|
An Appreciation of English Antique Furniture
A semi biographical journey of my life in the English Decorative Arts
|
|
"The Blazing World, A New History of Revolutionary England, 1603-89", by Jonathan Healey, is my latest read on English history and it is amazing for the granular level of detail that Mr. Healey has researched. This is a close examination of the events that, essentially, upset the apple cart of the English monarchy. By that, of course, I am referring to the beheading of Charles I in 1649, who as far as I can see, did his damnedest, again and again, to inflame the populace and insure his and the monarchy's demise. But the rule of the Lord Protector--Cromwell's short six years, 1652-58--were transformative as England became a religiously tolerant society under Cromwell as Jews were invited back to England and George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, was a friend to Cromwell. In other words, England reiterated its role in Europe as an outward looking, market friendly society. About the first two Stuart Kings, James I and Charles I, there was a reliance on religion to be the builders of community or, as Karl Marx might say, the opiate of the masses--the scepter that would keep their subjects in line through the use of, in particular but not exclusive to, liberal Protestantism--Arminianism, which aped the pomp and circumstance of Catholicism. The reliance became a matter of principle for Charles I which his subjects saw as Catholic-lite.
It needs to be understood that the Reformation, referred to as the Reformations by the historian Carlos Eire as the break made from Roman church, famously ascribed to the moment when he allegedly nailed his doctrine of faith to the doors of the castle of Wittenberg, was not a single break but a fragmentation that had numerous iterations. This was true of the Protestant sects in the U.K. Baptist, Calvinism and Presbyterianism, for example, were strict, but more conservative still were the Puritans., often reviled by everyone (Cromwell is an exception to that rule). Charles certainly had no time for them and antagonized them as they were, by and large, a minority sect. This antagonism took many forms such as the re-issue of James I's Book of Sports, (to be played on Sundays) stained glass windows in houses of worship, a new book of Common Prayer and the unfortunate "Wicked Bible" which contained mis-prints including the seventh commandment, "thou shalt commit adultery" and from Deuteronomy, "the Lord hath showed us his great glory and his great ass".
Not to mention how shabbily Charles treated the Parliament, source of the Levellers who wanted a more democratic England. Charles believed that there were no impediments to his needs, that he had divine authority to demand his subjects pay taxes--he was always chronically short of funds--and believed Parliament was, or should be, a rubber stamp to his edicts. Parliament felt otherwise and so Charles prorogued Parliament and issued taxes when he needed cash--this was known as his Personal Rule. Some of it was necessary--the ship building tax was highly important, but getting back the pawned crown jewels from Holland or waging war on Scotland was not a high priority for the tax payers, particularly in years with poor harvests and high inflation. When the Parliament re-met after the second prorogation, they were in a filthy mood and a good fortune teller could have predicted Charles's demise without reliance on mystical powers. There were a few armed battles to be fought before that happened, and plenty of disagreement between Parliament and the New Model Army headed by Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell, in the end and rather oddly, believed in the concept of a monarchy, something he turned down for himself, which ultimately led to Charles II's return.
In thinking about the disastrous reign of Charles, one wonders if, in the long run, the U.K. didn't benefit from the dissolution of the monarchy? The forces that engendered the situation were both political and religious. Catholicism, for example, was always reviled, eventually causing James II to flee in the "Bloodless or Glorious Revolution" in 1688-9, but more interestingly, liberal Protestantism became the Anglican Church as it is today, still rather Catholic-lite, ceremonially speaking. Politically, in the struggles after Charles I was captured, the very nature of who the members of Parliament served became a seed for the concept of democracy although it took 160 years before one man, one vote was instituted. The re-institution of the monarchy in 1660 was hailed (with a huge sigh of relief) by Europe's monarchies--the Puritans, sensing that their time in the U.K. was over, mostly emigrated to Holland or to America. The Age of Enlightenment awaited and the Royal Society, begun as the "Invisible College" and later chartered by Charles II as the Royal Society in 1663, was one of the earlier steps in that direction, as the use of the scientific method of experiment and observation led to the understanding of natural events and, in turn, the removal of god at the center of all things. Would England have been liberal enough to allow this to occur without the disastrous rule of Charles I and the tolerance of Oliver Croomwell? It is a fair question.
|
|
|
