

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
E-ISSN: 1469-5103|24|3|553-569
ISSN: 0018-246x
Source: The Historical Journal, Vol.24, Iss.3, 1981-09, pp. : 553-569
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
In the last forty years the accepted portrait of the parliamentarian party during the Great Civil War has changed almost beyond recognition. A score of books and articles have been devoted, with much debate, to reinterpreting the nature of the factions comprising that party. By contrast, the accepted view of its opponent, the royalist party, is still that established by Gardiner over a hundred years ago. This situation is not unduly surprising. Some of the principal sources for a study of the royalist party, such as the journals of the royalist parliament, were destroyed at the end of the war. Furthermore, the royalists may seem ultimately less significant objects of study than their rivals, in that they lost the war and therefore contributed nothing, save as a menace, to the subsequent formation of English polity and the making of the modern world. Though not surprising, such an attitude is none the less indefensible. Considerable material for such a study does survive. Clarendon's comments, whether in his
Related content


The Implications of Royalist Politics, 1642–1646
The Historical Journal, Vol. 27, Iss. 3, 1984-09 ,pp. :




Colonel King and Lincolnshire Politics 1642–1646
The Historical Journal, Vol. 16, Iss. 3, 1973-09 ,pp. :

