tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/james-i-28873/articlesJames I – The Conversation2024-03-18T19:21:43Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2253562024-03-18T19:21:43Z2024-03-18T19:21:43ZIntimacy, ‘secret service’ and social climbing: meet the real Villiers women behind Mary & George<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582101/original/file-20240315-22-3y4x18.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=61%2C24%2C8181%2C5462&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Binge</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Mary & George, the new British television drama series, depicts the real-life story of Mary Villiers and her son George, and their social climbing at the early 17th century English royal court. </p>
<p>George Villiers rose from humble beginnings to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup-bearer">cup-bearer</a> in 1614, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_and_Gentlemen_of_the_Bedchamber">Gentleman of the Bedchamber</a> in 1615, and ultimately to the royal favourite of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I">King James VI & I</a>, amassing many titles and court appointments. In 1623 he was made Duke of Buckingham, the only duke who was not a member of the royal family. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i3hlTrtnXGo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In Mary & George, Mary moulds George to be James’ lover, where he would become the second-most powerful man in England. But from dizzying heights can come a great fall.</p>
<p>Much of the show is embellished for dramatic effect – it’s unclear if James actually did have sexual relationships with his male favourites, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon">Sir Francis Bacon</a> did not die of syphilis. </p>
<p>However, other aspects of the show are fact. The Earl and Countess of Somerset were tried and found guilty of <a href="https://humanities.uconn.edu/2019/03/06/scandal-and-murder-in-the-folger-archives/">murder through poisoning</a> (though they weren’t executed) and Frances Coke really was abducted and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Coke,_Viscountess_Purbeck">forced to marry</a> John Villiers (witnesses noted her crying in the ceremony just like depicted). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Oil painting" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582421/original/file-20240318-18-4exp03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Villiers Family painted in 1628.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_School,_17th_century_-_The_Family_of_the_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham_(1592-1628)_-_RCIN_402607_-_Royal_Collection.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although George’s relationship with James is a central focus of the series, the Villiers women – George’s mother, sister and wife – all strategically bolstered the power and influence of their male relatives and ensured their family remained in royal favour.</p>
<p>Here’s what you should know about the real women behind the characters.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-friends-and-influence-people-as-a-17th-century-woman-87205">How to make friends and influence people (as a 17th-century woman)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The mother: Mary Villiers</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Engraving and photograph" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582093/original/file-20240315-22-t6ti75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An engraving of Mary Villiers from 1814, and Julianne Moore as Mary Villiers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Villiers,_Countess_of_Buckingham,_by_George_Perfect_Harding.jpeg">Wikimedia Commons/Binge</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the fictional Mary Villiers’ origins are depicted as low-born, the real Mary was from a gentry family with a good name but little money. </p>
<p>Mary’s four children with her first husband, George Villiers, were Susan, John, George and Christopher (“Kit”), who all feature in the show. </p>
<p>She married again to Sir William Rayner, and finally Sir Thomas Compton. She was created Countess of Buckingham in her own right (not tied to a husband) in 1618.</p>
<p>Like many women at this time who could not own property or assets due to the laws of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01440365.2022.2092945">coverture</a>, Mary strategically married and used the other avenues available to her – such as social networking – to rise through the ranks of Jacobean society until her death in 1632. </p>
<p>History has not been kind to Mary. Her ambition for her family marked her as greedy, calculating and ruthless, which the show extends to lesbianism and murder despite the absence of any historical evidence.</p>
<h2>The sister: Susan Villiers</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Side by side pictures" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=665&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=665&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582402/original/file-20240317-26-45214i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=665&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Susan Feilding, nee Villers, is played by Alice Grant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royalist_father_and_Roundhead_son;_being_the_memoirs_of_the_first_and_second_earls_of_Denbigh,_1600-1675_(1915)_(14757234486).jpg">Wikimedia Commons/Binge</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mary’s only daughter Susan is portrayed in the show as a quiet, timid and boring teenager. In reality Susan, who went by Sue, learned a great deal from her mother and used strategic connections to improve the social standing of her family. </p>
<p>In 1607, before the rise of the Villiers family at court, she married a country gentleman named William Fielding. Sue and William used George’s favour with the king to obtain many offices and titles; they were made the Countess and Earl of Denbigh in 1622. </p>
<p>After Charles I ascended the throne and married French princess <a href="https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/henrietta-maria">Henrietta Maria</a>, Sue was appointed as the most senior <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_the_Bedchamber">Lady of the Bedchamber</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/beheaded-and-exiled-the-two-previous-king-charleses-bookended-the-abolition-of-the-monarchy-190410">Beheaded and exiled: the two previous King Charleses bookended the abolition of the monarchy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These positions gave her vast influence at court. Surviving papers describe how she was frequently paid for “secret service” for the queen.</p>
<p>Over time, Sue developed a close relationship with Charles and Henrietta Maria, godparents to some of her grandchildren. Her letters show she was concerned with the social position of her own son, his education and his advancement at court. </p>
<p>When the queen fled for France during the English civil wars, Sue went with her and remained until her death in 1652.</p>
<h2>The wife: Katherine Manners</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Oil painting and photograph" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582097/original/file-20240315-30-djpnwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Katherine Manners, painted in 1628, is played by Mirren Mack.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw00882/The-Duke-of-Buckingham-and-his-Family?">National Portrait Gallery/Binge</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the show, George is forced into a partnership with “Katie” Manners when his mother and sister conspire to lock them in a room overnight, risking their reputations. </p>
<p>Young, “fertile” and wealthy, Katie describes herself as the perfect aristocratic wife. </p>
<p>They married in 1620 in a private ceremony witnessed only by James and her father, the Earl of Rutland. Katie became Katherine Villiers, Marchioness and then Duchess of Buckingham. She and George had four children, Mary, Charles, George and Francis. </p>
<p>James was Mary’s doting godfather. In his letters, he called her his grandchild, while Kate and George became his “children” and he their “dear dad”.</p>
<p>As the show depicts, George and the Villiers women became like a new family to James. This intimacy explains the libels which claimed Mary and George killed the king, a rumour the show brings to life. </p>
<p>Katherine, like Mary and Sue, became a Lady of the Bedchamber to Henrietta Maria. Katherine was pregnant when George was assassinated in 1628 and witnessed his death at the Greyhound Inn (where <a href="https://www.yespotteddogge.co.uk/">you can still stay</a>) in Portsmouth. </p>
<p>She went into mourning, commissioning portraits and the <a href="https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/villiers-family">Buckingham monument at Westminster Abbey</a> in a chapel usually reserved for royalty. She continued to live at York House in London, marked today by its <a href="https://londonist.com/london/history/york-watergate">Watergate</a> near Embankment Station. </p>
<p>Although she and her children remained favourites of Charles, her reconversion to Catholicism in 1628 and marriage to the Irish Catholic Randall MacDonnell in 1635 caused a strain. Katherine spent much of the civil wars in relative poverty in Ghent and Ireland, with her husband often imprisoned for his role in the Irish Confederacy. </p>
<p>She died in 1649, shortly after <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland">Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland</a>, her life and the rule of Charles I both coming to an end.</p>
<p>But the influence of the Villers women in the royal court continued throughout the 17th century. George and Katherine’s daughter Mary married a Stewart, making their royal connections official. </p>
<p>Later generations of Viliers women, including Sue’s daughter Barbara also served in the households of Henrietta Maria and later, Catherine of Braganza, continuing the tradition of royal service and influence that began under Mary and George. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mary-and-george-homosexual-relationships-in-the-time-of-king-james-i-were-forbidden-but-not-uncommon-223522">Mary & George: homosexual relationships in the time of King James I were forbidden – but not uncommon</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225356/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Bendall receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council UK and Parold Research Fund.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Mary & George depicts the real-life story of Mary Villiers and her son George, and their social climbing at the early 17th century English royal court.Sarah Bendall, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic UniversityMegan Shaw, PhD Candidate in Art History, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1304002020-01-22T18:19:45Z2020-01-22T18:19:45ZImpeachment: a political weapon that went out of fashion in England just as it was adopted in the US<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311336/original/file-20200122-117954-1vsyyyl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C940%2C757&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Overweening ambition: George Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peter Paul Rubens</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>See if you can guess who this describes: a politician adored by his supporters but loathed by his enemies. A man accused of corruptly favouring his cronies and his relatives. A vain, preening man said to glory in the ostentation of his wealth and who loved to acquire property. A man who sought to monopolise power, who some think betrayed his country to the national enemy and who wanted to magnify his nation’s standing in the world – but ended up reducing it and damaging trade. A man who was lampooned mercilessly – and who faced impeachment.</p>
<p>I’m not describing Donald Trump – but <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Villiers-1st-duke-of-Buckingham">George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham (1592-1628)</a>. The impeachment of the current US president nevertheless gives us reason to look at the role of impeachment more generally in the British context – which is where they began (at least, in the form with which we are familiar). The central allegation against Trump is abuse of office, which also ran through the charges against Buckingham.</p>
<p>Buckingham was one of the most controversial figures of his day. Rising from relative obscurity, he acquired enormous wealth as a result of his close friendship (<a href="https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/james-i-and-the-duke-of-buckingham-love-power-and-betrayal/">some alleged more</a>) with first king James I and then Charles I. At the height of his power in the mid-1620s, he enjoyed an income four times that of the wealthiest landowner, though he spent money so freely that he was always in debt. </p>
<p>Impeachment was a parliamentary trial – a prosecution brought by the House of Commons and judged by the Lords. The process began in the medieval period in order to prosecute corrupt, over-mighty officials for “high crimes and misdemeanours”. This was a term we are hearing a lot of in the US Senate’s impeachment proceedings against Trump. It was a catch-all term, but was intrinsically linked to accusations of corruption and betrayal.</p>
<h2>Medieval misgovernment</h2>
<p>In 1376, the so-called “Good Parliament” was opened by its speaker launching an attack on the royal court’s corruption and calling for close scrutiny of the royal financial accounts. This led to the first impeachment: of Lord Latimer who – along with others – was accused of selling the country to the enemy, taking bribes, pocketing fines that were due to King Edward III and charging the king extortionate interest for loans he made. </p>
<p>But impeachment fell out of use between 1453 when the Wars of the Roses took redress onto the battlefield and thereafter Tudor power dominated. It was revived in 1621 when parliament wanted the scalps of corrupt officials linked to Buckingham. </p>
<p>The first under attack was <a href="http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1604-1629/member/mompesson-giles-1584-1651">Sir Giles Mompesson</a>, who had abused a monopoly on the licensing of inns (and was a relative of Buckingham). The second target was the Lord Chancellor, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/">Francis Bacon</a> – the man sometimes credited with popularising the scientific revolution, but who was also a politician with powerful enemies. Bacon was accused of accepting bribes, though his closeness to Buckingham was perhaps the most significant factor in the proceedings. Impeachment was always political.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311423/original/file-20200122-117954-go4uif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311423/original/file-20200122-117954-go4uif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311423/original/file-20200122-117954-go4uif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311423/original/file-20200122-117954-go4uif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311423/original/file-20200122-117954-go4uif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311423/original/file-20200122-117954-go4uif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311423/original/file-20200122-117954-go4uif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Francis Bacon: philosopher and grifter?</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The attempted impeachment of Buckingham himself <a href="https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rushworth-papers/vol1/pp302-358">came in 1626</a>. Charges were drawn up against him alleging that he had monopolised offices, favoured his kin at the expense of the kingdom, bought and sold offices and misspent public money. Further, it was charged that he had damaged British trade and overseas interests, betrayed the nation as commander of the naval forces, taken bribes, perverted the honour of the peerage by selling honours, misspent Crown money and failed to keep proper accounts. </p>
<p>It was even suggested that he may have tried to poison James I. Buckingham’s mind was said to be “full of collusion and deceit”. Buckingham was an over-mighty politician who threatened and corrupted the constitution.</p>
<p>Buckingham was a showman politician who loved displaying power and wealth. As one MP put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Infinite sums of Money, and Mass of Land … have been heaped upon him, and how have they been employed? Upon costly Furniture, sumptuous Feasting, and magnificent Building.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Buckingham refuted the impeachment charges, alleging that “common fame” was the only proof against him – and that it was fake news. But parliament was not to be deflected by his protestations. MPs drew up a remonstrance and declared the duke to be the single cause of the nation’s ills: “The great enemy of the kingdom”.</p>
<p>The House of Commons resolved that “the excessive power of the Duke of Buckingham, and the abuse of that power, are the chief causes of these evils and dangers to the King and kingdom”. And yet, after all, the impeachment failed. The duke still had the king’s ear and Charles I dissolved parliament.</p>
<h2>Too hard to prove</h2>
<p>Why does this history matter? Impeachment was used in Britain repeatedly after 1626 against holders of office, until 1806 when Lord Melville, who had also been accused of corruption, was <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1805/jul/08/impeachment-of-lord-melville">found not guilty</a>. It was a difficult process to pull off. The definition of “high crimes and misdemeanours” was not to be found in statute law. As a parliamentary trial, impeachment was intrinsically wrapped in politics and therefore only ever semi-judicial. </p>
<p>The failure to convict in 1806 came a decade after another major impeachment, of <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230306004_2">Warren Hastings</a>, which had also ended in acquittal. So 1806 was the last time the process was attempted in Britain. A <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201314/jtselect/jtprivi/30/30.pdf">1999 report</a> from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege states that “the procedure may be considered obsolete”. </p>
<p>But it is a different matter in the US. The practice transferred across the pond when, drawing on British law, impeachment was written into <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-i">Article 1 of the 1787</a> constitution of the recently liberated United States, 20 years before the British abandoned it.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-to-think-when-youre-thinking-about-impeachment-5-essential-reads-130118">What to think when you're thinking about impeachment: 5 essential reads</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But the British story has darker lessons too. In 1628, two years after the failed impeachment, <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/today-in-history/duke-of-buckingham-was-ousted-in-parliamentary-leadership-spill-by-an-assassins-knife/news-story/09241cd09411f6e1bd21e9eedfceff5e">Buckingham was assassinated</a>, his killer inspired in part by the Commons’ remonstrance.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311429/original/file-20200122-117911-f3untv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311429/original/file-20200122-117911-f3untv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311429/original/file-20200122-117911-f3untv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311429/original/file-20200122-117911-f3untv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311429/original/file-20200122-117911-f3untv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311429/original/file-20200122-117911-f3untv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311429/original/file-20200122-117911-f3untv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The assassination of the Duke of Buckingham in 1628.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Sawyer, National Portrait Gallery.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Clearly no one would ever want that history to repeat itself – but it is a warning about the height to which passions could be roused by impeachment and about how the perceived frustration of the legal process could stoke disillusionment, resentment and desperation. </p>
<p>And a bloody end was not just meted out against the duke himself. Two decades after Buckingham’s impeachment, Britain was not just engaged in a war of words or a legal battle but embroiled in civil war, mired in the sense that government as a whole had become corrupted. Impeachment may thus be a moment to step back and reconsider the wider health of political culture and discourse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130400/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Knights received an HRC Leadership Fellowship for his work on corruption and has received a Leverhulme Fellowship for the same project. His book, provisionally titled The Abuse of Entrusted Power: Corruption and Office in Britain and its Empire 1600-1850.</span></em></p>Impeachment was a common political tool in early modern England, but its use lapsed 20 years after it was adopted in the US constitution.Mark Knights, Professor of HIstory, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/918482018-03-07T11:27:27Z2018-03-07T11:27:27ZHow Charles I lost his head over his lust for the world’s greatest art collection<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208229/original/file-20180228-36677-b4jisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sir Anthony Van Dyck's Charles I. Google Art Project</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Great leaders like to demonstrate their power. These days, it tends to be shows of military might and grand parades of state of the art weaponry. But Renaissance monarchs and nobles amassed huge collections of art – the better to show off their cultural sophistication. Charles I was no exception – and an exhibition at the Royal Academy indicates the extent of his obsession with collecting the finest art and artists: an obsession which was ultimately to cost him his head.</p>
<p>Walk through <a href="https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/charles-i-king-and-collector">Charles I: King and Collector</a> – which represents only a small fraction of the Stuart king’s entire collection – and you can see how art functioned as a political display of power and magnificence. But behind the austere painted faces of the king and court, there is another story to be told. Reuniting works for the first time in 350 years, it captures a singular moment in British history – as an unscrupulous king created arguably the most impressive art collection in the world, while ostracising his parliament and people and catapulting himself on to the scaffold. </p>
<p>When James I succeeded Elizabeth I to the throne in 1603, it quickly became apparent that here was a more “continental” monarch. He was descended from the Bourbons through his mother, his court spoke in French, he was determined to create a unity between his three kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland and to marry his children into powerful courts of Europe. </p>
<p>Under his rule, England was “open for business”. England could now reap the rewards of the freedom of movement artists had enjoyed on the continent for generations. Over the next 40 years, the English would greet the likes of Van Dyck, Orazio and Artemesia Gentileschi and Rubens.</p>
<p>Art was more than merely decorative. It functioned as a symbol of power and wealth, displayed at particular diplomatic events to put across messages of majesty and status. Art and diplomacy were completely inseparable at this point and James’s son Prince Charles was determined to present himself at the forefront of European power. He turned to art to project this image of majesty.</p>
<h2>Spanish tour</h2>
<p>The story of Charles as collector starts with an imprudent trip to the rigid court of Spain. To Charles, he and his companion – the king’s favourite, The Duke of Buckingham – were chivalrous knights on a voyage to woo and wed a European princess. To Buckingham, they were art collectors ready to reap the spoils of a court already housing an array of masterpieces. They took with them Buckingham’s art agent and a handful of courtiers well versed in collecting and Spanish etiquette. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206346/original/file-20180214-174982-9rg2oz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206346/original/file-20180214-174982-9rg2oz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206346/original/file-20180214-174982-9rg2oz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206346/original/file-20180214-174982-9rg2oz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206346/original/file-20180214-174982-9rg2oz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206346/original/file-20180214-174982-9rg2oz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206346/original/file-20180214-174982-9rg2oz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Samson Slaying a Philistine, about 1562, Giambologna.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samson_slaying_a_philistine.jpg">V & A Museum via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The trip was costly both diplomatically and financially, but they came back with a great haul of art, gifted, bought – and possibly even stolen, in the case of a sculpture of <a href="http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/s/giambolognas-samson-and-a-philistine/">Samson Slaying a Philistine</a>. Charles had caught the collecting bug with an acute love of Titian.</p>
<p>Negotiations for a marriage alliance between England and the Spanish Hapsburgs had begun in 1614, but had quickly broken down once it became clear that the Spanish conditions for such a match were far too high for James I to abide: mainly freedom of faith for Catholics in England. Negotiations for the match between Charles and the Infanta were opened up once more in 1621 – but progress was slow, and in 1623 Charles and Buckingham announced to James their intentions to travel to Spain in disguise, to woo the Infanta in person and to bring her back as an English princess. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209290/original/file-20180307-146675-o9u82l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209290/original/file-20180307-146675-o9u82l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209290/original/file-20180307-146675-o9u82l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209290/original/file-20180307-146675-o9u82l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209290/original/file-20180307-146675-o9u82l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209290/original/file-20180307-146675-o9u82l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209290/original/file-20180307-146675-o9u82l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supper at Emmaus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Titian_-_Supper_at_Emmaus_-_WGA22794.jpg">Titian (c1530)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When they arrived at the Spanish court, they witnessed an unimaginable kind of majesty. The Habsburgs owned some of the most splendid art in the world – the walls were covered with works by Titian, Bosch, Correggio, Velasquez – and sumptuous tapestries woven with gold and silver thread. No one in England had ever seen anything like this before and the experience had a profound effect on the group.</p>
<p>To the Spanish, his sudden arrival could only mean one thing – he may be willing to become a Catholic. In an attempt to show Charles all that Catholicism had to offer, he was given pride of place at the great festival of Corpus Christi. It was a feast for the eyes; the streets were lined with great tapestries and he saw how Philip IV was revered by his people, almost as a deity. Though he had no thoughts of conversion, Charles saw the tempting reality of a king treated almost as a god, with an art collection to rival any other in existence. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209287/original/file-20180307-146691-10bpqze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209287/original/file-20180307-146691-10bpqze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=826&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209287/original/file-20180307-146691-10bpqze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=826&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209287/original/file-20180307-146691-10bpqze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=826&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209287/original/file-20180307-146691-10bpqze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1038&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209287/original/file-20180307-146691-10bpqze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1038&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209287/original/file-20180307-146691-10bpqze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1038&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Charles I with M. de St Antoine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_with_M._de_St_Antoine#/media/File:Anthony_van_Dyck_-_Charles_I_(1600-49)_with_M._de_St_Antoine_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg">Antony van Dyck (1633)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We can see from paintings of the prince upon his return that he took on Spanish fashion, and a new kind of majesty was implemented. As well as falling in love with art and ceremony, Charles was immediately besotted with his potential bride, and accounts describe his constant impatience to see her – on one occasion even breaking into her garden only to be met with shrieks of terror from the virtuous princess. This is clearly not the way a prince was expected to behave and, if a union had ever been possible, his ideas of diplomacy drew an end to it.</p>
<h2>Spending spree</h2>
<p>As possibilities for a marriage dwindled into oblivion, the Stuart courtiers scavenged what they could get their hands on, and the trip turned into little more than an art collectors’ holiday. This visit was financially ruinous. James wrote to his son begging him to come home, telling him that the royal purse was empty.</p>
<p>An accounts book from the year 1623 (now at the <a href="https://www.nls.uk/">National Library of Scotland</a>) documents vast sums of money spent on elaborate clothing, jewels and art, as well as an elephant and camels. In their first two months, the group had already spent 261,421 reales, which amounted over £500,000 then, today it would be significantly more (to put this into context, Van Dyck’s annual salary as court painter was £100).</p>
<p>If that wasn’t enough, when they returned home Charles and Buckingham were determined on war with Spain, and in 1625 the latter took an <a href="https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/cadiz-expedition-1625-m.html">invading fleet to Cadiz</a>. It was another complete fiasco and the cost was immeasurable, both in terms of money and loss of lives, without making a dent in the Spanish army. </p>
<p>Buckingham was already wildly unpopular at court and this was the beginning of the end for the royal favourite. Parliament began proceedings to impeach the Duke, and rather than risk a conviction, Charles – who had succeeded James the same year – dissolved parliament. Buckingham <a href="http://www.earlystuartlibels.net/htdocs/buckingham_assassination_section/P0.html">was assassinated</a> by a soldier from the Cadiz mission in 1628.</p>
<h2>Hubris embodied</h2>
<p>The trip to Spain was a definitive moment for Charles – a diplomatic and financial disaster and the first of many ill-judged moves which would come to characterise his reign. He returned to England determined to be the most prominent king in Europe, a great collector, almost divine, and above all, indisputably powerful. He would continue to spend vast amounts of money on art, clothes and court entertainments. He would ostracise an already distant parliament, and within four years of becoming king engage in an 11 year personal rule under which he would impose unpopular and barely legal taxes on his people. </p>
<p>His immovability on matters of state and religion would embroil his three kingdoms in a civil war that would last a decade, and he would maintain his divine right to rule until parliament had no choice but to condemn him for treason. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206352/original/file-20180214-174982-1vxtah8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206352/original/file-20180214-174982-1vxtah8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206352/original/file-20180214-174982-1vxtah8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206352/original/file-20180214-174982-1vxtah8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206352/original/file-20180214-174982-1vxtah8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206352/original/file-20180214-174982-1vxtah8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206352/original/file-20180214-174982-1vxtah8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Execution of Charles I of England (c.1649).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Execution_of_Charles_I_of_England.jpg">Unknown artist/Scottish National Gallery.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On January 30, 1649, Charles was walked from St James Palace to the Banqueting House in Whitehall where, sat under the extraordinary ceiling painting by Rubens depicting his father in divine glory, he would settle his affairs before being lead onto a purpose built scaffold, and beheaded. Even in this, Charles wielded his last moment of power, ordering that the axe would not fall until he gave his command.</p>
<p>Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector, and under him the crown jewels were melted down and the gems sold, along with the majority of this enormous art collection – a necessary move to recoup some of the money lost under decades of decadent monarchs. What we see in the exhibition is around 7% of the original collection – and walking through it is easy to see how the king lost his head.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91848/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Breeze Barrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Charles I’s belief that art was a way of projecting power bankrupted England and alienated his people. The rest is history.Breeze Barrington, PhD Candidate in Early Modern Tapestry, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/872052017-11-14T13:29:51Z2017-11-14T13:29:51ZHow to make friends and influence people (as a 17th-century woman)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194551/original/file-20171114-27573-13bl18z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anne of Denmark by unknown artist.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anne_of_Denmark,_ca_1600.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>England in the 17th century was a thoroughly male affair. Men dominated politics, law, religion and the military, and women were relegated to the domestic sphere. But, then again, the previous century had seen England actually ruled by two women in succession: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/mary_i_queen.shtml">Queens Mary I</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/ztfxtfr">Elizabeth I</a>. Was there nothing between these two extremes? </p>
<p>We might be too quick to think there wasn’t, for gender relations – and women’s ability to wrestle political gain from cultural and social means – were rather more subtle, murky, and nuanced than these two poles suggest. After the death of the legendary Elizabeth I in 1603, her cousin, James VI of Scotland, succeeded to the throne as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/james_i_vi.shtml">James I</a> and England was back in the hands of male rule. But James brought with him a young wife – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark">Anne of Denmark</a> – who makes an interesting case for female agency. </p>
<p>Anne owed her position as queen to her marriage (although she was of royal Danish blood); she owed most of her power to having “the king’s ear”; she did not hold any formal office, and she was firmly below James in the hierarchy. But thanks to the nature of her relationship with James, his obsession with hunting, the structure of the court, and Anne’s alliance with strategic male courtiers, she enjoyed some independence and influence. </p>
<p>First, early Stuart England was home to two centres of power beyond that of the king: those of the queen and the prince. These ancillary courts supported household favourites, policies, aesthetics, and cultural forms that could be completely separate from James’s court. This difference did not amount to rebellion, or rejection, but fuelled a climate of debate and diversity, and ensured factional balance. </p>
<p>In several areas, Anne actively diverged from James: in her patronage of artists and designers, in the style of portraiture, in her preferred clients for court posts, in factional support, and through her passion for building and garden design. </p>
<p>Second, geographic distance was a defining feature of the royal relationship. Passionate about hunting, and aware of the political benefits of mobility, James absented himself from London for between six and nine months a year. His ability to do so, without the kingdom falling into disarray, was ensured by the proficiency of his privy councillors, most notably <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Cecil-1st-earl-of-Salisbury">Robert Cecil</a> – and his wife, Anne.</p>
<h2>A conduit to the king</h2>
<p>Anne spent most of her time in London, where she served as an intermediary between James and the council, passing on the king’s “dispatch” and <a href="http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp185-200">hosting weekly meetings</a> “in such places as our dearest wife shall Keepe her Courte”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194397/original/file-20171113-27632-2u6ysx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">James I and VI with his consort Anne of Denmark.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/James_I_and_VI_with_his_consort%2C_Anne_of_Denmark._Wellcome_M0012951.jpg">Wellcome Images via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Frequently tasked as the monarchical representative in London, Anne was readily accessible to dignitaries and elites who valued her as a conduit to, and a spokesperson for, the king. When rumours were rife about England’s future marriage alliance through Anne and James’ eldest son, and heir to the throne, Prince Henry, several ambassadors pegged Anne as the most <a href="http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol12/pp312-322">reliable source of information</a>, and actively sought her opinion. </p>
<p>Her sway with the king was also noted by Spain, who considered her key to the success of their marriage bid, and sought her favour through one of the most popular means: gifts. When an ambassador was sent to London for four days – to congratulate James for surviving the Gunpowder Plot – his other political duty was to get an audience with Anne, and give her <a href="http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol10/pp341-354">clothes and jewels</a>.</p>
<p>The level of influence Anne <em>actually</em> held with James is another matter, but perceptions were almost as important as the real thing.</p>
<h2>Playing the patriarchy</h2>
<p>But even though the court was polycentric, it was also patriarchal. Anne was barred from holding office, but her proximity to the king meant that her actions and views carried political weight. </p>
<p>She was also careful to align herself with men who shared her opinion, and could speak or act on her behalf when necessary. Between 1610 and 1612, she worked with her eldest son, <a href="http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/periods/stuarts/death-prince-henry-and-succession-crisis-1612-1614">Prince Henry</a>, to curb the power of James’s favourite, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Carr-earl-of-Somerset">Robert Carr</a>. </p>
<p>On one occasion, Carr was made Chief Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, but was forced to share the office with John Harington – a close companion of Henry, and brother of Anne’s principal lady-in-waiting. When there was competition for the secretariat, Carr quickly chose to support Anne and Henry’s candidate, <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yPUhAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=thomas+birch+court+and+times+of+james&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilOjjubbXAhWSzKQKHXuEBXAQ6wEILjAB#v=snippet&q=stand%20in%20the%20breach%20against%20such%20assailants&f=false">as he was</a> “not willing … to oppose himself, or stand in the breach against such assailants”. </p>
<p>Later, Anne played a key role in Carr’s displacement, working with the faction headed by the Earls of Pembroke and Southampton to bring in <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Villiers-1st-duke-of-Buckingham">George Villiers</a> as the new favourite. Against Carr’s vocal protestations, Anne pushed James to make Villiers a Gentleman of the Bedchamber, where he would be guaranteed access to the king (and therefore power). James heeded his wife’s recommendation, thereby starting the legendary rise of Villiers. </p>
<p>As the chief favourite of King James, and then King Charles I, Villiers ultimately became Duke of Buckingham, Knight of the Garter, privy councillor, and Lord Admiral – arguably, the most powerful man at court. His relationship with Anne was always good, and it was <a href="http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol15/pp384-401">well known that</a> “since the fall of her enemy [Carr], Mr Villiers has risen, supported by her and dependent on her”.</p>
<p>The formal structure of 17th-century England was highly unfavourable for women. Anne of Denmark, however, proved that political power could still be achieved, however unfavourable the odds.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87205/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jemma Field does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Anne of Denmark proved women could play a key role in the 17th-century patriarchy.Jemma Field, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/866472017-11-02T12:49:51Z2017-11-02T12:49:51ZForget gory Gunpowder – Jacobean England had a bloodcurdling appetite for violence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192665/original/file-20171031-18725-za89wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The execution of the eight surviving conspirators of the Gunpowder Plot.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_execution_of_the_eight_surviving_conspirators_of_the_Gun_Wellcome_V0041786.jpg"> Wellcome Images via Wikimedia </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The compelling <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05j1bc9">BBC series Gunpowder</a>, which tells the story of the 1605 <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-bloody-truth-why-bbcs-gunpowder-had-to-be-so-violent-86264">Catholic Gunpowder Plot</a> against <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/james_i_vi.shtml">King James I</a> of England, has sparked <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/oct/22/viewers-shocked-by-violent-scenes-in-bbc-drama-gunpowder">much discussion</a> about the gruesome scenes in its early episodes. And the dramatised public executions might well be unsettling for a 21st-century audience. We are unused to seeing a woman stripped naked in public, then crushed to death; or a young man being hung, drawn (his insides ripped out) and then quartered (legs and arms removed with an axe). </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wBFcpJfxEFk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Complaints about the explicit level of violence have been matched by useful reminders by academics that this was indeed <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gunpowder-goes-off-with-a-bang-on-tv-hfwg32zr6">a violent society</a> in which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/23/gunpowder-brutal-sickening-17th-century-britain-our-history">gruesome acts</a> were commonplace. Meanwhile, others have argued that assuming bloodcurdling violence was universal is not a useful way to understand <a href="http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-healey/gunpowder-treason-and-civil-lawsuits">17th-century society</a>. </p>
<p>So what was really behind the apparent bloodthirstiness of Jacobean England?</p>
<h2>Fact or fiction?</h2>
<p>Historical accuracy is often questioned in dramas such as Gunpowder, so it is worth asking first whether such horrors actually happened at all. The penalty (crushing to death) suffered by the fictitious Dorothy Dibdale for priest harbouring in Gunpowder was not completely unknown. It actually happened to <a href="http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/tudor-stuart/margaret-clitherow">Margaret Clitherow</a>, who was sentenced to the punishment for harbouring Catholic priests and is now recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church. It is worth noting, however, that she was an Elizabethan, not a Jacobean, and died almost 20 years prior to the Gunpowder Plot. </p>
<p>But this particular form of execution certainly wasn’t commonplace. It was imposed on Margaret Clitherow because she refused to enter a plea, as Dibdale did in Gunpowder. The more typical punishment for (male) Catholic priests was to be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered">hung, drawn and quartered</a>. Those helping missionary priests also faced the prospect of death, although women traditionally were more likely to face burning. </p>
<p>In Gunpowder, before the young Jesuit is hung, drawn and quartered, the authorities declare that he has been “tried and condemned as a heretic”. But the reality was actually quite different. The Protestant state was adamant that the Catholics they put to death were guilty of “treason” – which is why he was not burned at the stake as a heretic. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192892/original/file-20171101-19858-j7aaon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192892/original/file-20171101-19858-j7aaon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192892/original/file-20171101-19858-j7aaon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192892/original/file-20171101-19858-j7aaon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192892/original/file-20171101-19858-j7aaon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192892/original/file-20171101-19858-j7aaon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192892/original/file-20171101-19858-j7aaon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The conspirators assemble in BBC1’s Gunpowder.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robert Viglaski/BBC/Kudos</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These might seem arcane points, but the form of death did matter. However horrific it seems to us, this was not “mindless” violence, but deeply symbolic and structured according to contemporary understandings of justice. Priests were convicted of treason, and treated in the same way as other traitors – the threat they presented to the body politic being effaced in the dismembering of their own physical body, while the public display of body parts was used to deter others.</p>
<h2>No accident</h2>
<p>Other forms of religious violence in the early modern period, including those that were not imposed directly by the authorities – from the slaughter of Protestants by Catholics in the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Wars-of-Religion">French Wars of Religion</a>, to the iconoclasm of Parliamentarian troops in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/">British Civil Wars</a> likewise had an internal structure and logic. The targets and victims of this <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/650379?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">violence were not accidental</a>. </p>
<p>Of course, the state’s interpretation of physical penalties could also be challenged. Catholics sought to overturn the Protestant interpretation of these executions. For them, their coreligionists died as martyrs, not traitors. Their reported courage in the face of the state-sponsored brutality was proof of the righteousness of their cause. </p>
<p>Similarly, the Protestant government of the time operated with an awareness of the potential danger of public executions. The <a href="https://archive.org/stream/troublesourcath00morrgoog#page/n443/mode/2up">martyr narrative of Margaret Clitherow</a>, written by a seminary priest she protected, suggests that the authorities were reluctant to impose this death on her. Executions could be rowdy affairs and forms of entertainment, but men and women attended them for a variety of reasons: some to gawp and jeer, others to bear witness. Staging a public execution risked inspiring conversions to the victim’s cause.</p>
<p>Perhaps more important is the sense Gunpowder offers of the dilemmas that people of the past sometimes faced and the various ways in which they made sense of the times they lived in. </p>
<p>In Gunpowder, it is refreshing to see a question mark placed over older blithe acceptance of the inevitable triumph of Protestantism in England (or Britain) – we see King James’s councillors seriously concerned about the regime’s survival – and the often unstated assumption that “sensible” England, unlike its near neighbours, largely avoided the sorts of violence the religious changes of the period provoked. In fact, there were numerous plots against James after he succeeded the childless Elizabeth I – and his son, Charles I, would go on to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/charles_i_king.shtml">lose his head as part of a long and bloody civil war</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192890/original/file-20171101-19900-1gnzkoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The execution of Charles I (above) and the subsequent execution of one of the regicides (below).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered#/media/File:Charles_I_execution,_and_execution_of_regicides.jpg">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The thought that our ancestors lived in a violent and bloody world and were the perpetrators of such acts of violence might be uncomfortable partly because it forces us to revisit our sense of ourselves and where we come from. It certainly suggests how violence begets violence.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the series depicts violence by the Protestant state against Catholics before it gets to the intended violence of Catholics against that state. After all, the Catholic <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/the-gunpowder-plot-of-1605/">Gunpowder Plot</a> aimed to obliterate the king and the majority of the ruling elite of Jacobean England. Each took place in reference to and in answer to the other. </p>
<p>The level of state sponsored violence depicted in Gunpowder may not have been the everyday experience of all of the monarch’s subjects, but people lived in the knowledge of its possibility. And in many states, that remains as true today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katy Gibbons does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It wasn’t just ‘mindless’ brutality – but it should remind us that violence too often begets violence.Katy Gibbons, Senior Lecturer in History, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/666012016-10-10T15:24:26Z2016-10-10T15:24:26ZBritain’s obsession with secrecy goes back to the Tudors and Stuarts – and is still at work today<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141087/original/image-20161010-3909-wsic86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C426%2C2768%2C2001&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Thomas Cromwell, a man who definitely knew what you did last summer.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cromwell,Thomas(1EEssex)01.jpg">Hans Holbein the Younger/National Portrait Gallery</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The secret services are recruiting – you may have seen advertisements seeking linguists or computer specialists placed by MI5 and MI6 in respectable publications. This is quite a change from the official position that they <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29938135">didn’t exist</a> maintained as recently as 20 years ago. </p>
<p>While these organisations’ origins lie <a href="https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-history.html">in the world wars of the 20th century</a>, we can trace their signature features back to the 16th and 17th centuries. And in doing so we find that many of the problems they face today – plots, terrorism, political unrest and foreign interference – would be very familiar to the spies and spymasters of the earlier era – such as Thomas Cromwell, for example, Henry VIII’s spymaster whose life forms the story of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02">Wolf Hall</a>.</p>
<p>Living as we do in the age of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, we also find at that time similar tensions between the needs of the “secret state” and the demands of the growing public sphere.</p>
<h2>An early modern interest in secrecy</h2>
<p>Unquestionably, governments in the early modern era were always keen to cultivate an air of mystery. The arcane nature of ruling was seen as a natural part of an elite skill set – this suggestion of innate superiority obviously appealed to those in power. </p>
<p>Government secret actions, as journalist and pamphlateer Marchamont Nedham argued in his 1656 work <a href="http://www.constitution.org/cmt/nedham/free-state.htm">The Excellencie of a Free State</a>, was made up of “things … of a nature remote from ordinary apprehensions”. This way of framing the debate allowed governing to appear both mysterious and a skillful art outside the norms of life. These were, James Stuart himself <a href="http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oseo/instance.00032042">noted</a>, “no themes or subjects fit for vulgar persons or common meetings”. As “subjects” the role of the people in the early modern state was to “contain themselves within that modest and reverent regard of matters above their calling”. They might not have had an actual Official Secrets Act hanging over their head, but the people were certainly meant to know their place.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=992&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=992&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=992&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1246&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1246&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141108/original/image-20161010-3906-xhn1pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1246&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spilling the beans, 17th-century style.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And therein lay the tension which we can perhaps sympathise with today. Because just as governments developed their <em>arcana imperii</em>, or secrets of state, outside in the world a new landscape of media thronged with reams of printed newspapers, pamphlets and books, while in <a href="https://theconversation.com/coffee-shops-the-hangout-of-choice-for-the-hipsters-of-the-18th-century-43943">coffee houses political gossip and whispered knowledge flourished</a> – of politicians, but also of the state’s secret affairs. </p>
<p>It was feared that were state matters discussed widely this would weaken the doctrine of secrecy, perhaps even dispelling the “magic” of government and dissolving the boundaries between rulers and ruled. Given our world of endless speculation on social media, and the British government’s resistance to revealing anything at all about the workings of government throughout much of the 20th century, this should sound very familiar.</p>
<h2>Dark arts</h2>
<p>Unsurprisingly, the secret-state approach also provided a natural base from which to operate clandestine activities. Here we find many of the same activities used today. Spies and informers, and infiltration by foreign agents – such as William Gregg, who sold secrets to France before he was caught, tried and hanged in 1708. Political kidnapping was known on occasion, and political assassination, while rare, included serious attempts on <a href="http://www.elizabethfiles.com/plots-against-elizabeth-i/3509/">Elizabeth I</a>, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/overview_civil_war_revolution_01.shtml">Stuart kings</a> and Oliver Cromwell – the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z3hq7ty">Gunpowder Plot of 1605</a> against James I is the most notable example. </p>
<p>The interception of post was common. As with the myth in modern times of the UK’s GCHQ, it was alleged that hardly any letter was safe. In 1649, for example, Cromwell’s regime: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Authorised [its officers] to open and view all such letters or pacquets as you or they shall conceave may conteyne in them any matter or thing prejudicial to the Commonwealth. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The uncovering of plots and conspiracies were regularly publicised (some of them were even true). Like the blossoming conspiracy theories of today, at that time even the Great Fire of London was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/great_fire_01.shtml">blamed on a Franco-Popish Plot</a>. Writer and poet John Dryden later noted: “Plots, true or false, are necessary things, To raise up commonwealths, and ruin kings”. It is a sentiment that is still true today.</p>
<p>Modern electronics aside, the covert practices of today had their parallels in the early modern state. Governments would cheerfully justify their use, while an increasingly open and demanding public would respond with moral outrage if their use was discovered. Even in the 16th and 17th centuries the government’s philosophical justifications were emerging: the practicalities of politics and foreign affairs were more than enough justification to cast spying and subterfuge as statecraft’s necessary evil, and even to proclaim its virtues in respect of the need to protect the then newly formed British nation. Again, it is a justification still familiar today.</p>
<p>A tension developed between state – which suspected and feared the very idea of the public and its opinions, and which considered espionage, suppression and censorship as vital – and the press and public sphere, which sought to know not only how but also why decisions were made on their behalf, and who stood to gain from them. Commentators of the time fondly imagined that knowing this would illuminate how things were done, and “the Great Ministers of State … [would be] … presented naked, their consultations, designs, policies, the things done by them … exposed to every man’s eye”. Having laid the foundations for 400 years of state secrecy, it is a wish that is as true today as it was then – and one that is as unlikely to be fulfilled.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66601/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Marshall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Look back centuries ago and you’ll find the same obsessive secrecy, and the same justifications, as seen today.Alan Marshall, Associate Professor in History, Bath Spa UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/609562016-07-04T10:53:00Z2016-07-04T10:53:00ZThe long history behind the power of Royal Portraits<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128667/original/image-20160629-15248-75xu66.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Generation game.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Royal Mail</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The royal portraits released to mark the <a href="https://www.royal.uk/queens-birthday">90th birthday of Queen Elizabeth II</a> deliberately emphasise her status as the matriarch within a flourishing family. The oldest and newest generations of royals smile together for the camera, projecting the Windsor line as safely secured into the future. </p>
<p>These well choreographed and well publicised pictures blend longevity and authority with an appreciation of renewal and dynastic security. Across British history, however, the idea that the monarch’s nuclear family is necessarily a unit of stable authority has been hard won.</p>
<p>While of course there have been royal families for as long as there have been monarchs, spouses and offspring haven’t always shared the limelight. The pivotal era of change is that of the <a href="http://stuarts-online.com/">Stuarts (1603-1714)</a>, who reigned when print culture exploded and new forms of visual media emerged. </p>
<p>Successive Stuart monarchs quickly grasped the value of royal imagery, keenly sponsoring portraits of themselves or holding lavish events which promoted their reign and policies. In turn, authorised images were disseminated more extensively through cheaply printed pamphlets. </p>
<p>Sharing the royal image with their subjects was a new and powerful tool – but it also carried risks.</p>
<p>Promoting his family held advantages for the first Stuart monarch, James VI of Scotland, who assumed the English throne in 1603, becoming James I. After the turbulent reigns of the early Tudors, and decades of rule by a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/elizabeth_i_01.shtml">Virgin Queen</a>, James brought his subjects a healthy royal family. While he perhaps had little affection for his wife, Queen Anna of Denmark – and rather more for his succession of male royal favourites – he appreciated the importance of dynastic continuity and placed his three young children clearly in the public eye.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127768/original/image-20160622-7203-na1ico.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127768/original/image-20160622-7203-na1ico.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127768/original/image-20160622-7203-na1ico.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127768/original/image-20160622-7203-na1ico.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127768/original/image-20160622-7203-na1ico.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127768/original/image-20160622-7203-na1ico.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127768/original/image-20160622-7203-na1ico.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">James I and his royal progeny.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikicommons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>London’s printers devoted much attention to the king and his family. Genealogical charts and portraits of the family were disseminated in cheap printed form. James’s great book of political theory, <a href="http://www.stoics.com/basilikon_doron.html">Basilikon Doron</a>, was also rushed into print in London in 1603. This text was an extended essay on dynastic continuity, addressed to his eldest son, Prince Henry. And while James’s family experienced more than its share of upheaval, with Henry dying suddenly in 1612, and his sister Elizabeth being sucked into the morass of the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/thirty-years-war">Thirty Years’ War</a>, royal imagery stressed the continuity of Stuart rule.</p>
<p>Charles I, James’s second son, went on to exploit even more fully the potential of the royal family image. Charles’s marriage to the French princess Henrietta Maria coincided with his father’s unexpected death in 1625, meaning his reign began at the same time as the start of a stable and happy marriage. His image as a ruler was virtually indistinguishable from his profile as a husband and father. </p>
<p><a href="http://english.rutgers.edu/images/documents/faculty/coiro_ball_of_strife_essay_2009.pdf">Scholars have even argued</a> that Charles only established an identifiable and independent reputation as a ruler from around 1630, when Henrietta Maria gave birth to the first of a succession of seven children.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127526/original/image-20160621-13008-1ht0mav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127526/original/image-20160621-13008-1ht0mav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=710&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127526/original/image-20160621-13008-1ht0mav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=710&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127526/original/image-20160621-13008-1ht0mav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=710&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127526/original/image-20160621-13008-1ht0mav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=892&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127526/original/image-20160621-13008-1ht0mav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=892&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127526/original/image-20160621-13008-1ht0mav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=892&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Charles I, family guy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Royal Collection</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All the media of the age were mobilised to celebrate the family. Volumes of poetry were published to mark each royal birth, while the greatest court artists were commissioned to paint portraits. One portrait of Charles, Henrietta Maria and their first two children, by Anthony Van Dyck, hangs to this day in Buckingham Palace. Yet the risks of this approach also became apparent, as the perceived influence of a foreign, Catholic queen <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oz-BxVxgzhwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false">became a focus of resentment</a> in the 1640s. </p>
<h2>Traditional gender roles</h2>
<p>Set against a more traditional model of masculine authority, Charles was derided by his critics as weak and vulnerable. The publication of secret correspondence between the couple, in <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-kk-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=en%20-%20v=onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false">The King’s Cabinet Opened</a> (1645), fuelled the flames of civil war.</p>
<p>The royal family remained a source of tension in the second half of the Stuart era. Charles II’s childless marriage to Katherine of Braganza lacked the intensity of his parents’ union. For his brother and heir, James II, the birth of a Catholic son in 1688 in fact precipitated his downfall. While his subjects were prepared to tolerate James II’s leadership, they were anxious about the prospect of a future line of Catholic Stuarts. </p>
<p>His opponents challenged the maternity of the child, James Francis Edward, alleging that he was an imposter smuggled into the Queen’s rooms in a bedpan. Hundreds of pamphlets, histories and even plays were produced about this “warming pan plot”. </p>
<p>Months later, James’s son-in-law, William of Orange, capitalised on discontent and invaded England to seize the crown. Thereafter, images of the Stuart royal family tended to be divisive, often associated with the “Jacobites” who sought to restore James to the throne.</p>
<p>Today, the Windsors can congratulate themselves on their evident success in creating an image suited to the times. Yet a glance back in history, to the very century when the royal family was invented as a media product, underlines the challenges that they face in promoting – and maintaining – the positive royal image in a digital age.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60956/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew McRae receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna-Marie Linnell receives funding from the AHRC for her PhD studentship. </span></em></p>Royal PR in pictures started with the Stuarts 400 years ago.Andrew McRae, Head of English, Professor of Renaissance Studies, University of ExeterAnna-Marie Linnell, PhD candidate, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.