HistoryExtra
type: channel
link: https://www.historyextra.com
description: Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
date: 2024-11-01T22:27:32.000Z
update period: hourly
update frequency: 1
update base: 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00
items: Great Reputations: Oliver Cromwell
items: Roundheads and Cavaliers: where did the Civil War nicknames come from?
items: Crown v Parliament: your guide to the Civil War of the 17th century
items: The Prayer Book Rebellion: Mark Stoyle on how the 1549 rising almost changed Tudor history
items: Did Oliver Cromwell ban Christmas? The Puritan assault on Christmas during the 1640s and 1650s

Great Reputations: Oliver Cromwell
type: item
date: 2023-09-07T06:28:14.000Z
creator: Professor Mark Stoyle
subject: Period
subject: Stuart
subject: Great Reputations
description: In the latest in our series charting the contested reputations of key historical figures, Ronald Hutton and Mark Stoyle debate the life and legacy of statesman, politician and military leader Oliver Cromwell
encoded: In the latest in our series charting the contested reputations of key historical figures, Ronald Hutton and Mark Stoyle debate the life and legacy of statesman, politician and military leader Oliver Cromwell, exploring his religious zealotry, his campaign in Ireland, and more. Want to hear more? Browse more episodes in our Great Reputations podcast series

Pod-Reputations-WL-25f9df6.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Roundheads and Cavaliers: where did the Civil War nicknames come from?
type: item
date: 2023-06-15T10:37:38.000Z
creator: Professor Mark Stoyle
subject: Period
subject: Stuart
subject: Video shorts
description: Professor Mark Stoyle explains the history behind two nicknames that came to represent the royalists (Cavaliers) and the Parliamentarians (Roundheads) during the Civil War…
encoded: The terms aren’t modern and actually first spring up – in the context of the Civil War – in London, in late 1642/early 1643. Certainly, in the propaganda of the time, you can see images of long-haired, foppish Cavaliers pitted against sober-looking, shorthaired parliamentarians. The word ‘Cavalier’ actually comes from the Spanish word ‘caballero’ (gentleman) and it had connotations of foreignness, of being a trooper or an armed horseman. And it was also tied up with images of gentility. So it became a very handy propagandist tool for the parliamentarians, because once you start to call people Cavaliers, you invoke the idea of snobbish aristocrats who are looking down on ordinary people. Browse | Expert articles, podcasts and video on the Civil War The word Cavalier also conjures up images of violent foreigners, particularly those associated with Spain, which was a country hated by Protestant men and women at the time and which was viewed as the heartland of European Catholicism. And, of course, there’s also the other meaning of the word cavalier: of being reckless, high-handed, swaggering, drinking and so on – the antithesis, if you like, of the stout Protestant English man or woman. The origin of the word ‘Roundhead’ is a little harder to trace and doesn’t have any obvious roots in other words. The classic explanation is that it reflected the short hair of the London apprentices who were very prominent in their support of Parliament at the beginning of the Civil War. Another possible explanation, which I’ve always been interested in, is that, before the Civil War, if you were seditious and opposed the government, particularly in religious terms, you could have your ears lopped off as a form of punishment. There is one rather gruesome example of a man who had already had his ears cut down once to the stumps, but then had the remaining stumps cut off for the same crime! Read more | 10 key battles of the Civil War I do sometimes wonder if the term Roundhead was almost…

Video-Roundheads-WL-c9addbd.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Crown v Parliament: your guide to the Civil War of the 17th century
type: item
date: 2023-06-12T06:22:25.000Z
creator: Professor Mark Stoyle
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Stuart
description: Professor Mark Stoyle speaks to BBC History Revealed editor Charlotte Hodgman about the Civil War of the 17th century, with the royalist forces of Charles I on one side and the parliamentarian 'Roundheads' led by Oliver Cromwell on the other
encoded: How popular was Charles I as monarch before the Civil War? Charles I certainly had his critics and I wouldn’t say that he was a particularly popular king before the Civil Wars. Charles came to the throne in 1625 and was almost immediately beset with problems – there were the issues with Parliament and MPs’ refusals to grant him money; a whole series of foreign policy disasters, including a new, costly war with France; there was the intense hatred that was felt towards his favourite, the Duke of Buckingham; and there was the suspicion directed against Charles’s Catholic wife, Henrietta Maria. Read more | Has history been unfair to Charles I? So I think in those early years, he certainly wasn’t a popular monarch and he faced quite a lot of hostility. During Charles’s Personal Rule – from 1629-40 – I think you could argue that things got a little better and that the level of hostility towards him receded to a certain extent. But then, of course, everything went wrong again, starting with his waging war with the Scots in 1639 and 1640. How did Charles’s style of kingship compare to that of his father, James VI and I? They were very different on the surface, but not so different underneath. James VI and I was very familiar in courtly life and he delighted in drinking, jokes, horseplay and bawdiness. His court was a bit of a free-for-all in a way. Charles was quite shocked by the laxness of his father’s court, and when he became king, he deliberately instituted a new regime. Read more | James VI and I: the king who hunted witches Charles I’s court was much more formal and dignified – the broad humour and practical jokes of his father’s reign went straight out the door. So on the surface, things looked very different. But underneath, Charles’s policies weren’t all that different from James’s and he, too, attempted to pursue a sort of middle-line policy within the church. I actually think a lot of what Charles did as monarch, he learnt at his father’s knee. As a second son,…

GettyImages1196143385-e2894af.png
width: 620
height: 414

The Prayer Book Rebellion: Mark Stoyle on how the 1549 rising almost changed Tudor history
type: item
date: 2023-05-22T07:02:00.000Z
creator: Professor Mark Stoyle
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Tudor
description: The religious reforms of the Protestant Edward VI, inspired by the Reformation, were not welcomed by all in his kingdom. In 1549, thousands of people rose up in revolt in Devon and Cornwall. Although ultimately crushed with the help of mercenaries from Europe, and its leaders executed, historian Mark Stoyle asks whether this Prayer Book Rebellion could have toppled the Tudor state
encoded: Listen to a version of this article: On Whit Monday 1549, William Underhill and William Seagar – two respectable inhabitants of the little Devon village of Sampford Courtenay – got into an argument with their vicar at the parish church. They told him that they disliked the new Book of Common Prayer in English, which had recently been introduced by an act of parliament and which he had read in church the day before. They urged him to revert to the traditional service in Latin instead and, after some debate, he acceded to their request. Within hours, the church had become the centre of a popular demonstration against the Protestantising religious policies of King Edward VI, which sought to remove all vestiges of the traditional Catholic faith. Within days, that protest had spread to the surrounding country parishes, and within weeks it had engulfed the whole of Devon and Cornwall. On the podcast | Mark Stoyle charts the Prayer Book Rebellion and how the rising almost changed the course of Tudor history Self-appointed captains soon emerged to lead the protesters, prominent among them being Underhill and Seagar themselves. In July, they assembled an army of common people and laid siege to the regional capital, Exeter. From there, they sent a list of demands to the government in London, insisting that all further moves towards Protestantism should come to a halt, and that the Church of England should be restored to the position in which it had been left by the king’s father, Henry VIII, at the time of his death. The rising is widely remembered today as the “Prayer Book Rebellion”. This epithet perhaps suggests a somewhat softer episode – more like a theological debate – than the bloody reality. In truth, the strength of feeling among the “rebels” fuelled a rapid and violent response to enforcement of the Protestant Reformation. And new analysis shows that the rising wasn’t merely a minor, localised “stir”, but came close to succeeding in its goals in the West Country – a…

GJ42C4-3609ad7.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Did Oliver Cromwell ban Christmas? The Puritan assault on Christmas during the 1640s and 1650s
type: item
date: 2021-12-22T13:06:00.000Z
creator: Professor Mark Stoyle
subject: Period
subject: Stuart
subject: Christmas
description: Mark Stoyle investigates popular resistance to the Puritan assault on Christmas during the 1640s and 1650s
encoded: As the year 1645 limped towards its weary close, a war-torn England shivered beneath a thick blanket of snow. A few months earlier, parliament’s New Model Army, led by Sir Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, had routed the forces of Charles I at the battle of Naseby. Although that defeat had struck the king’s cause a mortal blow, the royalists still refused to surrender, and the bloody Civil War which had divided the country ever since 1642 continued to rage. Under constant pressure from the armies of both sides to supply them with money, clothing and food, few Englishmen and women can have been anticipating a particularly merry Christmas. Yet, for those who lived in the extensive territories which were controlled by the king’s enemies, there was to be no Christmas this year at all – because the traditional festivities had been abolished by order of the two Houses of Parliament sitting at Westminster. Read more | The history of Christmas, plus 10 festive facts you might not know From Charles’s beleaguered wartime capital in Oxford, the royalist satirist John Taylor – by now in his mid-60s, but nevertheless one of the king’s most indefatigable literary champions – issued a cry of anguish at this assault on England’s time-honoured customs. All of the “harmless sports” with which people had long celebrated Christ’s nativity “are now extinct and put out of use… as if they had never been,” Taylor lamented in his pamphlet The Complaint of Christmas, and “thus are the merry lords of misrule suppressed by the mad lords of bad rule at Westminster”. Cromwell and Christmas: BBC History Revealed shares a brief guide to the 'ban' On June 1647 Parliament passed an Ordinance that abolished Christmas Day as a feast day and holiday. While Cromwell certainly supported the move, and subsequent laws imposing penalties for those who continued to enjoy Christmas, he does not seem to have played much of a role in leading the campaign. Throughout the medieval period, Christmas Day had been…

GettyImages-804436054-6af4e2d.jpg
width: 5190
height: 3376