Culture, Politics, and the English Civil War Shakespeare's Romances and the Royal Family D. M. Bergeron Politics and Ideology in England 1603-1640 J. P. Sommerville Henry Prince of Wales and England's Lost Renaissance R. Strong Lord Arundel and His Circle D. Howarth Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603-1660 D. Underdown Order and Disorder in Early Modern England A. Fletcher J. Stevenson Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England A. Fletcher The Road to Revolution: Scotland under Charles I, 1625-37 M. Lee, Jr. Rebellion or Revolution? England 1640-1660 G. E. Aylmer Authority and Conflict: England, 1603-1658 D. Hirst

1988 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
English Civil War ◽  
Popular Politics ◽  
Royal Family ◽  
Charles I ◽  
The Road ◽  
Order And Disorder ◽  
Politics And Culture ◽  
The Government ◽  
Stuart England

Office under Queen Elizabeth: the Case of Lord Hunsdon and the Lord Chamberlainship in 1585

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Stone
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
English Civil War ◽  
The Political ◽  
Small Minority ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Political Evolution ◽  
The Social ◽  
Economic Advancement ◽  
Stuart England ◽  
Similar Letter

In recent years considerable attention has been focused on the role played by the Court and government office in the social and political evolution of Elizabethan and Early Stuart England. Professor Trevor-Roper has treated office under the Crown as a smooth highroad to economic advancement, one of the principal causes of such rise of the gentry as may have occurred. According to this view, the political antecedents of the English Civil War are best interpreted in terms of the polarities of Court and Country: it was reaction against an overgrown and corruptly lucrative Court that inspired the opposition in 1640; it was desire to dismantle the whole centralizing apparatus which inspired the policy of the Independents in the late 1640s and the 1650s. Others, including Professor Aylmer and myself, have subjected officialdom to detailed inspection and have concluded that its rewards were usually modest, especially under Elizabeth and Charles I, its personnel was restricted in numbers, and its more spectacular beneficiaries were a very small minority. The recently published letter of Sir Edward Stanhope to Thomas Viscount Wentworth, advising him to refuse the Deputyship of Ireland in 1631, has cast a flood of light on contemporary attitudes towards the acceptance of at least one high office. Forty-six years before, when Henry Carey, 1st Earl of Hunsdon, was offered the Lord Chamberlainship of the Royal Household, he received a similar letter of warning from a close follower.

Charles I and the End of Conciliar Government in Scotland

1980 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice Lee
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Recent Survey ◽  
English Civil War ◽  
English Revolution ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Complex Problems ◽  
Ground Stone ◽  
The Government

That complex problems like the causes of the English civil war are constantly subject to reinterpretation is an obvious truism. Twenty years ago we were all embroiled in the gentry controversy; now it is the fashion to lay more stress on the blunders and failures of the government of Charles I. Lawrence Stone's recent survey is a case in point. Though his title, The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642, promises a long running start, this quondam disciple of R. H. Tawney places a surprising amount of emphasis on what he calls precipitants and triggers, which, it turns out, are the blunders and failures of the government of Charles I. Among these is the mishandling of the situation in Scotland. It is well known, of course, that the attempt to impose the new service book in 1637 touched off the chain of events which led to the Long Parliament, but historians have pointed out that this was by no means the first of Charles's errors there. At the very beginning of his reign came the act of revocation, which among other things rescinded “all grants made of crown property since 1540, … all disposition of ecclesiastical property and the erections of such property into temporal lordships.” No such sweeping change came about, of course, but in the view of most scholars this act, though in some sense successful, since it achieved the purpose both of increasing clerical stipends and of providing a machinery for their continuing adjustment, made the Scottish landed classes so mistrustful and fearful for their property that Charles could never gain their confidence. The comment of Sir James Balfour is always quoted: the act “in effect was the ground stone of all the mischief that followed after.”

Ransoming Russians from Tatars: Justification and Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 91-99
Author(s):  
Donald Ostrowski
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Russian Orthodox ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Russian Orthodox Church ◽  
Gender And Age ◽  
Sliding Scale ◽  
The Government ◽  
Modern Russian

The early modern Russian government and Russian Orthodox Church identified as one of their main duties the ransoming of Russian Christians from Muslim Tatar captors. The process of ransoming could be an involved one with negotiations being carried on by different agents and by the potential ransomees themselves. Different amounts of ransom were paid on a sliding scale depending upon the ransomee’s social status, gender, and age. One of our main sources for the justification of this practice was the Stoglav (100 Chapters) Church Council in 1551, which discussed the issue of ransom in some detail. The Law Code (Ulozhenie) of 1649 specifies the conditions and amounts to be paid to redeem captives. Church writers justified the ransoming of Christian captives of the Muslim Tatars by citing Scripture, and they also specified that the government should pay the ransom out of its own treasury.

Wyzwanie dla tożsamości międzynarodowej Macedonii – grecko macedoński spór o nazwę państwa

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 333-350
Author(s):  
Artur Adamczyk ◽  
Mladen Karadzoski
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Small Country ◽  
Main Obstacle ◽  
The Road ◽  
Republic Of Macedonia ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
On The Road ◽  
International Identity ◽  
Of Greece

The main purpose of the article is to present how the Greek- -Macedonian naming dispute influenced the problem of implementation the international identity of Macedonia. Despite the initial problems of the government in Skopje related to determining their international identity, Macedonians managed to define the principles regarding the identification of a new state on the international stage. As a small country with limited attributes to shape its international position, Macedonia has basically been determined to seek guarantees for its existence and security in stable and predictable European international structures such as NATO and the European Union. The main obstacle for Macedonians on the road to Euro-Atlantic structures was the veto of Greece, a member of these organizations, resulting from Athens’ refusal to accept the name the Republic of Macedonia. The Prespa Agreement of 2018 gave a new impetus to the realization of the international identity of North Macedonia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document