User:Svejk74/sandbox2

The Royalist party, during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, were supporters of the Stuart monarch Charles I, and subsequently of his exiled son Charles II. Royalism covered a wide spectrum of individual views, but included those linked to the Stuarts by family or financial connections or through patronage; those who supported Charles's divine right as monarch and position as head of the Anglican church; supporters of Episcopalianism, or rule of the church by bishops, appointed by the king; social conservatives; and simple opportunists or adventurers.

Broadly, Royalists believed the king had the right to rule the country without the agreement of Parliament; however, many even among Charles's opponents in the conflict supported the principle of constitutional monarchy, though they disagreed with his attempts at personal rule. While not regarded as strictly part of the Royalist "party", moderate factions in Parliament, as well as the Engager faction in Scotland and elements of the Catholic Confederation in Ireland, supported the Stuarts at various points during the war.

Royalist supporters were, and to a degree still are, popularly known as Cavaliers, originally a term of abuse used by Parliamentarian newspapers. Committed Royalists were often referred to as "delinquents", often in connection with the committees held to fine or seize the property of Royalist rebels. The popular stereotype of the upper-class "Cavalier", strongly identified with the fashionable clothing of the court at the time, still informs popular history despite its inaccuracy in many cases; Prince Rupert, commander of much of Charles I's cavalry, is often considered to be an archetypal Cavalier.

Background
By 1640, there was general consensus in England that attempts by Charles to govern without Parliament had gone too far. This changed after submission of the Grand Remonstrance in late 1641, when moderates like Clarendon switched sides, arguing Parliament was seeking too much power.

John Pym and others in the Parliamentary opposition, however, understood Charles would not keep commitments he considered forced on him. There was ample evidence of this, such as his annulment of the 1628 Petition of Right, while he and Henrietta Maria openly told foreign ambassadors any concessions were temporary, and would be retrieved by force.

Regardless of religion or political belief, the vast majority of the political class believed monarchy was divinely mandated. Where they disagreed was who held ultimate authority, especially in clerical affairs. In Scotland, Charles's attempts to unify the church across his realms by insisting on his primacy in religious matters and imposing a new Book of Common Prayer on the kirk led in 1639 to the Bishop's Wars.

Motivation
Beyond those linked by personal ties to the Court, many of those who took Charles's side early in the conflict were motivated by beliefs on the the monarch's role in society. In an age when secular power structures were often seen as a microcosm of divine order, the king's authority was also seen as having a scriptural basis; an example of these views is Denbighshire MP Sir Thomas Salusbury, who "read Charles's declarations, pondered the role of the monarchy in the Bible and in modern history, and declared for the King" in what was effectively a "conversion".

In England, many Royalists generally supported a Church of England governed by bishops, appointed by, and answerable to, the king; Puritans believed he was answerable to the leaders of the church, appointed by their congregations. Opposition to bishops was not solely on religious grounds; they acted as state censors, while lay people could be tried by church courts for crimes including Blasphemy. Bishops also sat in the House of Lords, where they helped enforce the king's views by blocking Parliamentary legislation, and parts of the church hierarchy were important in developing Royalist support. In certain areas of the country, conservative church ministers functioned as "efficient mass media", stoking popular Royalism and anger at religious reformers: one Herefordshire Parliamentarian wrote "I fear for my life, these men have wrought such hatred against me".

Religious and political views aside, military service remained a common career choice, particularly for the younger sons of gentry; this was even more common in Scotland, where a large percentage of the male population had military experience in Ireland or in the Swedish, Dutch or Russian armies. At the start of the conflict Charles's army had a greater number of professionals than that of Parliament, and analysis has shown that about 17% of Royalist field officers overall were professional soldiers.

However, despite a longstanding perception of the country being bitterly ideologically divided from the war's beginning, recent scholarship has shown that many gentry initially hoped to remain neutral. The example of the Thirty Years War, described in a 1643 peace petition as a "miserable spectacle of German devastation", meant that civil war was widely feared. Many resisted taking sides: faced with receiving a commission from Parliament in May 1642, immediately followed by a royal declaration denouncing it, a despairing Thomas Knyvett wrote to his wife "Oh sweet heart I am in a great straight what to do", while a group of Cheshire gentlemen went so far as to sign a local demilitarisation treaty. As a result truly committed Parliamentarians and Royalists were initially in a minority, with the latter tending to be concentrated in more remote, poorer areas of the country like Wales and the north.

Etymology
"Cavalier" first appears as a term, applied to the followers of Charles I in June 1642: "1642 (June 10) Propositions of Parlt. in Clarendon v. (1702) I. 504 Several sorts of malignant Men, who were about the King; some whereof, under the name of Cavaliers, without having respect to the Laws of the Land, or any fear either of God or Man, were ready to commit all manner of Outrage and Violence. 1642 Petition Lords & Com. 17 June in Rushw. Coll. III. (1721) I. 631 That your Majesty..would please to dismiss your extraordinary Guards, and the Cavaliers and others of that Quality, who seem to have little Interest or Affection to the publick Good, their Language and Behaviour speaking nothing but Division and War."

Charles, in the Answer to the Petition 13 June 1642 speaks of Cavaliers as a "word by what mistake soever it seemes much in disfavour". The word derived from the same Latin root as the Italian word ‘’cavaliere’’ and the French word chevalier (as well as the Spanish word caballero), the Vulgar Latin word caballarius, meaning "horseman". Shakespeare used the word cavaleros to describe an overbearing swashbuckler or swaggering gallant in Henry IV, Part 2 (c. 1596–99), in which Shallow says "I'll drink to Master Bardolph, and to all the cavaleros about London".

Cavaliers in the arts


An example of the Cavalier style can be seen in the painting Charles I, King of England, from Three Angles by Anthony van Dyck.