“The English Civil War: The King’s Peace/The King’s War/The Trial of Charles I”, by C.V. Wedgwood

 

1272 pages, The Folio Society

The English Civil War was produced by The Folio Society in 2001 and consists of three books by C.V. (that would be Cicely Veronica) Wedgwood: The King’s Peace (first published in 1955), The King’s War (first published in 1958) and The Trial of Charles I (first published in 1964). At the time of publication and, indeed, for many years afterwards, Wedgwood’s work was the most complete and reliable history of the English Civil War, written by a meticulous crafts(wo)man and dedicated historian. As to how dedicated became evident in my research for this review, as I read tales of Wedgwood walking the battlefields, under the same weather and field conditions as the soldiers who fought, in order to gain an appreciation for what these men went through. At the time of her writing these histories, the historiography surrounding the English Civil War had become scoliotic, whereas Wedgwood’s strength in depicting the conflict was in how, in the words of Alfred Leslie Rowse, “she depicted the sheer confusion of it all, the impossibility of co-ordinating events in three countries, once order from the centre had broken down”.

The King’s Peace covers the time that Charles I was King of three independent kingdoms, not yet united: his rule over England was absolute (but not absolute), his rule over Scotland was more-or-less in name only (what with all of those combative presbyters running things) while his rule over Ireland was virtually nonexistent (pretty much business as usual, then). Besides all that, the Puritans were pissed about the supposed re-Catholicisizing of the Church of England, the Scots wanted all other churches to stay out of Scotland and Ireland was as Catholic (and poor…and powerless) as always. Oh, and Charles chucked Parliament out of office and ruled by decree when he wasn’t taxing the hell out of everything – until even this ran its course and, having run out of money, reluctantly recalled Parliament to do his bidding and raise the funds he wanted, only to have Parliament instead impeach as many of his advisors as they could in retaliation for his tyrannical one-man rule. In this environment, it is, perhaps, not with the benefit of hindsight that war was inevitable. Wedgwood tells this tale in a typically linear fashion, placing all the players and their actions in a recognizable and easy-to-follow order while also navigating the many shoals of personalities and events.

The King’s War begins in November 1641, with the country still at peace, but barely: in January the King attempts to seize Parliamentary officers by force but is foiled, so that by August Charles has raised his banner at Nottingham and declared war against his recalcitrant Parliament, thus breaking his own peace. Much of the book is concerned with details of the campaigns from the autumn of 1642 through the end of 1645, though some military action did continue into 1646. The campaigns and battles are told in as straightforward a way as possible, and I guess all of that traipsing over upon England’s mountains green and visiting all those battlefields paid off, for Wedgwood writes about war as well as she writes about everything else. After the King’s defeat, he proved to be as intransigent in captivity as he was when he was at liberty. Wedgwood would seem to have little respect for Charles’ political or intellectual capabilities, but she fully recognizes his integrity, a quality which dooms him but makes him (a little) admirable despite his many, many failings. Wedgwood writes clearly and without too much ornamentation, though her style is not at all simplified. It is plain throughout that she loves her subject and knows all the characters intimately, and this enthusiasm and insight easily transmits itself to the reader.

The Trial of Charles I completes the tale of the English Civil War, covering as it does of Charles’ trial for treason by the Parliament he waged war against. Again, Wedgwood displays her mastery of her subject matter by delving into the underlying motives for the participants (in so far as it is ever possible to do so) and recounting the trial in such a way that you feel it is being played out in real time. She portrays wonderfully the confusion of that month, and you realize that the condemnation and execution of Charles was by no means a foregone conclusion, despite the very determined efforts of the Independents to make it so (I have to say, though, that a more complete and up-to-date take on King Charles’ trial can be found in The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold by Geoffrey Robertson, reviewed on February 18^th, 2012). For all his faults and, contrary to what I felt when I first read this book, Charles brought up many a reasonable point over the course of his trial and, while I believe without question that he deserved to lose his crown, I am no longer certain he deserved to lose his life.

For all that is several decades old, The English Civil War still holds up as a brilliantly written and exhaustively researched history of what could be described as the founding of Modern Britain, in which Parliament is King and the King reigns but does not rule. While the development of the modern British state still had several decades of birth pangs to pass through, it all began when the White King was overthrown and beheaded, thus proving to the world at large that no tyrant is immune from justice, especially justice delivered by the People.