Was Henrietta Maria a key factor in the English Civil War or was this the impact of anti-catholic sentiment?
This blog post has been inspired by revision work I was doing and my favourite people’s work and discussions I have had with Dr Johanna Strong and Amy Saunders. This has resulted in this question to be stuck in my head.
Then there is my own analysis of events and knowledge of Charles I and Henrietta Maria is included in the analysis of this.
All views and analysis of these peoples work is my own other than when it is stated otherwise.
I use as contemporary sources:
John Foxe, ‘Acts and Monuments’ known colloquially as ‘the book of martyrs’ 1563. https://www.dhi.ac.uk/foxe/
John Knox, ‘The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women’ 1558. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-first-blast-of-the-trumpet-against-the-monstrous-regimen-of-women-1558
I use as secondary sources:
Johanna C.E Strong: ‘Happily Ever After? Elizabethan Representations of Mary I and Philip II’s Marriage’ Chapter 1 in memory and myth from ‘Mary I in Writing:letters, literature and representation.’ Edited by Valerie Schutte and Jessica S. Hower. 2022.
David Nash ‘witches and witchcraft’ 2014
Website used to spark this discussion ‘Historic UK’
Henrietta Maria as wife of Charles I, tends to be referred as a causation factor for the Civil War (1642-1651). Many websites such as Historic UK amongst others tend to use her as the reason for the Puritans and Calvinists for questioning the kings authority, which led to the tensions that sparked the English Civil War. Further, there shall be the contrast of Henrietta Maria to Mary I (r.1554-1558).This is key to contrast their experiences as Mary I was a queen regnant in Early Modern Europe and Henrietta was a queen consort. Within this there will be the contrast to other Early Modern Monarchs. The impact of anti-catholic sentiment grew as a result of the reformation and anti-spanish sentiment that came from the Succession Acts under Henry VIII. (1534,1536,1546). Then the succession act signed by Northumberland in 1554 can be contributed to the nobilities discontent of catholic queenship. However, it was Charles I’s own greed arguably using nepotism and increasing taxation through the Ship Tax 1634. Which led to anger and discontent by those who were struggling to financially to afford eating and living. This was not aided by religious discontent that was still an underlying factor that ran through Stuart England. During the Stuart Dynasty there is the increased importance of the divine right of kings, though the concept dates back to early medieval England. This can be argued to have been used increasingly during this period especially during the reign of James VI/I (1603-1625). Further with this idea engrained into the minds of Stuart England. Therefore, highlighting how Henrietta Maria has been used as a scapegoat like many other early modern and late medieval queens.
As highlighted by the Ship Tax 1634, this conveys how through this Charles I starts to exercise his power to a greater extent. This saw the crown make 150,000- 200,000 annually.Though, the claims that Henrietta Maria wanted to place her religion on others is not to the same extent as these websites state. Henrietta being born and bought up in France was a devout catholic, meaning that when she married Charles I she was still a practicing catholic. The archbishop Laud had a key role in introducing Laudian reforms to the church, yet if this is compared to the Henrician reformation. There is not the same resentment to Henry VIII, Edward VI or Elizabeth I of course there was the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536) and under Elizabeth I there was the impact of the Ridolfi Plot (1571) and Babington (1585). There was also under Somerset the Western Rebellion and Kett (1549) however these were all pockets of discontent and turmoil under the Tudor monarchs.
Whereas when Henrietta Maria practised her religion alongside economic and authority issues that occurred under Charles I’s rule the Civil war came from this. This can be highlighted by anti catholic sentiment as compared to Mary I there was the threat of deposition of her and her husband but with Mary I it was her herself under the Wyatt Rebellion (1554). This highlights how the legacy of the Henrician reformation has meant that catholic queens, both consort and regnant, have received greater challenges to their role in the monarchy. This in comparison to their protestant counterparts, meaning that if there was not the need for the break from Rome (1529). Then the degree of anti catholic sentiment may have not been as great as it became. Contemporary sources and work from this see Henrietta Maria as leading Charles I astray, though in reality viewing from a 2023 lens as a historian, Henrietta was a devoted individual to her faith. In addition, the writing of Knox, ‘The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women’ (1558), this was written to the growing early modern European queenship and the fact that Mary I was disliked by Knox for being a woman and a catholic. Knox’s work significantly exacerbated the anti catholic sentiment that existed. Further this highlights the issue of catholic queenship and sees individuals becoming fearful of what it means to have a queen consort on the throne. These men alongside Foxe’s ‘Acts and Monuments’ (1563) were worried what it meant to have another catholic on the throne in the form of queen regnant or consort. This meant that the anti-Catholic sentiment grew once Henrietta came to the throne as the ideas fed by Knox and Foxe grew again as many were concerned that the negative portrayal of Mary I as queen was going to occur again.
Although, Henrietta Maria was a good queen and mother with the standards of women at the time. She gave her husband a male heir which became Charles II (1661-1685), this was due to the restoration of the monarchy, after the civil war. In contrast to Mary I, as conveyed by Strong by her research into the perceptions of Mary I, Henrietta Maria did not receive as much criticism as she managed to perform the expressive role of providing a healthy male heir. Though due to the narrative created by the hands of protestant men post Mary I’s reign this led to concern that there was going to be this repetition with Henrietta. This is illustrated by the fact that Henrietta provided a stable heir this criticism did not become apparent in contrast to the miscarriages and phantom pregnancies that Mary I had. Devout protestants in this period would have believed this was due to the fact that Mary I, should not have taken the throne as a catholic. However, it is important to take into account the impact of Victorian narrative of both Mary I and Henrietta, as this created them to be queens that faced their own fate as a result of their devotion to the catholic faith. This conveys how Henrietta is the scapegoat for Charles I’s actions in some cases, that led to him to be led a stray which led to his own demise as king. This narrative that queen consorts would lead their husbands astray can be highlighted by the marriage of James VI/I and Anna of Denmark with the blame for witchcraft being placed on Anna as she had ‘influenced’ him, whereas in reality as Nash states it was due to the storms James VI/I experienced on the way back from Denmark in 1590.
The view of the early modern woman is a significant factor in the reason why they are used as a scapegoat for the actions of their husbands. This is prominent in the reason why a multitude websites use Henrietta Maria as a factor in the contribution that led to the English Civil War. In reality similar to Mary I, she was just a devoted wife and woman to her faith. This meant that Henrietta Maria became a scapegoat for her husband’s actions during the civil war and his reign as King. This was then not aided by people taking victorian narratives and contemporary sources leading to many interpreting her as the reason for the continuation of the anti-Catholic sentiment. This is especially key when considering the Laudian reforms in the 1630s. Therefore, due to work by Saunders and other revisionist historians in the 21st century this has allowed a reevaluation of Henrietta Maria. This means that Henrietta played a significant part in the civil war but was not a causation factor, that some historians like to place on her such as certain websites.
Thank you very much for reading!
Comments