counties like Derry/Londonderry, Tyrone, and Fermanagh—were seized and redistributed to Protestant settlers from England and Scotland.

The Crown enforced strict rules: settlers had to be English-speaking, Protestant, and committed to building new fortified towns and estates. The native Irish, meanwhile, were displaced or reduced to tenant status, barred from living in plantation settlements unless they conformed to English laws and customs.

In the short term, this system led to repeated uprisings, including the Irish Rebellion of 1641, when dispossessed Catholics attacked plantation settlements, leading to brutal reprisals from Protestant forces.

By the 20th century, these divisions had evolved into Northern Ireland’s sectarian conflict. The Protestant population, descendants of the original settlers, dominated political power under British rule, while the Catholic minority, still largely identifying with the dispossessed Irish of the plantation era, faced systemic discrimination. This inequality fueled the civil rights movement of the 1960s and, ultimately, the violent decades of the Troubles.

#history #StuartHistory #JamesI #irishhistory #Ulster #thetroubles

The Midland Revolt of 1607: the first but not the last of the Stuart Era.

In the spring and summer of 1607, the English Midlands became a stage for rebellion. The Midlands Revolt was not a grand war but a desperate cry from the landless and oppressed, echoing across Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, and Warwickshire. It was a clash between peasants and the powerful, sparked by the age-old conflict over land and livelihood.

The early 17th century saw the English countryside transformed by enclosure—a practice that fenced off common lands for private use, usually for sheep grazing. Land that had once been shared by local communities for farming and survival was now seized by wealthy landlords. This shift was devastating for rural peasants, who relied on these commons for grazing their livestock, growing food, and gathering firewood. Enclosure laws, backed by government decrees, reduced them to destitution, fueling anger and resentment.

In May 1607, that resentment erupted. Thousands of peasants, driven by hunger and desperation, banded together to resist enclosures. They called themselves “Levellers,” a name reflecting their method of protest—tearing down hedges and fences that enclosed the commons. Armed with little more than agricultural tools, they marched across villages and estates, dismantling enclosures and restoring the land to its open state.

The rebels were led by figures such as John Reynolds, a charismatic leader known as “Captain Pouch.” Reynolds claimed his leather pouch contained a divine guarantee of protection, though its contents—a lump of green cheese—became the stuff of legend.

The uprising was met with swift and brutal suppression. Armed forces were dispatched to crush the rebels, resulting in violent confrontations. At Newton in Northamptonshire, troops clashed with Levellers in what became the uprising’s most infamous moment. Dozens of rebels were killed, and others were captured and executed, their dreams of justice drowned in blood.

#MidlandsRevolt #1607Uprising #PeasantRebellion #EnglishHistory #SocialJustice #EnclosureActs #LandRights #ForgottenHistory #Levellers #RuralResistance

Shakespeare's Jacobean Renaissance.

When we think of William Shakespeare, we often associate him with the Elizabethan era, the golden age of Queen Elizabeth I. Yet, Shakespeare’s career thrived equally—if not more so—during the early years of James I, making him as much a Jacobean figure as an Elizabethan one.

With the ascension of James, Shakespeare’s acting company, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, gained royal patronage and became the King’s Men. This royal endorsement not only elevated their status but also offered Shakespeare the stability and resources to create some of his most enduring works. It is during these early Jacobean years that Shakespeare reached the height of his creativity.

James I’s interests shaped much of the cultural output of the time. A scholar and avid patron of the arts, James was particularly fascinated by kingship, the supernatural, and questions of morality—preoccupations that deeply influenced Shakespeare’s writing.

Macbeth, written around 1606, reflects James’s own concerns with regicide, divine authority, and witchcraft, topics that align with the king’s treatise Daemonologie. Similarly, plays like King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra, written during this period, explore themes of power, ambition, and human frailty, resonating with the political and philosophical tensions of James’s court.

Shakespeare’s Jacobean works are darker, more introspective, and more attuned to the complexities of leadership and human fallibility. They reflect a playwright who had matured alongside the shifting tides of England’s monarchy, adapting to new audiences and new expectations.

To confine Shakespeare solely to the Elizabethan age is to diminish the breadth of his achievements. His Jacobean years were just as vital, producing masterpieces that interrogated power, identity, and the supernatural in ways that remain profoundly relevant. Shakespeare belongs to both eras—a bridge between the golden age of Elizabeth and the complex world of Jacobean England.

#Shakespeare #ElizabethanEra #JacobeanEra #WilliamShakespeare #KingJamesI #ShakespeareLegacy #JacobeanTheatre #ElizabethanTheatre #ShakespeareHistory #Macbeth #KingLear #AntonyAndCleopatra

.pro-gallery-wix-wrapper {display: block !important;} .pro-gallery-wix-wrapper .gallery-item-container {opacity: 1 !important; display: block !important;}

Follow me on Instagram

@trhs.historian

Articles

Mary & Elizabeth: Two Sisters, One Crown

The Queen who never was

The Thistle and the Rose

Mud, Blood and Futility - The First World War Myth

Reviews

Has England's Greatest Murder Mystery Been Solved?

Mary & George: ludicrous but entertaining.

The Coming of Arthur: The Winter King comes to ITV

'The Favourite' - great fiction, questionable history.

Additional Content

Follow me on Instagram

Contact me

Articles

Reviews

Additional Content

​

Follow me on Instagram

Contact me