Visual History of the World




From Prehistoric to Romanesque  Art
Gothic Art
Renaissance  Art
Baroque and Rococo Art
The Art of Asia
Neoclassicism, Romanticism  Art
Art Styles in 19th century
Art of the 20th century
Artists that Changed the World
Design and Posters
Classical Music
Literature and Philosophy

Visual History of the World
First Empires
The Ancient World
The Middle Ages
The Early Modern Period
The Modern Era
The World Wars and Interwar Period
The Contemporary World

Dictionary of Art and Artists


The Early Modern Period

16th - 18th century


The smooth transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age is conventionally fixed on such events as the Reformation and the discovery of the "New World," which brought about the emergence of a new image of man and his world. Humanism, which spread out of Italy, also made an essential contribution to this with its promotion of a critical awareness of Christianity and the Church. The Reformation eventually broke the all-embracing power of the Church. After the Thirty Years' War, the concept of a universal empire was also nullified. The era of the nation-state began, bringing with it the desire to build up political and economic power far beyond Europe. The Americas, Africa, and Asia provided regions of expansion for the Europeans.

Proportions of the Human Figure by Leonardo da Vinci (drawing, ca. 1490)
is a prime example of the new approach of Renaissance
artists and scientists to the anatomy of the human body.



The Rise of England



The House of Stuart produced six English monarchs

King James I (1603 to 1625).
King Charles I (1625 to 1649).
King Charles II (1660 to 1685).
King James II (1685 to 1688).
Queen Mary II (1689 to 1702). Reigned with William III of House of Orange-Nassau.
Queen Anne (1702 to 1714)


The "Glorious Revolution"

Oliver Cromwell abolished the monarch and ruled as lord protector over England, but in 1660 the Stuarts were restored to the throne. The Catholic James II was removed from power in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89.


Oliver Cromwell dissolving the
Long Parliament, 1653

8 Parliament in session, back of the state seal
created by Oliver Cromwell in 1651

8 Oliver Cromwell, leader of the English Puritans, abolished the monarchy in 1649 and proclaimed England a Protestant "free state," in the first stage of the English civil war.

Cromwell and the corpse of Charles I by Paul Delaroche

There was an immediate uprising by the Scots and Irish in 1649-1650, which Cromwell bloodily suppressed.

Although he aspired to a republic, Cromwell dissolved Parliament in 1653 and, when it did not settle its internal strife, made himself "lord protector" with 13 dictatorial powers, refusing the title of king.

13 Puritans under orders from Oliver Cromwell search and
arrest noblemen, painting, 19th century

In foreign affairs, Cromwell strengthened England's supremacy at sea through well-directed colonial and trade policies and prevailed over the Netherlands in their trade rivalry. After his death in 1658, his son Richard could not hold onto power and abdicated, clearing the way for the restoration of the Stuarts.

In 1660 9 Charles II, the son of Charles I, returned from exile.

9 Charles II in the robes of the Order of the Garter

Though the new monarch punished the republicans, he worked for a political reconciliation of all parties. The Habeas Corpus Act, an important milestone in civil rights—under which no person may be held in custody without judicial review and being duly charged with an offense—was passed by Parliament in 1679.

During Charles II's reign, the 10 "Great Fire of London" broke out in 1666. It destroyed large parts of the city and made extensive reconstruction of the city necessary.

Panorama of the City of London in 1616 by Claes Visscher

10 Painting from 1666 of the Great Fire of London by an unknown painter, depicting the fire as it would have
appeared on the evening of Tuesday, 4 September from a boat in the vicinity of Tower Wharf.

Monument to the
Great Fire of London

Great Fire of London

(September 2–5, 1666), the worst fire in London’s history. It destroyed a large part of the City of London, including most of the civic buildings, old St. Paul’s Cathedral, 87 parish churches, and about 13,000 houses.

On Sunday, September 2, 1666, the fire began accidentally in the house of the king’s baker in Pudding Lane near London Bridge. A violent east wind encouraged the flames, which raged during the whole of Monday and part of Tuesday. On Wednesday the fire slackened; on Thursday it was extinguished, but on the evening of that day the flames again burst forth at The Temple. Some houses were at once blown up by gunpowder, and thus the fire was finally mastered. Many interesting details of the fire are given in Samuel Pepys’s Diary. The river swarmed with vessels filled with persons carrying away as many of their goods as they were able to save. Some fled to the hills of Hampstead and Highgate, but Moorfields was the chief refuge of the houseless Londoners.

Within a few days of the fire, three different plans were presented to the king for the rebuilding of the city, by Christopher Wren, John Evelyn, and Robert Hooke; but none of these plans to regularize the streets was adopted, and in consequence the old lines were in almost every case retained. Nevertheless, Wren’s great work was the erection of St. Paul’s Cathedral and the many churches ranged around it as satellites. Hooke’s task was the humbler one of arranging as city surveyor for the building of the houses.

The Great Fire is commemorated by The Monument, a column erected in the 1670s near the source of the blaze.

When Charles's Catholic brother, 12 James II, ascended to the throne in 1685, some of the nobles arose in protest but were subdued.

Portrait of King James II by Sir Godfrey Kneller

12 James II's cruelties to the Protestants in Ireland,
copper engraving, 17th century

Anne Hyde, Duchess of York; King James II, by Sir Peter Lely

Lady Anne Hyde (22 March 1638 – 31 March 1671) was the first wife of James, Duke of York (the future King James II of England and VII of Scotland), and the mother of two monarchs, Mary II of England and II of Scotland and Anne of Great Britain.

She was born on 12 March 1637 (Old Style) or 22 March 1638 (New Style), at Windsor, Berkshire, to Frances, daughter of Sir Thomas Aylesbury, and to Sir Edward Hyde (later 1st Earl of Clarendon) of the Hyde of Norbury family.

In 1659, at Breda in the Netherlands, she allegedly married James, then Duke of York, in a secret ceremony. The royal family at this time remained in exile following the English Civil War, and Anne's father served as the loyal Royalist chief adviser to the prospective King Charles II of England, James's elder brother. Anne was Maid of Honour to Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, sister of Charles and James. It was during this time that James seduced Anne while she was in his sister's service and Charles forced the reluctant James to marry Anne, saying that her strong character would be a positive influence on his weak-willed brother.

The couple went through an official marriage ceremony on 3 September 1660, in London, following the English Restoration of the monarchy. Anne was not a beautiful woman; in fact, Samuel Pepys slights her as being downright plain. But she was intelligent and witty. The French Ambassador described her as having "courage, cleverness, and energy almost worthy of a King's blood".

Anne's and James's first child, Charles, was born less than two months after their marriage, but died in infancy, as did five further sons and daughters. Only two daughters survived: Mary (born 30 April 1662) and Anne (born 6 February 1665). According to the Dictionary of National Biography, she gave birth to "her eighth child, a daughter, on 9 February 1671, but by now her fatal illness, probably breast cancer, was in an advanced stage." A few weeks after the birth of their youngest child, Anne died of cancer at St. James's Palace and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Anne Hyde, by Sir Peter Lely

Overturning a ban instituted by Charles II, James gave government posts to Catholics, and he proclaimed religious freedom for Catholics and those diverging from the state church in 1686-87. The birth of his son in 1688 fed fears of a permanent Catholic and absolutist monarchy in England.

Parliament, the army, and the middle class then offered the crown to the Protestant regent of the Netherlands, 11 William of Orange.

11 William of Orange, the future king William III,
 sails to England, painting, 1689

In the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89, William landed in England and expelled James to France in December 1688. William III and his wife Mary II, James II's Protestant daughter from his first marriage, then ascended the throne as joint sovereigns after they had acquiesced to the "Declaration of Right" presented to them by Parliament and later incorporated into an Act of Parliament known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights established the rights of Parliament in relationship to the crown and a constitutional monarchy controlled by Parliament.



Glorious Revolution

English history
byname Revolution of 1688, or Bloodless Revolution Main
in English history, the events of 1688–89 that resulted in the deposition of James II and the accession of his daughter Mary II and her husband, William III, prince of Orange and stadholder of the Netherlands.

After the accession of James II in 1685, his overt Roman Catholicism alienated the majority of the population. In 1687 he issued a Declaration of Indulgence, suspending the penal laws against dissenters and recusants, and in April 1688 ordered that a second Declaration of Indulgence be read from every pulpit on two successive Sundays. William Sancroft, the archbishop of Canterbury, and six other bishops petitioned him against this and were prosecuted for seditious libel. Their acquittal almost coincided with the birth of a son to James’s Roman Catholic queen, Mary of Modena (June). This event promised an indefinite continuance of his policy and brought discontent to a head. Seven eminent Englishmen, including one bishop and six prominent politicians of both Whig and Tory persuasions, wrote inviting William of Orange to come over with an army to redress the nation’s grievances.

William was both James’s nephew and his son-in-law, and, until the birth of James’s son, his wife, Mary, was heir apparent. William’s chief concern was to check the overgrowth of French power in Europe, and he welcomed England’s aid. Thus, having been in close touch with the leading English malcontents for more than a year, he accepted their invitation. Landing at Brixham on Tor Bay (November 5), he advanced slowly on London, as support fell away from James II. James’s daughter Anne and his best general, John Churchill, were among the deserters to William’s camp; thereupon James fled to France.

William was now asked to carry on the government and summon a Parliament. When this Convention Parliament met (January 22, 1689), it agreed, after some debate, to treat James’s flight as an abdication and to offer the Crown, with an accompanying Declaration of Right, to William and Mary jointly. Both gift and conditions were accepted. Thereupon the convention turned itself into a proper Parliament and large parts of the Declaration into a Bill of Rights. This bill gave the succession to Mary’s sister, Anne, in default of issue to Mary; barred Roman Catholics from the throne; abolished the Crown’s power to suspend laws; condemned the power of dispensing with laws “as it hath been exercised and used of late”; and declared a standing army illegal in time of peace.

The settlement marked a considerable triumph for Whig views. If no Roman Catholic could be king, then no kingship could be unconditional. The adoption of the exclusionist solution lent support to John Locke’s contention that government was in the nature of a social contract between the king and his people represented in parliament. The revolution permanently established Parliament as the ruling power of England.

Encyclopaedia Britannica




The Gunpowder Plot

Catholic nobility loyal to James I swore to blow up Parliament when it opened in 1605.

They hid a great quantity of gunpowder in the cellar of Parliament, but the conspiracy was betrayed and the plotters caught and executed.

The failure of the Gunpowder Plot is still celebrated in Great Britain on November 5 as Guy Fawkes Day.

Execution of the participants in the Gunpowder Plot, copper engraving, 17th century


The execution of Guy Fawkes' , by Claes Jansz Visscher, given to the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1916



Gunpowder Plot
English history
(1605), the conspiracy of English Roman Catholics to blow up Parliament and King James I, his queen, and his oldest son on November 5, 1605. The leader of the plot, Robert Catesby, together with his four coconspirators—Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy, John Wright, and Guy Fawkes—were zealous Roman Catholics angered by James’s refusal to grant more religious toleration to Catholics. They apparently hoped that the confusion that would follow the murder of the king, his ministers, and the members of Parliament would provide an opportunity for the English Catholics to take over the country.

In the spring of 1605 the conspirators rented a cellar that extended under the palace at Westminster. There, Fawkes, who had been fighting in the Spanish Netherlands, concealed at least 20 barrels of gunpowder. The conspirators then separated until the meeting of Parliament.

In the interim the need for broader support persuaded Catesby to include more conspirators. One of these, Francis Tresham, warned his Catholic brother-in-law Lord Monteagle not to attend Parliament on November 5, and Monteagle alerted the government to the plot. Fawkes was discovered in the cellar on the night of November 4–5 and under torture revealed the names of the conspirators. Catesby, Percy, and two others were killed while resisting arrest, and the rest were tried and executed (January 31, 1606).

The plot bitterly intensified Protestant suspicions of Catholics and led to the rigorous enforcement of the recusancy law, which fined those who refused to attend Anglican services. In January 1606 Parliament established November 5 as a day of public thanksgiving. The day, known as Guy Fawkes Day, is still celebrated with bonfires, fireworks, and the carrying of “guys” through the streets.

Encyclopaedia Britannica




Oliver Cromwell

An unfinished miniature portrait of Oliver Cromwell by Samuel Cooper, 1657

English statesman

born April 25, 1599, Huntingdon, Huntingdonshire, Eng.
died Sept. 3, 1658, London

English soldier and statesman who led parliamentary forces in the English Civil Wars; he was lord protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1653 to 1658 during the republican Commonwealth.

As one of the generals on the parliamentary side in the English Civil War against King Charles I, Cromwell helped to bring about the overthrow of the Stuart monarchy, and, as lord protector, he raised his country’s status once more to that of a leading European power from the decline it had gone through since the death of Queen Elizabeth I. A man of outstanding gifts and a forceful character, he was one of the most remarkable rulers in modern European history, for although a convinced Calvinist, he believed deeply in the value of religious toleration. At the same time Cromwell’s victories at home and abroad helped to enlarge and sustain a Puritan attitude of mind, both in Great Britain and in North America, that continued to influence political and social life until recent times.

Youth and early public career
Cromwell was born at Huntingdon in eastern England in 1599, the only son of Robert Cromwell and Elizabeth Steward. His father had been a member of one of Queen Elizabeth’s parliaments and, as a landlord and justice of the peace, was active in local affairs. Robert Cromwell died when his son was 18, but his widow lived to the age of 89. Oliver went to the local grammar school and then for a year attended Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. After his father’s death he left Cambridge to look after his widowed mother and sisters but is believed to have studied for a time at Lincoln’s Inn in London, where country gentlemen were accustomed to acquire a smattering of law. In August 1620 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir James Bourchier, a merchant in the City of London. By her he was to have five sons and four daughters.

Youth and early public career » Formative influences
Cromwell was descended indirectly on his father’s side from Henry VIII’s chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, who had assisted Oliver’s great-grandfather and grandfather in acquiring significant amounts of former monastic land in Huntingdon and in the Fenland. Oliver was the eldest surviving son of the younger son of a knight; he inherited a modest amount of property but was brought up in the vicinity of his grandfather, who regularly entertained the King’s hunting party. His education would have presented him with a strong evangelical Protestantism and a powerful sense of God’s providential presence in human affairs.

During his early married life Cromwell, like his father, was profoundly conscious of his responsibilities to his fellow men and concerned himself with affairs in his native Fenland, but he was also the victim of a spiritual and psychological struggle that perplexed his mind and damaged his health. He does not appear to have experienced conversion until he was nearly 30; later he described to a cousin how he had emerged from darkness into light. Yet he had been unable to receive the grace of God without feeling a sense of “self, vanity and badness.” He was convinced that he had been “the chief of sinners” before he learned that he was one of God’s Chosen.

In his 30s Cromwell sold his freehold land and became a tenant on the estate of Henry Lawrence at St. Ives in Cambridgeshire. Lawrence was planning at that time to emigrate to New England, and Cromwell was almost certainly planning to accompany him, but the plan failed.

There is no evidence that Cromwell was active in the opposition to Charles I’s financial and social policies, but he was certainly prominent in schemes in East Anglia to protect local preachers from the religious policies of the King and Archbishop William Laud. He had strong links with Puritan groups in London and Essex, and there is some evidence that he attended, and perhaps preached at, an underground conventicle.

Youth and early public career » Cromwell in Parliament
Cromwell had already become known in the Parliament of 1628–29 as a fiery and somewhat uncouth Puritan, who had launched an attack on Charles I’s bishops. He believed that the individual Christian could establish direct contact with God through prayer and that the principal duty of the clergy was to inspire the laity by preaching. Thus he had contributed out of his own pocket to the support of itinerant Protestant preachers or “lecturers” and openly showed his dislike of his local bishop at Ely, a leader of the High Church party, which stood for the importance of ritual and episcopal authority. He criticized the bishop in the House of Commons and was appointed a member of a committee to investigate other complaints against him. Cromwell, in fact, distrusted the whole hierarchy of the Church of England, though he was never opposed to a state church. He therefore advocated abolishing the institution of the episcopate and the banning of a set ritual as prescribed in The Book of Common Prayer. He believed that Christian congregations ought to be allowed to choose their own ministers, who should serve them by preaching and extemporaneous prayer.

Cromwell’s election to the Parliaments of 1640 (see Short Parliament; Long Parliament) for the borough of Cambridge was certainly the result of close links between himself and radical Puritans in the city council. In Parliament he bolstered his reputation as a religious hothead by promoting radical reform. In fact, he was too outspoken for the leaders of the opposition, who ceased to use him as their mouthpiece after the early months of the Long Parliament.

Indeed, though Cromwell shared the grievances of his fellow members over taxes, monopolies, and other burdens imposed on the people, it was his religion that first brought him into opposition to the King’s government. When in November 1641 John Pym and his friends presented to King Charles I a “Grand Remonstrance,” consisting of over 200 clauses, among which was one censuring the bishops “and the corrupt part of the clergy, who cherish formality and superstition” in support of their own “ecclesiastical tyranny and usurpation,” Cromwell declared that had it not been passed by the House of Commons he would have sold all he had “the next morning, and never have seen England more.”

The Remonstrance was not accepted by the King, and the gulf between him and his leading critics in the House of Commons widened. A month later Charles vainly attempted to arrest five of them for treason: Cromwell was not yet sufficiently prominent to be among these. But when in 1642 the King left London to raise an army, and events drifted toward civil war, Cromwell began to distinguish himself not merely as an outspoken Puritan but also as a practical man capable of organization and leadership. In July he obtained permission from the House of Commons to allow his constituency of Cambridge to form and arm companies for its defense, in August he himself rode to Cambridge to prevent the colleges from sending their plate to be melted down for the benefit of the King, and as soon as the war began he enlisted a troop of cavalry in his birthplace of Huntingdon. As a captain he made his first appearance with his troop in the closing stages of the Battle of Edgehill (Oct. 23, 1642) where Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, was commander in chief for Parliament in the first major contest of the war.

Oliver Cromwell, by Robert Walker

Military and political leader
During 1643 Cromwell acquired a reputation both as a military organizer and a fighting man. From the very beginning he had insisted that the men who served on the parliamentarian side should be carefully chosen and properly trained, and he made it a point to find loyal and well-behaved men regardless of their religious beliefs or social status. Appointed a colonel in February, he began to recruit a first-class cavalry regiment. While he demanded good treatment and regular payment for his troopers, he exercised strict discipline. If they swore, they were fined; if drunk, put in the stocks; if they called each other Roundheads—thus endorsing the contemptuous epithet the Royalists applied to them because of their closecropped hair—they were cashiered; and if they deserted, they were whipped. So successfully did he train his own cavalrymen that he was able to check and re-form them after they charged in battle. That was one of Cromwell’s outstanding gifts as a fighting commander.

Throughout 1643 he served in the eastern counties that he knew so well. These formed a recognized centre of parliamentary strength, but, unwilling to stay on the defensive, Cromwell was determined to prevent the penetration of Yorkshire Royalists into the eastern counties and decided to counterattack. By re-forming his men in a moment of crisis in the face of an unbeaten enemy, he won the Battle of Gainsborough in Lincolnshire on July 28. On the same day he was appointed governor of the Isle of Ely, a large plateau-like hill rising above the surrounding fens, that was thought of as a possible bastion against advancing Royalists. In fact, however, Cromwell, fighting alongside the parliamentary general Sir Thomas Fairfax, succeeded in stemming the royalist attacks at Winceby in Lincolnshire and then successfully besieged Newark in Nottinghamshire. He was now able to persuade the House of Commons, well pleased with these victories, to create a new army, that would not merely defend eastern England but would march out and attack the enemy.

This new army was formed under the command of Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, early in 1644. Appearing in the House of Commons, Cromwell, besides commending Manchester for the command, accused some of his fellow officers as incompetents or as being “profane” and “loose” in their conduct. Although not all members of the House of Commons approved of Cromwell’s using his political position to defame other officers, his friends rallied round him, and in 1644 he was appointed Manchester’s second in command, with the rank of lieutenant general, and paid five pounds a day. After an alliance had been concluded with the Scots, he was also appointed a member of the Committee of Both Kingdoms, which became responsible for the overall strategy of the Civil War. But since he was engaged at the front during the campaigning season, Cromwell took little part in its deliberations.

After Manchester’s army had stormed Lincoln in May 1644, it marched north to join the Scots and the Yorkshire parliamentarians at the siege of York. But Charles I’s commander in chief, Prince Rupert, raised the siege. He was, however, defeated in the Battle of Marston Moor, July 2, 1644, that in effect gave the north of England to Parliament. Cromwell had again distinguished himself in the battle, and when Manchester’s army returned to eastern England to rest on its laurels, Cromwell criticized his superior officer for his slowness and lethargy. He did not believe that Manchester really wanted to win the war, and in mid-September he laid his complaints before the Committee of Both Kingdoms. The quarrel between the two commanders was patched up, but after the defeat at Newbury, caused largely by the earl of Manchester’s refusal to support Cromwell’s cavalry with his infantry, it broke into the open once more.

Cromwell now expounded his detailed complaint about Manchester’s military conduct in the House of Commons. Manchester retorted by attacking Cromwell in the House of Lords. It was even planned to impeach Cromwell as “an incendiary.” Once again, however, these quarrels were patched up. In December 1644, Cromwell proposed that in the future no members of either house of Parliament should be allowed to hold commands or offices in the armed forces; his proposal was accepted, and it was also agreed that a new army should be constituted under Sir Thomas Fairfax. Cromwell, an admirer of Fairfax, put forward his name and then busied himself with planning the new army, from which, as a member of Parliament, he himself was excluded. But, significantly, the post of second in command was left open, and, when the Civil War reached its climax in the summer of 1645, Fairfax insisted that Cromwell should be appointed to it. He then fought at the battles of Naseby and Langport, where Charles I’s last two field armies were destroyed. In January 1646 the House of Commons awarded Cromwell £2,500 a year in confiscated Royalist land for his services and renewed his commission for a further six months. Thus he was able to join Fairfax in the siege of Oxford, from which Charles I escaped before it surrendered.

Cromwell was delighted with the way in which the war had gone since Fairfax had taken command of the new army and the lethargic earls of Essex and Manchester had been removed from their commands. He attributed these victories to the mercy of God and demanded that the men who had served the country so faithfully should have their due reward. After Naseby he wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons urging that such “honest men” should not meet with discouragement: “He that ventures his life for the liberty of his country, I wish he trust God for the liberty of his conscience, and you for the liberty he fights for.”

But once the war was over the House of Commons wanted to disband the army as cheaply and quickly as possible. Disappointed, Cromwell told Fairfax in March 1647 that “never were the spirits of men more embittered than now.” He devoted himself to trying to reconcile the Parliament with the army and was appointed a parliamentary commissioner to offer terms on which the army could be disbanded except for those willing to take part in a campaign in Ireland. As late as May he thought that the soldiers might agree to disband but that they would refuse to serve in Ireland and that they were “under a deep sense of some sufferings.” When the civilian leaders in the House of Commons decided that they could not trust the army and ordered it disbanded, while they hired a Scottish army to protect them, Cromwell, who never liked the Scots and thought that the English soldiers were being disgracefully treated, left London and on June 4, 1647, threw in his lot with his fellow soldiers.

Military and political leader » Mediation and the Second Civil War
For the remainder of this critical year he attempted to find a peaceful settlement of the kingdom’s problems, but his task seemed insoluble; and soon his good faith was freely called into question. The army was growing more and more restive, and on the day Cromwell left London, a party of soldiers seized Charles I. Cromwell and his son-in-law, Henry Ireton, interviewed the King twice, trying to persuade him to agree to a constitutional settlement that they then intended to submit to Parliament. At that time Cromwell, no enemy of the King, was touched by his devotion to his children. His main task, however, was to overcome the general feeling in the army that neither the King nor Parliament could be trusted. When, under pressure from the rank and file, General Fairfax led the army toward the houses of Parliament in London, Cromwell still insisted that the authority of Parliament must be upheld; and in September he also resisted a proposal in the House of Commons that no further addresses should be made to the King. Just over a month later he took the chair at meetings of the General Council of the Army (which included representatives of the private soldiers known as Agitators) and assured them that he was not committed to any particular form of government and had not had any underhand dealings with the King. On the other hand, fearing anarchy, he opposed extremist measures such as the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords and the introduction of a more democratic constitution.

But all Cromwell’s efforts to act as a mediator between army, Parliament, and King came to nothing when Charles I escaped from Hampton Court Palace, where he had been kept in honourable captivity, and fled to the Isle of Wight to open negotiations with Scottish commissioners offering to restore him to the throne on their terms. On Jan. 3, 1648, Cromwell abandoned his previous position and, telling the House of Commons that the King was “an obstinate man, whose heart God had hardened,” agreed to a vote of no addresses, which was carried. The Royalists, encouraged by the King’s agreement with the Scots and the failure of Cromwell to unite Parliament and the army, took up arms again and the Second Civil War began.

General Fairfax first ordered Cromwell into Wales to crush a rising there and then sent him north to fight the Scottish army that invaded England in June. Though his army was inferior in numbers to that of the Scots and northern Royalists, he defeated them both in a campaign in Lancashire; then he entered Scotland and restored order there; finally he returned to Yorkshire and took charge of the siege of Pontefract. The correspondence he conducted during the siege with the governor of the Isle of Wight, whose duty it was to keep watch on the King, reveals that he was increasingly turning against Charles. Parliamentary commissioners had been sent to the island in order to make one final effort to reach an agreement with the King. But Cromwell told the governor that the King was not to be trusted, that concessions over religion must not be granted, and that the army might be considered a lawful power capable of ensuring the safety of the people and the liberty of all Christians.

While Cromwell, still not entirely decided on his course, lingered in the north, his son-in-law Ireton and other officers in the southern army took decisive action. They drew up a remonstrance to Parliament complaining about the negotiations in the Isle of Wight and demanding the trial of the King as a Man of Blood. While Cromwell still felt uncertain about his own views, he admitted that his army agreed with the army in the south. Fairfax now ordered him to return to London; but he did not arrive until after Ireton and his colleagues had removed from the House of Commons all members who favoured continuing negotiations with the King. Cromwell asserted that he had not been acquainted with the plan to purge the House, “yet since it was done, he was glad of it, and would endeavour to maintain it.” Hesitating up to the last moment, Cromwell, pushed on by Ireton, by Christmas Day finally accepted Charles’s trial as an act of justice. He was one of the 135 commissioners in the High Court of Justice and, when the King refused to plead, he signed the death warrant.

Military and political leader » First chairman of the Council
After the British Isles were declared a republic and named the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell served as the first chairman of the Council of State, the executive body of a one-chamber Parliament. During the first three years following Charles I’s execution, however, he was chiefly absorbed in campaigns against the Royalists in Ireland and Scotland. He also had to suppress a mutiny, inspired by a group known as Levellers, an extremist Puritan party said to be aiming at a “levelling” between rich and poor, in the Commonwealth army. Detesting the Irish as primitive, savage, and superstitious, he believed they had carried out a huge massacre of English settlers in 1641. As commander in chief and lord lieutenant, he waged a ruthless campaign against them, though when he refused quarter to most of the garrison at Drogheda near Dublin in September 1649, he wrote that it would “tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, . . . which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.” On his return to London in May 1650 Cromwell was ordered to lead an army into Scotland, where Charles II had been acknowledged as its new king. Fairfax had refused the command; so on June 25 Cromwell was appointed captain general in his place. He felt more tender toward the Scots, most of whom were fellow Puritans, than toward the Catholic Irish. The campaign proved difficult, and during the winter of 1650 Cromwell was taken ill. But he defeated the Scots with an army inferior in numbers at Dunbar on Sept. 3, 1650, and a year later, when Charles II and the Scots advanced into England, Cromwell destroyed that army at Worcester.

This battle ended the civil wars. Cromwell now hoped for pacification, a political settlement, and social reform. He pressed through an “act of oblivion” (amnesty), but the army became more and more discontented with Parliament. It believed that the members were corrupt and that a new Parliament should be called. Once again Cromwell tried to mediate between the two antagonists, but his sympathies were with his soldiers. When he finally came to the conclusion that Parliament must be dissolved and replaced, he called in his musketeers and on April 20, 1653, expelled the members from the House. He asserted that they were “corrupt and unjust men and scandalous to the profession of the Gospel”; two months later he set up a nominated assembly to take their place. In a speech on July 4 he told the new members that they must be just, and, “ruling in the fear of God,” resolve the affairs of the nation.

Cromwell seems to have regarded this “Little Parliament” as a constituent body capable of establishing a Puritan republic. But just as he had considered the previous Parliament to be slow and self-seeking, he came to think that the Assembly of Saints, as it was called, was too hasty and too radical. He also resented the fact that it did not consult him. Later he described this experiment of choosing Saints to govern as an example of his own “weakness and folly.” He sought moderate courses and also wanted to end the naval war begun against the Dutch in 1652. When in December 1653, after a coup d’etat planned by Major General John Lambert and other officers, the majority of the Assembly of Saints surrendered power into Cromwell’s hands, he decided reluctantly that Providence had chosen him to rule. As commander in chief appointed by Parliament, he believed that he was the only legally constituted authority left. He therefore accepted an “Instrument of Government” drawn up by Lambert and his fellow officers by which he became lord protector, ruling the three nations of England, Scotland, and Ireland with the advice and help of a council of state and a Parliament, which had to be called every three years.

Administration as lord protector
Before Cromwell summoned his first Protectorate Parliament on Sept. 3, 1654, he and his Council of State passed more than 80 ordinances embodying a constructive domestic policy. His aim was to reform the law, to set up a Puritan Church, to permit toleration outside it, to promote education, and to decentralize administration. The resistance of the lawyers somewhat dampened his enthusiasm for law reform, but he was able to appoint good judges both in England and Ireland. He was strongly opposed to severe punishments for minor crimes, saying: “to see men lose their lives for petty matters . . . is a thing that God will reckon for.” For him murder, treason, and rebellion alone were subject to capital punishment. During his Protectorate, committees known as Triers and Ejectors were set up to ensure that a high standard of conduct was maintained by clergy and schoolmasters. In spite of resistance from some members of his council Cromwell readmitted Jews into the country. He concerned himself with education, was an excellent chancellor of Oxford University, founded a college at Durham, and saw to it that grammar schools flourished as they had never done before.

Administration as lord protector » Foreign and economic policies
In 1654 Cromwell brought about a satisfactory conclusion to the Anglo-Dutch War, which, as a contest between fellow Protestants, he had always disliked. The question then arose of how best to employ his army and navy. His Council of State was divided, but eventually he resolved to conclude an alliance with France against Spain. He sent an amphibious expedition to the Spanish West Indies, and in May 1655 Jamaica was conquered. As the price for sending an expeditionary force to Spanish Flanders to fight alongside the French he obtained possession of the port of Dunkirk. He also interested himself in Scandinavian affairs; although he admired King Charles X of Sweden, his first consideration in attempting to mediate in the Baltic was the advantages that would result for his own country. In spite of the emphasis Cromwell laid on the Protestant interest in some of his speeches, the guiding motive in his foreign policy was national and not religious benefit.

His economic and industrial policy followed mainly traditional lines. But he opposed monopolies, which were disliked by the country and had only benefitted the court gentry under Queen Elizabeth and the first two Stuarts. For this reason the East Indian trade was thrown open for three years, but in the end Cromwell granted the company a new charter (October 1657) in return for financial aid. Satisfactory methods of borrowing had not yet been discovered; hence—like those of practically all European governments of his time—Cromwell’s public finances were by no means free from difficulties.

Administration as lord protector » Relations with Parliament
When Cromwell’s first Parliament met he justified the establishment of the Protectorate as providing for “healing and settling” the nation after the civil wars. Arguing that his government had prevented anarchy and social revolution, he was particularly critical of the Levellers who, he said, wished to destroy well-tested institutions “whereby England hath been known for hundreds of years.” He believed that they wanted to undermine “the ‘natural’ magistracy of the nation” as well as “make the tenant as liberal a fortune as the landlord.” He also thought that the spiritual anarchy that followed the destruction of the Anglican Church had gone too far, for now ordained preachers were frequently interrupted or shouted down in their pulpits. A radical in some directions, such as in seeking the reform of the laws, Cromwell now adopted a conservative attitude because he feared that the overthrow of the monarchy might lead to political collapse.

But vociferous republicans, who became leaders of this newly elected Parliament, were unwilling to concentrate on legislation, questioning instead the whole basis of Cromwell’s government. Cromwell insisted that they must accept the “four fundamentals” of the new constitution that, he argued, had been approved both by “God and the people of these nations.” The four fundamentals were government by a single person and Parliament; the regular summoning of parliaments, which must not be allowed to perpetuate themselves; the maintenance of “liberty of conscience”; and the division of the control of the armed forces between the protector and Parliament. Cromwell said that he would sooner be “rolled into my grave and buried with infamy, than I can give my consent” to the “wilful throwing away of this Government, . . . so owned by God, so approved by men.” He therefore required all members of Parliament, if they wished to keep their seats, to sign an engagement to be faithful to a protector and Parliament and to promise not to alter its basic character. Except for 100 convinced republicans, the members agreed to do so but were still more concerned with rewriting the constitution than reforming the laws as desired by the protector. As soon as he could legitimately do so (Jan. 22, 1655), Cromwell dissolved Parliament.

In the aftermath of that Parliament, Cromwell faced a Royalist insurrection. The rising fizzled out—too many of those who had secretly pledged support to the King waited to see what others were doing—but Cromwell was aware that local magistrates and militia commissioners had closely monitored the situation. He could rely on the acquiescence of the gentry but not on any commitment from them. He therefore determined to increase security by sending senior army officers (the major generals) to recruit veterans of the civil wars into an efficient militia, the costs of which would be defrayed by collections from all those convicted of royalism in the1640s. The major generals also were encouraged to promote “a reformation of manners”—a program of moral rearmament. They ran into serious trouble when the next Parliament met a year early (in 1656, to vote on taxes to pay for a war by land and sea against the Spanish). In that Parliament Cromwell’s broad policy of religious toleration also came under fire, especially in relation to the Quakers. In the spring of 1657 Parliament voted to invite Cromwell to become king, since kingship was an office “interwoven with the fundamental laws” of the nation, as Cromwell himself stated, and there would be an end to constant innovation. Torn between his desire for “settlement” and his continued yearning for a godly reformation, he hesitated for many weeks and then declined the title. Cromwell did agree, however, to a new constitutional arrangement that restored many of the trappings of monarchy, including the restoration of a House of Lords. That decision provoked a republican backlash, and Cromwell’s final parliamentary session (January–February 1658) ended in bitter recrimination and in accusations of a new “Egyptian bondage.”

Ever since the campaign in Ireland, Cromwell’s health had been poor. In August 1658, after his favourite daughter, Elizabeth, died of cancer, he contracted malaria and was taken to London with the intention of living in St. James’s Palace. But he died in Whitehall at three o’clock on September 3, the anniversary of two of his greatest victories. The embalmers bungled their work, and his putrefying body was secretly interred several weeks before his state funeral and the interment of a probably empty coffin in Westminster Abbey on Nov. 23, 1658. In 1661, after the Restoration of Charles II and on the anniversary of the regicide, a corpse that may or may not have been Cromwell’s was exhumed and hung up at Tyburn, where criminals were executed. That body was then buried beneath the gallows. But the head was stuck on a pole on top of Westminster Hall, where it is known to have remained until the end of Charles II’s reign.

Maurice Ashley
John S. Morrill

Administration as lord protector » Assessment
Oliver Cromwell was by no means an extreme Puritan. By nature he was neither cruel nor intolerant. He cared for his soldiers, and when he differed from his generals he did not punish them severely. (For example, when he dismissed John Lambert he gave him a generous pension.) He was devoted to his old mother, his wife, and family. (The stories spread by Royalists that he was an admirer of a number of ladies have little substance to them.) While he concerned himself with the spiritual welfare of his children because he believed that “often the children of great men have not the fear of God before their eyes,” he committed the mistake of not preparing for the practical tasks of government his eldest son, Richard, whom in the last days of his life he nominated to succeed him as protector. Music and hunting were among his recreations. He delighted in listening to the organ and was an excellent judge of horses. He was known to smoke, to drink sherry and small beer, and to prefer English food; he permitted dancing at the marriage of his youngest daughter. In his younger days he indulged in horseplay with his soldiers, but he was a dignified ruler. Sir Peter Lely, the famous Dutch painter, pictured him as he was in his prime (although the portrait was apparently not painted from life); the numerous paintings from life by Robert Walker dating from the beginning of the Civil War show him looking more of a fanatic.

As lord protector, Cromwell was much more tolerant than in his fiery Puritan youth. Once bishops were abolished and congregations allowed to choose their own ministers, he was satisfied. Outside the church he permitted all Christians to practice their own religion so long as they did not create disorder and unrest. He allowed the use of The Book of Common Prayer in private houses and even the English Roman Catholics were better off under the protectorate than they had been before.

Although many Quakers were kept in prison for disturbing the peace, Cromwell was on friendly terms with George Fox, the founder of the society of Friends, and explored religious questions with him. When in the winter of 1656 a Quaker entered Bristol in imitation of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, Cromwell tried, though unsuccessfully, to save him from the fury of Parliament, which voted heavy punishments on the blasphemer. The year before, Cromwell interviewed two of the leaders of the Fifth Monarchy Men, an extreme sect: he pointed out to them that they had been imprisoned for sedition but emphasized that no one would hinder them from preaching the Gospel of Christ.

In politics Cromwell held no fixed views except that he was opposed to what he called arbitrary government. Before the execution of Charles I, he contemplated the idea of placing one of Charles’s sons upon the throne. Cromwell also resisted the abolition of the House of Lords. In 1647 he said that he was not “wedded and glued” to any particular form of government. After the Assembly of Saints failed, he summoned two elected parliaments (1654–55 and 1656–58), but he was never able to control them. His failure to do so has been attributed to “lack of that parliamentary management by the executive which, in correct dosage, is the essential nourishment of any sound parliamentary life” (H.R. Trevor-Roper). In between these two parliaments (1655–56), he sanctioned the government of the country by major generals of the Horse Militia who were made responsible for law and order in groups of counties. But he soon abandoned this experiment when it met with protests and reverted to more normal methods of government. In the spring of 1657 he was tempted by an offer of the crown by a majority in Parliament on the ground that it fitted in better with existing institutions and the English common law. In the end he refused to become king because he knew that it would offend his old republican officers. Nevertheless, in the last year and a half of his life he ruled according to a form of government known as “the Petition and Advice.” This in effect made him a constitutional monarch with a House of Lords whose members he was allowed to nominate as well as an elected House of Commons. But he found it equally difficult to govern either with or without parliaments.

Although in the late 17th century Cromwell was execrated as a brave bad man, it was admitted that he had made his country great. In the 18th century, on the other hand, he was considered a nauseating hypocrite, while the 19th century, under the influence of the writer and historian Thomas Carlyle, regarded him as a constitutional reformer who had destroyed the absolutism of Charles I. Modern critics are more discriminating. His belief in God’s providence is analyzed in psychological terms. Marxists blame him for betraying the cause of revolution by suppressing the radical movement in the army and resisting the policy of the Levellers. On the whole, he is regarded only in a very limited sense as a dictator, but rather as a patriotic ruler who restored political stability after the civil wars and contributed to the evolution of constitutional government and religious toleration.

Maurice Ashley

Encyclopaedia Britannica




Charles II

Charles II of England when Prince of Wales by William Dobson, 1642

king of Great Britain and Ireland
byname The Merry Monarch

born May 29, 1630, London
died Feb. 6, 1685, London

king of Great Britain and Ireland (1660–85), who was restored to the throne after years of exile during the Puritan Commonwealth. The years of his reign are known in English history as the Restoration period. His political adaptability and his knowledge of men enabled him to steer his country through the convolutions of the struggle between Anglicans, Catholics, and dissenters that marked much of his reign.

Birth and early years
Charles II, the eldest surviving son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria of France, was born at St. James’s Palace, London. His early years were unremarkable, but before he was 20 his conventional education had been completely overshadowed by the harsh lessons of defeat in the Civil War against the Puritans and subsequent isolation and poverty. Thus Charles emerged into precocious maturity, cynical, self-indulgent, skilled in the sort of moral evasions that make life comfortable even in adversity.

But though the early years of tawdry dissipation have tarnished the romance of his adventures, not all his actions were discreditable. He tried to fight his father’s battles in the west of England in 1645; he resisted the attempts of his mother and his sister Henrietta Anne to convert him to Catholicism and remained openly loyal to his Protestant faith. In 1648 he made strenuous efforts to save his father; and when, after Charles I’s execution in 1649, he was proclaimed Charles II by the Scots in defiance of the English republic, he was prepared to go to Scotland and swallow the stringently anti-Catholic and anti-Anglican Presbyterian Covenant as the price for alliance. But the sacrifice of friends and principles was futile and left him deeply embittered. The Scottish army was routed by the English under Oliver Cromwell at Dunbar in September 1650, and in 1651 Charles’s invasion of England ended in defeat at Worcester. The young king became a fugitive, hunted through England for 40 days but protected by a handful of his loyal subjects until he escaped to France in October 1651.

His safety was comfortless, however. He was destitute and friendless, unable to bring pressure against an increasingly powerful England. France and the Dutch United Provinces were closed to him by Cromwell’s diplomacy and he turned to Spain, with whom he concluded a treaty in April 1656. He persuaded his brother James to relinquish his command in the French army and gave him some regiments of Anglo-Irish troops in Spanish service, but poverty doomed this nucleus of a royalist army to impotence. European princes took little interest in Charles and his cause, and his proffers of marriage were declined. Even Cromwell’s death did little to improve his prospects. But George Monck, one of Cromwell’s leading generals, realized that under Cromwell’s successors the country was in danger of being torn apart and with his formidable army created the situation favourable to Charles’s restoration in 1660.

Most Englishmen now favoured a return to a stable and legitimate monarchy, and, although more was known of Charles II’s vices than his virtues, he had, under the steadying influence of Edward Hyde, his chief adviser, avoided any damaging compromise of his religion or constitutional principles. With Hyde’s help, Charles issued in April 1660 his Declaration of Breda, expressing his personal desire for a general amnesty, liberty of conscience, an equitable settlement of land disputes, and full payment of arrears to the army. The actual terms were to be left to a free parliament, and on this provisional basis Charles was proclaimed king in May 1660. Landing at Dover on May 25, he reached a rejoicing London on his 30th birthday.

Restoration settlement
The unconditional nature of the settlement that took shape between 1660 and 1662 owed little to Charles’s intervention and must have exceeded his expectations. He was bound by the concessions made by his father in 1640 and 1641, but the Parliament elected in 1661 was determined on an uncompromising Anglican and royalist settlement. The Militia Act of 1661 gave Charles unprecedented authority to maintain a standing army, and the Corporation Act of 1661 allowed him to purge the boroughs of dissident officials. Other legislation placed strict limits on the press and on public assembly, and the 1662 Act of Uniformity created controls of education. An exclusive body of Anglican clergy and a well-armed landed gentry were the principal beneficiaries of Charles II’s restoration.

But within this narrow structure of upper-class loyalism there were irksome limitations on Charles’s independence. His efforts to extend religious toleration to his Nonconformist and Roman Catholic subjects were sharply rebuffed in 1663, and throughout his reign the House of Commons was to thwart the more generous impulses of his religious policy. A more pervasive and damaging limitation was on his financial independence. Although the Parliament voted the king an estimated annual income of £1,200,000, Charles had to wait many years before his revenues produced such a sum, and by then the damage of debt and discredit was irreparable. Charles was incapable of thrift; he found it painful to refuse petitioners. With the expensive disasters of the Anglo-Dutch War of 1665–67 the reputation of the restored king sank to its lowest level. His vigorous attempts to save London during the Great Fire of September 1666 could not make up for the negligence and maladministration that led to England’s naval defeat in June 1667.

Charles in his Coronation robes

Foreign policy
Charles cleared himself by dismissing his old adviser, Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, and tried to assert himself through a more adventurous foreign policy. So far, his reign had made only modest contributions to England’s commercial advancement. The Navigation Acts of 1660 and 1663, which had been prompted by the threat to British shipping of the rise of the Dutch carrying trade, were valuable extensions of Cromwellian policies, and the capture of New York in 1664 was one of his few gains from the Dutch. But although marriage to Princess Catherine of Braganza of Portugal in 1662 brought him the possession of Tangier and Bombay, they were of less strategic value than Dunkirk, which he sold to Louis XIV in 1662. Charles was, however, prepared to sacrifice much for the alliance of his young cousin. Through his sister Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, he had direct contact with the French court, and it was through her that he negotiated the startling reversal of the Protestant Triple Alliance (England, the Dutch United Provinces, Sweden) of 1668. By the terms of the so-called Secret Treaty of Dover of May 1670, not only did England and France join in an offensive alliance against the Dutch but Charles promised to announce his conversion to Roman Catholicism. If this provoked trouble from his subjects he was assured of French military and financial support. Charles saw to it that the conversion clause of the treaty was not made public.

This clause, which was the most controversial act of Charles II’s reign, can be explained as a shortsighted bid for Louis XIV’s confidence. In this, however, it failed. Louis neither welcomed Charles’s intentions nor believed in them and, in the event, it was only upon his deathbed that Charles was received into the Roman Catholic church. But Charles had now fatally compromised himself. Although he subsequently attempted to pursue policies independent of Louis, he remained bound to him by inclination as well as by the fear of blackmail. More seriously, he had lost the confidence of his subjects, who deplored the French alliance and distrusted the whole tendency of Charles’s policies.

Other circumstances deepened Englishmen’s discontent with their king. By the 1670s, the miscarriages of the queen had reduced hopes that Charles would have a legitimate heir, and in 1673 the second marriage of his brother James, Duke of York, to Mary of Modena, increased the possibility of the Catholic line of succession, for James’s conversion to the Roman church was well known. But it was for his autocratic character as much as for his religion that James was feared as his brother was not, and it was on his brother’s behalf that Charles eventually had to face the severest political storm of his reign.

The Popish Plot of 1678 was an elaborate tissue of fictions built around a skeleton of even stranger truths. The allegations of Titus Oates, a former Anglican cleric who had been expelled from a Jesuit seminary, that Roman Catholics planned to murder Charles to make James king, seemed to be confirmed by scraps of evidence of which Charles was justifiably skeptical. But Charles was obliged to bow before the gusts of national hysteria that sought to bar his brother from the line of succession. Between 1679 and 1681 Charles very nearly lost control of his government. Deprived of his chief minister, the Earl of Danby, who had been compromised by his negotiations with France, the king had to allow the Earl of Shaftesbury and his Whig supporters, who upheld the power of the Parliament—men whom he detested—to occupy positions of power in central and local government. Three general elections produced three equally unmanageable parliaments; and although Charles publicly denied the legitimacy of his first son, the Protestant Duke of Monmouth, he had to send his Catholic brother James out of the country and offer a plan of limitations that would bind James if he came to the throne. The plan proved to be unacceptable both to the Whigs and to James, and, when Charles fell seriously ill in the summer of 1679, there was real danger of civil conflict.

But Charles kept his nerve. He defended his queen against slanders, dismissed the intractable parliaments, and recovered control of his government. His subjects’ dread of republican anarchy proved stronger than their suspicion of James, and from March 1681, when he dissolved his last Parliament, Charles enjoyed a nationwide surge of loyalty almost as fervent as that of 1660. He had made yet another secret treaty with France and in addition to a French subsidy could now count upon a healthy public revenue. Reforms at the Treasury, which he had inaugurated in 1667, provided the crown with a firm basis of administrative control that was among Charles II’s most valuable legacies to English government.

As a result of these actions, Charles, who died in February 1685 at Whitehall in London, was able to end his reign in the kind of tranquil prosperity he had always sought.

Portrait of Charles II Stuart, king of England, by John Riley

Believing that God would not “make a man miserable only for taking a little pleasure out of the way,” he had made quite sure of his own share and left at least 14 illegitimate offspring, of whom only James, Duke of Monmouth, played any part in English politics. Mistresses like Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland, and Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, were always costly and often troublesome, but Charles probably paid a smaller price for his amours than for his laziness. He was tall and active and loved riding and sailing but, although robust enough to outsit his advisers at the Council board, he hated routine and prolonged application. This failing undermined the effectiveness of his government and led to his dependence on France. But the relaxed tolerance he brought to religious matters in the end may have contributed more to the stability of his reign than was lost by his shifty insincerity.

Charles fully shared the interests of the skeptical, materialist century that saw the foundation of the Royal Society under his charter, and he did something to foster technological improvements in navigation and ship design. The sincerity of his interest in England’s naval advancement is held by some historians to be the most important of his redeeming features, although, like his reputation for wit and high intelligence, it may not stand up to close examination. Any verdict on Charles is therefore controversial. A contemporary wrote of him that “he had as good a claim to a kind interpretation as most men,” and on this basis it may be agreed that his image as a man remains more attractive than his reputation as a king.

Henry Godfrey Roseveare

Encyclopaedia Britannica




JAMES II, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland

The future James II with his father, Charles I

1633–1701, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1685–88); second son of Charles I, brother and successor of Charles II.

Early Life

As the young duke of York James was surrendered (1646) to the parliamentary forces at the end of the first civil war, but he escaped (1648) to the Continent and served in the French (1652–55) and Spanish (1658) armies. At the Restoration (1660) he returned to England, married Anne Hyde, daughter of the 1st earl of Clarendon, and was made lord high admiral, in which capacity he served (1665, 1672) in the Dutch Wars. Charles II granted him sweeping proprietary rights in America, and the captured Dutch settlement New Amsterdam was renamed (1664) New York in his honor.

Effect of James's Catholicism

James was converted to Roman Catholicism probably in 1668—a step that was to have grave consequences. After his resignation (1673) as admiral because of the Test Act and his marriage (1673) to the staunchly Catholic Mary of Modena (his first wife having died in 1671), he became increasingly unpopular in England. James consented to the marriage (1677) of his daughter Mary (later Mary II) to the Protestant prince of Orange (later William III), and the couple became the heirs presumptive, after James, to the English throne. In the anti-Catholic hysteria that accompanied the false accusations of Titus Oates about the Popish Plot (1678), efforts were made by the so-called Whigs to exclude James from the succession. Charles stood by his brother, preventing passage of the Exclusion Bill, but sent him out of the country. After a period as commissioner (1680–82) in Scotland, James returned to England, and particularly after the Rye House Plot (1683) his fortunes rose.


When Charles died in 1685, James succeeded peacefully to the throne. An uprising led by the duke of Monmouth was crushed (1685), but the severe reprisals of the Bloody Assizes under Baron Jeffreys of Wem added to the animosity toward James. The king favored autocratic methods, proroguing the hostile Parliament (1685), reviving the old ecclesiastical court of high commission, and interfering with the courts and with local town and county government. His principal object was to fill positions of authority and influence with Roman Catholics, and to this end he issued two declarations of indulgence (1687, 1688), suspending the laws against Catholics and dissenters.

Defiance and dislike of him grew, fed by the trial (1688) of seven bishops who had refused to read his second declaration. The birth of a son, who would have succeeded instead of the Protestant William and Mary, helped to bring the opposition to a head. William of Orange was invited to England by Whig and Tory leaders. The unpopular, autocratic, and Catholic king had few loyal followers and was unable to defend himself. He fled, was captured, and was allowed to escape to France, and William and Mary took the throne. The so-called Glorious Revolution had succeeded.

Attempts at Restoration

James made an effort to restore himself by landing in Ireland in 1689 and leading his many Catholic followers there, but the effort failed at the battle of the Boyne (1690). Other projects for restoration failed, and James's supporter, Louis XIV, recognized William III in the Treaty of Ryswick (1697). The cause of James's son and grandson was upheld later by the Jacobites long after James had died in inglorious exile.

Encyclopaedia Britannica



Discuss Art

Please note: site admin does not answer any questions. This is our readers discussion only.

| privacy