During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in
Europe the court was the most politically powerful and culturally significant
institution in the country. The court was centre of government, diplomacy,
patronage, political power, visual art and elite literary production throughout
both centuries. Traditionally, then, studies of the court as an institution
emphasised spectacle and hierarchy (Strong). Since the translation of Norbert
Elias’ The Court Society in 1983 the court has become the focus for
discussions of ritual, elite life, patronage, social and political organisation,
power relations and state formation. The significance of the court to our
understanding and analysis of Early Modern society has been reiterated over
the last decades through a number of important books and articles; furthermore
the cultural, social and political dynamics of the court have informed the
research agenda in History, History of Art, Music and Literary Studies.
The court as an entity has been debated and researched in great depth.
Yet research into the court in England tends to
skip the Civil War period, moving from Charles I’s abandoning Whitehall
in 1642 directly to Charles II’s triumphant return in 1660. There has been
very little work published considering the court between 1642 and 1660.
A few articles and chapters have considered the changes to the royal court
during this period, its cultural and social make up and the variety of its
manifestations; the protectoral court has similarly been under researched.
This is despite the fact that court life continued – Charles I had a vibrant
court in Oxford during the 1640s, Queen Henrietta Maria had courtly households
in the continent and Prince Charles created courts around himself in various
parts of Europe. The court remained significant in English social and cultural
life; courts in Scotland and Ireland also started to shift and change in
response to the new circumstances. The court was also, in part, a contributing
element to the war itself, or at least was part of the conflicting religious
and political nexus, yet once war breaks out it disappears from scholarly
Writers and artists produced works, wherever the courts might have been.
Patronage, diplomacy and spy networks revolved around the court. It was
still seat of some government and so therefore had economic, political and
military significance. Indeed it is fascinating to see the structures of
the court – social, political and cultural – shifting and changing in the
new circumstances of war and exile during the 1640s and 1650s. The European
experience significantly influenced Charles II’s methods of government and
his court in the 1660s.
Scholars have begun recently to fill in our picture
of what happened during this time. This collection of essays begins to sketch
out new directions and paradigms for our understanding of the period 1642-1660
by considering the ‘English’ court in its various manifestations during
this period. The articles in this edition consider the new circumstances
of the court, the political consequences of court movement, and the changing
way that the court was represented after 1642. The movement and ultimate
fragmentation of the centralised court led to profound disruptions in the
cultural, legal, economic and political life of the nation. It transformed
patronage, political systems and governmental institutions. As Malcolm Smuts
has argued, the court was immensely important to the evolution of the Royalist
party, such as it was, during the 1630s and into the 1640s: ‘court culture
helped shape and articulate religious and political values in ways that
affected government polities in the 1630s and contributed to the emergence
of a partisan royalism after the personal rule collapsed’ (Smuts, Court
Similarly the cultures of the courts in exile and the Protectoral court
influenced models of governance, policy and the constitution of partisan
identities throughout the 1640s and 1650s, as Hughes and Sanders demonstrate
in this collection. The movement of the royal court from being the centre
of political life to peripatetic, nomadic, reliant on foreign goodwill,
impoverished and constricted reconfigured Royalist structures and strategies
of social, cultural and political identity, as Karen Britland shows. There
was a concomitant shift back in England, where an institution which had
in many ways been the focus of political life now became subsumed into the
broader network of national government.
The Stuart Court and life beyond Whitehall
As has been well documented by scholars such as
Jonathan Goldberg and Linda Levy Peck, the arrival of the Stuart court in
England in 1603 meant that multiple contrasts between the old and the new
court culture were apparent to contemporaries, yet a number of continuities
were in place also (Goldberg, Peck). Goldberg’s New Historicist approach
allowed the Jacobean court to be analysed in much the same way as the elite
world of Elizabeth I, with both courts viewed as performative spaces for
monarchical power. The historical work of Peck highlighted the increased
public perception of scandal and intrigue at James’s court, an approach
that has recently been continued in Alastair Bellany’s study of the Overbury
scandal. Of course, it is rather unsurprising that 1603 ushered in a new
court culture, as England now possessed a new monarch, a queen consort in
the guise of Anna of Denmark, as well as two heirs to the throne in Prince
Henry and Prince Charles.
It has been usual for researchers to stress the
growth of the Whitehall entertainment under James, whereas Elizabeth often
progressed to aristocratic estates for entertainment.
However, recent work has unsettled this supposed orthodoxy, and it is clear
that James’s court continued to progress as Elizabeth’s had done, just as
it is now apparent that Jacobean masques were often staged away from the
confines of Whitehall Palace.
Thus, what might be termed a ‘Jacobean progress text’, such as John Adamson’s
documentation of James’s progress to Scotland in 1617, can be read alongside
a Whitehall masque by Ben Jonson together with entertainments for Queen
Anna at other royal locations.
Nevertheless, it is true to say that the new court culture prioritised Whitehall
Palace to a far greater extent than had been the case under Elizabeth, though
scholars such as Knowles and McManus have correctly highlighted the polycentrism
of the new culture, as political and cultural life diversified through the
separate royal households and, later, through the emergence of powerful
aristocratic figures such as the eventual Duke of Buckingham. Indeed, Jacobean
court culture appears to have featured a complex, even curious, dualism,
as multiple locations for the court and the accompanying polycentrism competed
with the growing importance attached to James’s Whitehall in the city of
Westminster, a situation that would continue after 1625 (Sillitoe chs. 2-5).
Indeed, it is generally agreed that Charles I scaled-down the royal progresses
and prioritised Whitehall more than his father (see Corns). Accordingly,
scholars such as Kevin Sharpe have focussed upon the Caroline court masques
at Whitehall, and only recently has attention been paid to the entertainments
and progresses away from the palace, as Charles’s neglect of progressing
was not, in fact, total. Indeed, a wealth of material has survived that
documents Charles’s progress to Scotland in 1633.
Similarly, the anonymous ‘Entertainment at Richmond’ is one of several texts
testifying to the existence of a courtly entertainment culture beyond the
Charles’s plans for a rebuilt Whitehall Palace have been well documented,
and it is important to remember that, once Charles had left his primary
residence for Oxford in 1642, several printed accounts lament the enforced
absence of monarchical presence from the palace.
Courts in England: Oxford
In order to understand the physical consequences
of the move from Whitehall in 1642 it is useful to briefly consider the
court’s subsequent arrangements at Oxford and in exile, as well as considering
the Protectorate court. The movement of the Court after 1642 reconfigured
Royalist culture (Starkey ‘Introduction’; Sharpe ‘The image’). The relocation
of the central focus of Royalist production led to a profound reconsidering
of tropes and modes, of the role of the writer and of the importance of
print. This dislocation forces us to reread the role of the court in cultural
work and production, to trace how patronage systems and courtly modes shifted
and changed, and how this affected cultural production. Yet it is not simply
those who outright supported the King who were affected by the shifts in
dynamic, whether cultural, economic, or governmental (Hardacre; Kelsey).
The movement of the court meant in the short term the bifurcating of the
institutions of government between London and Oxford, which meant that anything
from proving a will or paying taxes became a much more complex operation
(de Groot Royalist). The court, as Jason Peacey
shows in this collection, was not simply the locus for the emergence
and debate of Royalism but also the focus for parliamentary propagandist
After Edgehill Charles took his army toward Oxford,
arriving on 29 October. The nomadic courts at York and Nottingham had been
unsettling and were not practical for the running of a sustained military
campaign. The King settled his garrison, court and executive in Oxford.
Charles continued to issue Proclamations from travelling courts but they
were centrally published at Oxford and the city became the institutional
and executive centre of the country for those who challenged the Parliamentary
officers in London (Sessions; Hanson). When the Parliament came to Oxford
the Commons occupied the Great Convocation House and the Lords the Upper
Schools. The Queen stayed at Merton, and the King took apartments in Christ
Church. Sir Edward Nicholas stayed at Pembroke and the rest of the colleges
provided accommodation for the court and the men. The
parish of St. Aldate’s had 405 strangers plus the normal inhabitants; a
1643 Census recorded 3320 males between the ages of 16 and 60 and the wartime
population of the city has been estimated at around 10,000 or more.
Charles’ orders for his apartments
in Christ Church strove to mimic the arrangements of the Whitehall court.
British Library, Harleian MS 6851 fol. 117 r–v is an account of the court,
in the hand of Sir Edward Walker. The account allows for ‘two gromes of
ye Guard stand Constantly at the foote of the Stayres leading
to ye presence and privy Chamber and not to permit any unknowen
or meane person to pass upp the Stayres toward that Rome’, and requires
Gentlemen Ushers, Pages of the Bedchamber and Guards to stand duty outside
and inside the presence, privy and withdrawing chambers.
Mobility within the physical court space itself was therefore as constrained
and strictly controlled as before.
- The make-up of the wider household similarly attempted to impose
normality upon the situation. Several members of the Royal household relocated
to Oxford, including Apothecaries, Vintners, and Officers of the Wardrobe
(HMC House of Lords MS 61, 76, 77, 116). A list of officers petitioning
for payment shows Pages of the Bedchamber, Gentlemen Ushers and Grooms of
the Chamber (Bod. Rawlinson MS B. 121. fol. 2r-v; de Groot ‘Space’ 1225-7).
However, in comparison to the extensive households listed in PRO LC/3/1 (Charles,
1641), BL Harleian MS 7623 (the Royal children, 1638), National Library of
Wales Wynnstay MS 167 (Henrietta Maria, 1641) and Folger Shakespeare Library
MS X.d 78 (general expenses, 1641), it is clear that the courts at Oxford
were far smaller than previously. The inventory of the Queen’s Merton lodgings
demonstrates the cramped conditions:
Royal dining continued to be opulent; a surviving cellar-book records meals
consisting multiple courses.
The King hunted to hounds, and Isaac Thorpe petitioned to become the royal
children’s dance teacher (Madan ii: 274; CSPD 1641–43
422). The King and his family were still spending a great deal on dress: the
House of Lords’ manuscipts record ‘Application from George Kirke, gentleman
of His Majesty’s robes, for a pass for John Daintre, a groom in the office,
to go to Oxford with four dozen of gloves, which are much wanted by His Majesty,
and four yards of ‘taby’, two ells and a quarter of ‘taffety’, to be a tennis
suit, and two pairs of garters and roses, with silk buttons and other necessaries
for making up the suit’ (HMC House of Lords MS 113). The same entry
includes ‘Similar application for a pass for John Reeve to go to Oxford with
27 pairs of silk hose, 3 silk waistcoats and 6 pair of laced boot-hose for
the use of the King and Queen’s Majesty’ (HMC House of Lords MS 113).
In December of the same year George Kirke, Gentleman of the Robes, successfully
petitioned Parliament for 1000l for ‘provision of His Majesty’s apparel’ and
in the following March the household expenses of the King’s children at St.
James’ were paid, a sum of 794l (HMC House of Lords MS 59, 75). In
the winter of 1644 the King’s Serjeant-at-Arms' petition for a salary increase
was denied; a month later Charles signed a warrant for new robes for the Prince
of Wales (CSPD 1644-45 505, 106, 506, 21). John Astington’s article
in this collection suggests the complexity of experience for those cultural
servants of the king during the war period, and the very real financial difficulties
faced due to the regime’s need to prioritise and economise.
More belonging to ye Lodging
The little Chamber at ye South end of the Gallery
hanged wth Coarse Arras
One Bed & bolster bedsteld with greene silke
Curtaines & Vallance two blanketts & one silke greene quilte
All wch at ye Queens coming were disposd of by
Mr Greaves except ye hangings
In ye Dineing Roome where ye Queene lay
A drawing Table wth a Turky worke Carpett
a Court Cupboard A side table all with suteable
Turky worke Chaire 12 Turky-worke backt Chaires 2 paire of brasse Andirons
In ye great hall
A long Table a long forme A still
(Merton College, Oxford MCA 1.3 (College Register 1567–1731) 360–1).
- The problem for the King during the 1642-46 was maintaining the façade
of an important European court whilst running an increasingly costly war;
the financial tensions inherent in undertaking this are seen in the example
of the Queen’s house. Sir Richard Wynn’s papers include his accounts for the
running and maintenance of Henrietta Maria’s house in Wimbledon during the
war years. The accounts indicate that the house was kept, at least cosmetically,
as the garden was particularly cared for.
Other palaces also kept a staff, as is demonstrated by the complaints about
non payment of wages at PRO, LS 8/1 and LS 8/2. Charles’ household alone cost
£22,000 a year during the war, and the costs of running the war ran into the
millions; at the same time the royal exchequer gained nearly 90% less than
it was used to expect (Engberg 87). There was a need to, for instance, pay
multiple officers of the court for their services (as is demonstrated by Bodleian
MS Rawlinson B 121 in which ‘40t & 6s’ was distributed to the King’s servants).
Other sources of revenue were tried: the King created 67 Baronets between
1642-45, all of whom paid him £1095 apiece (BL Egerton MS 2978. fols. 133r-134v;
de Groot ‘Space’). This expansion of the court helped financially but it further
diminished its standing in the public eye, with parliamentary newsbooks accusing
peers of buying privilege. Indeed the court, as Peacey points out, was often
the target of Parliamentarian propaganda and certainly those caricatures associated
with courtliness – hedonism, foreign religion, wrongful counsel – were subsumed
into anti-Royalist writings throughout the war years and beyond.
Courts in England: Rump and Protectorate
After the fall of Oxford in 1646 and the flight
of Charles the court became even more atomised, and the various nomadic
courts in exile were constrained, much more ad hoc entities. Courts in exile
maintained some form of pre-war finery, whilst at the same time having to
adapt to constrained circumstances. The institutions of court government
in England were mainly taken by Parliament, but the trappings – the architecture
of Hampton court for instance, music, and decoration – were taken up firstly
by the Rump and then by Cromwell in his Protectoral court. During the early
1640s and Interregnum the royal palaces were gradually taken over and reused
for public offices as well as their chapels largely defaced (Thurley 249).
Simon Thurley points out that this iconoclasm was officially directed after
the setting up under Robert Harley of a commission investigating monuments
of suspicion and idolatry in April 1643. Whilst the expenses of the royal
family’s household were paid for a brief time the palaces were quickly requisitioned.
What is key is that the notion of a court was somehow conceived as important
to the government of the nation; as Sean Kelsey argues, the Rump regime
returned to ‘traditional patterns of authority tarnished by revolution’
(Kelsey 26). The Rump restored the gardens of Whitehall, repaired the chapel,
instituted ceremony and entertained. Whitehall became a focal point for
government, a republican court of meritocracy and committee which was focussed
upon the incorporated ‘person’ of the Parliament rather than the monarchical
cult of individual.
- After the appointment of Cromwell to the Protectorship in 1653 the
royal residences were offered to him and he took Whitehall and Hampton Court
(where he withdrew most weekends). Cromwell’s usurpation of the monarchical
role was lauded for its cleansing of the Augean stables of court:
What though our Court be not so well studded with Peers,
nor our Prince crowded and hedg’d in with such a number of old modified
Courtiers; shall we rail at Aurora, and revile the Sun at his rising,
because we lose in the bright glory of his beams, those twincklers, those
small spangles, the Stars? There is no lustre wanting at Court; both home
and abroad we have eyes enough on our Prince, and blessed be God, we
enjoy day and good daies by his presence. What Palace was ever lesse adulterate
than his? Nay in that very places where Pimps and Panders were us’d to traffique
and sport it in the base Revellings of lust, there is now sitting a Religious
Covent of our best and most Orthodox Divines; and whereas formerly it was
very difficult to live at Court without a prejudice to Religion, it is now
impossible to be a Courtier without it; whosoever looks now to get preferment
at Court, Religion must be brought with him instead of money for a Place;
here are none of those usual throngs of vicious and debaucht Swashbucklers,
none of those servile and tayl-shaking spaniels, none of those moe-hair, linsiewoolsy,
Nits and lice Gentlemen, No such changeable Camelions; He is no such swarthy
Prince, of no such sullied Complexion, that some wicked Courtiers must
needs be standing by at his elbow as black patches to Vertue (Unparalleld
This figuring of the religious court has elements of propaganda charges directed
at the changeable, debauched courts in Oxford and in exile, explicitly comparing
the austere court of the new nation with the presumed hedonism and irreligiousness
of the royal family. Accounts of Cromwell’s court suggest that ‘there was
at least some attempt at the dignity of a court: otherwise all was puritanical
gloom and severity […] everywhere observable a special respect for decency
and decorum’ (Jesse iii: 73). The revenue for the court was fixed
by Parliament and not exceeded; the Lord Protector, despite the mimicking
of royalty’s rituals, was seemingly a public servant first and foremost undertaking
the duties of state rather than indulging personal desires for finery. Critics
suggested that Elizabeth Cromwell’s domestic economy, thrift and pious lack
of imagination was to blame for this dourness.
The comparison of the austere Cromwell with his presumed merry other Charles
II is part of the standard propagandist and historiographical binary dynamic
(de Groot, Royalist; Roebuck). However more recently Roy Sherwood has
persuasively suggested that Cromwell’s court was that of a head of state,
no more, and relatively frugal (Sherwood 149-56).
- That said Cromwell took some interest in the organisation and decoration
of the houses, and recent studies have argued that ‘the lord protector not
only relished his new environment, but actively sought to enhance it’ (Hunneyball
After the proclamation of the new regime in 1653 both Whitehall and Hampton
Court were richly decorated with furniture, paintings and hangings kept over
(and some repurchased) from the King’s collection (Hunneyball 66-7). John
Embree and Clement Kinnersley were responsible for the redecoration; c.£35000
of art and furniture were taken from the sale of the King’s goods and housed
in the protectoral palaces (Brotton 278). However, Cromwell also decorated
with his own belongings, as the inventory of possessions in Hampton Court
at his death demonstrates (Law ii: 180-1). Cromwell evidently
patronised musicians, hunted, gave public entertainments for visiting diplomats
and undertook private consultation at court (Roberts) 320-1). Andrew Marvell
wrote an entertainment for the marriage ceremony of Cromwell’s daughter Mary
in 1657 at Hampton court and her sister Frances was married at Whitehall after
a lavish feast which included dancing and music (Sherwood 144, 143). Indeed
a kind of bastardized republican ‘courtliness’ of some description was the
basis of various attacks on the Protectorate (Gillespie).
- Certainly the character of the Protectoral court seems businesslike
and more directly interested in the governance of the state than any extracurricular
activities. Cromwell’s system of court government was markedly different to
his forebears, as has been demonstrated by Peter Gaunt and Blair Worden. Gaunt
suggests that Cromwell’s influence over the Protectoral Council was less dictatorial
than generally assumed, and that indeed he was more in thrall to his advisory
colleagues than his Stuart predecessors to their privy councils. This levelling
impetus has also been applied to the image of the leader, and it has been
argued that Cromwell’s regime established a republican aesthetic of government,
allowing representation in popular print where before the court had controlled
the ruler’s image (Knoppers 2-4). The Protectorate court established an important
model of consultative government.
Henrietta Maria, Charles II, Princess Mary and Elizabeth
of Bohemia all kept courts in Europe which attracted Royalist émigrés and
Parliamentary spies, and had varying levels of influence. There has been
some work on the politics of the government in exile; additionally the lives
of exiled Royalists have begun to be excavated in some depth.
However, the structures of the exiled courts have still to be fully explored
and the articles in this collection contribute much to our nascent understanding
of this topic. The courts of Elizabeth and Mary at The Hague were the most
established, and the article in this collection by
Ann Hughes and Julie Sanders develops our understanding of these dynamic
entities. Hughes and Sanders suggest that The Hague courts were complex
spaces where the exile experience was constantly renegotiated. Their essay
insists that we ‘need to account for many different forms, manifestations,
and practices of royalist exile’ and nearly all of the work in this collection
contributes to our understanding of the complexity of émigré courts in ‘adaptation,
embedding, and interaction’.
- During the 1640s the figure of the Queen was still key in the construction
of the court as a place of beauty and order, albeit now with a martial inflection
(de Groot, ‘Mothers’). As an inspiration she still attracted the language
of preciosité and was a focal point for Royalist conceptualisation
of society. When she fled to France in 1644 she was given rooms in the Louvre
and a pension (Britland 201). She kept a small court which, whilst indebted,
functioned. It seems that despite a hiatus between 1648 and 1653 she was involved
in mounting plays, ballets and entertainments within her own household as
well as being involved in the ceremonies of the French court (Britland 200-214).
As Edith Snook’s article illustrates, the Queen
participated in an extremely complex set of activities during the 1650s and
it is through the consideration of such hitherto unconsidered sources as recipe
books that we can begin to reconstruct the dynamic culture created by and
reflective of the court during that decade. Britland’s
article deepens our understanding of the nuances of court culture abroad
as well as developing our sense of Henrietta Maria’s self-dramatisation in
- Charles II’s court was extremely reduced – as Geoffrey
Smith’s article in this collection demonstrates, it was both fluid in
make-up and stretched financially. Smith’s essay explores the character of
Charles II’s court and in particular its search for focus and purpose. Charles
did not establish a settled court until after the battle of Worcester, when
he returned to Paris and set up what was effectively a government in exile.
The presence of the Queen in the Louvre made the court more complex (Smith
69). After the Protectorate’s alliance with France in 1654 Charles left Paris
for Cologne and Bruges. Charles’ courts were plagued by financial problems,
accusations of licentiousness, and further suffered from internal division.
The courts lacked authority and focus, despite the Royalists in exile having
a raffish, crumpled, defeated charm:
Thomaso: Yet in these old Cloaths I am a Gentleman and a Souldier;
and though my habit be ill, my heart any my sword are good, and I think
my Reputation, as any Souldier needs; for though I have lost my Fortune,
yet I have preserv’d mine Honour still.
The courts in exile might sometimes have been hotbeds of intellectual activity,
as Charles Kay Smith and Paul Hardacre have argued, but they were also places
of privation, worry, poverty and illness, as Astington
demonstrates here (Kay Smith; Hardacre). The courts in exile were also
sites of negotiation where, particularly after the regicide, Royalist policy
was debated and formulated (Peacey; Greenspan; Smith 115-32). As cultural
spaces, too, the exiled courts maintained their importance, as Karen Britland
demonstrates, although their significance and influence was complex and various
(Raylor; Potter; Smyth; D’Addario 57-86). Banishment from home culture was
not simply physical; Christopher D’Addario points out that marginalisation
from London’s print culture was in itself one of the problems of exile, and
that most English texts printed within France were generally Catholic (68-9).
Even Eikon Basilike was tinkered with when printed by Sieur de Marsys
- The essays in this collection, then, augment our understanding of
court culture during the 1640 and 1650s. They testify to the complexity of
the court as an entity during the two decades. They elaborate, develop and
nuance our awareness of the dynamics of court, the organisation and infrastructure
of life, the representation of the court in wider society, the cultural impact
and activity of the institution. Consideration of the entity of the court
gives us new insights into the experience of exile as well as the ways that
recognisably older structures were used to govern during the Interregnum.
We can start to conceive of just how different the courts of Charles II were
from those of his father, and why; yet we can also trace the lineage of Restoration
courtliness in the experiences of exile. As we shall see, new cultural modes
are discovered and deployed, and older paradigms evolve.
 Key texts might be David Starkey English Courts,
Sharpe, The Personal Rule and Criticism Levy Peck, Smuts, Court
Culture, Orgel, Parry, Howarth.
 Despite the appearance of Sherwood in 1977.
 See, for instance, Bellany and Hughes.
 See also his ‘The Court’.
 For extensive new work on the
Elizabethan progresses, see Archer, Goldring and Knight. Excellent examples of
the wealth of scholarship on the Jacobean masque include Butler and Knowles Politics.
On the masques in light of the role of the consort, see McManus Women and
Women and Culture, particularly, the chapter by Knowles ‘To Enlight’.
On Jacobean progresses, see Knowles ‘To Enlight’, Harrison and Brayshay.
OnMasquing culture away from the principal royal palace, see
McManus Women, Knowles, ‘The “Running Masque” Recovered’.
For the more ‘orthodox’ approach to Jacobean court culture as neglecting
progress entertainments see Bergeron.
 See Ta ton Mouson eisodia: THE MVSES WELCOME TO
THE HIGH AND MIGHTIE PRINCE IAMES BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF GREAT BRITAINE
FRANCE AND IRELAND. Edinburgh, 1618.
 A Proclamation for the well ordering of His
Maiesties Court and Traine, as well in His present Iourney intended towards His
Kingdome of Scotland, and returne from thence, as in all other His Maiesties
Iouirneys and Progresses hereafter. London, May 1633.
 THE KING AND QVEENES Entertainement at RICHMOND. AFTER THEIR DEPARTVRE from OXFORD: In a Masque, presented by the most Illustrious
PRINCE, PRINCE CHARLES. Oxford, Sep. 1636.
A DEEP SIGH BREATH’D Through the Lodgings at
WHITE-HALL, Deploring the absence ofthe COVRT, And the Miseries of the PALLACE
(London, 1642); Henry Glapthorne, White-Hall. A Poem. Written 1642. WITH
ELEGIES ON The Right Honourable FRANCIS Earl of BEDFORD. And HENRY Earle of Manchester, Lord Privy Seale: both deceased during this present Session of Parliament.
WITH An Anniversarie on the timeless death of Mrs. Anne Kirk, wife to the truly
Noble Geo. Kirk, Gentleman of the Robes of his Majesties Bed Chamber, drowned
unfortunately passing London Bridge, Iuly 6. 1641. London, 1643. On these texts see Sillitoe 232-63.
 Toynbee and Young; for the list of strangers in the
parish of St. Aldate’s, see Bod. Add. MS D.114; Census taken on 7 June,
1643 Bod. MS 28189. fol. 17r–v and another copy at Bod. Add. MS D.114. fol.
19r; population calculated by Young and Emberton 49.
 See also Walker’s notes for the Council of War, 26
January 1642, BL. Add. MS 15750. fol. 16v.
 ‘Table and Cellar Book of Charles I., at Oxford, A. D. 1643–1644’, HMC Ormond NS II 406–10. This volume contains accounts
for 1 February to 31 May 1644, listing details of supper and dinner during that
time. It also contains a weekly audit of the cellars and pantry from 1 October
1643, continuous for six months.
 Gloves were again delivered on March 9 1643, HMC House
of Lords MS 76.
 Accounts for the house at Wimbledon are in the
National Library of Wales, Wynnstay MSS 167 (1642–3), 170 (1643–4), 171
(1645–7), 172 (1648–9, the year of Wynn’s death), and 168 (list of wages and
pensions for 1642). MS 168 suggests that payments of pensions and stipends
virtually ceased in 1642, but the household accounts show that there was
evidently still a standing ‘household’ of servants (there is a list in MS 167.
fol. 107v, in reverse), although the house was obviously run in a very low key
way. The wages and ordinary expenses for the household ran to £202-14-00 in
1643 (MS 167. fol. 97v, in reverse); gardeners were much cheaper, but still ate
into an impoverished budget.
 See The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth.
 He ordered, for instance, the movement of the
fountain of Diana from Somerset House to the grounds of Hampton Court, Fisher
and Newman 530.
 Van Beneden and De Poorter, Roy, Smith, Howe,
Brennan, Keblusek, ‘The Exile Experience’ and ‘Wine for comfort’.
Thomaso, or, The Wanderer II. iv in Killigrew 338.
- A Proclamation for the well ordering of His
Maiesties Court and Traine, as well in His present Iourney intended towards
His Kingdome of Scotland, and returne from thence, as in all other His
Maiesties Iouirneys and Progresses hereafter. London,
- Archer, Jayne, Elizabeth Goldring and Sarah Knight.
Eds. The Progresses, Pageants, and Entertainments of Queen Elizabeth
I. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007.
B., J. A DEEP SIGH BREATH’D Through the Lodgings at WHITE-HALL, Deploring
the absence of the COVRT, And the Miseries of the PALLACE (London, 1642);
Henry Glapthorne, White-Hall. A Poem. Written 1642. WITH ELEGIES ON The
Right Honourable FRANCIS Earl of BEDFORD. And HENRY Earle of Manchester,
Lord Privy Seale: both deceased during this present Session of Parliament.
WITH An Anniversarie on the timeless death of Mrs. Anne Kirk, wife to the
truly Noble Geo. Kirk, Gentleman of the Robes of his Majesties Bed Chamber,
drowned unfortunately passing London Bridge, Iuly 6. 1641. London, 1643.
- Bellany, Alastair. The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern
England. Cambridge: CUP, 2002.
- Bergeron, David M. English Civic Pageantry: 1558-1642. London:
Edward Arnold, 1971.
- BL Add. MS 15750.
- BL Egerton MS 2978.
- BL Harleian MS 7623.
- Bod. Add. MS D.114.
- Bod. MS 28189.
- Bod. Rawlinson MS B 121.
- Brennan, Michael G. ‘The exile of two Kentish royalists during
the English Civil War’. Archaeologia Cantiana 120 (2000): 77-105.
- Britland, Karen. Drama at the Courts of Queen Henrietta Maria.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
- Brotton, Jerry. The Sale of the Late King’s Goods. Basingstoke:
- Butler, Martin. ‘Courtly Negotiations’, in The Politics of
the Stuart Court Masque. Ed. David Bevington
- and Peter Holbrook. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. 20-40.
- Calendar of State Papers, Domestic 1641–43.
- Calendar of State Papers, Domestic 1644-1645.
- Corns, Thomas N. ‘Duke, Prince and King’. The Royal Image:
Representations of Charles I. Ed. Thomas N. Corns. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1999. 1-25.
- de Groot, Jerome. Royalist Identities. Basingstoke: Palgrave
- ---. ‘Mothers, Lovers and Others: Royalist Women’. Women and
Politics in Early Modern England, 1450-1660. Ed. James Daybell. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2004. 188-204.
- ---. ‘Space, Patronage, Procedure: the court at Oxford 1642-46’.
English Historical Review. 117. 474 (2002): 1204-1227.
- D’Addario, Christopher. Exile and Journey in Seventeenth-Century
Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007).
- Elias, Norbert. The Court Society. Trans. Edmund Jephcott.
Blackwell: Oxford, 1983.
- Fisher, Geoffrey and John Newman. ‘A Fountain Design by
Inigo Jones’, The Burlington Magazine. 127.
989 (1985): 530-533.
- Folger Shakespeare Library MS X.d 78.
- Gaunt, Peter. ‘“The Single Person’s Confidants and Dependents”?
Oliver Cromwell and his Protectoral Councillors’. Cromwell and the
Interregnum: The Essential Readings. Ed. David L. Smith. Oxford: Blackwell,
- Gillespie, Katharine. ‘Elizabeth Cromwell’s Kitchen Court: Republicanism
and the Consort’. Genders 33 (2001), available at http://www.genders.org/g33/g33_gillespie.html
[Accessed 11 July, 2007].
- Greenspan, Nicole. ‘News, Intelligence, and Espionage at the
Exiled Court at Cologne: the case of Henry Manning’. Media History
11 (2005): 105-125.
- Goldberg, Jonathan. James I and the Politics of Literature:
Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne, and their Contemporaries. California:
Stanford UP, 1983.
- Hanson, Laurence. ‘The King’s Printer at York and Shrewsbury,
1642–43’. The Library 23 (1943): 129–31.
- Hardacre, P. H. ‘The Royalists in Exile during the Puritan Revolution
1642–1660’. Huntington Library Quarterly 16 (1952): 353–71.
- Harrison, Philip and Mark Brayshay. ‘Post-horse Routes, Royal
Progresses and Government
- Communications in the Reign of James I’. Journal of Transport
History 18.2 (1997): 116-33.
- HMC House of Lords MS
- HMC Ormond MS NS II
- Howarth, David. Images of Rule: Art and Politics in
the English Renaissance, 1485–1649. London: Macmillan, 1997.
- Howe, Alan. ‘English actors in Paris during the civil wars: Samuel
Speede and the Prince of Wales's Company’. Seventeenth Century
14.2 (1999): 130-42
- Hughes, Ann ‘The King, the Parliament and the localities during
the English Civil War’ in The English Civil War. Ed. Richard
Cust and Ann Hughes. London and New York: Arnold, 1997. 261–287
- Hunneyball, Paul M. ‘Cromwellian Style: The Architectural Trappings
of the Protectorate Regime’. The Cromwellian Protectorate ed. Patrick
Little. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007. 53-81.
- J. Engberg, ‘Royalist Finances during the English Civil War 1642-46’.
The Scandinavian Economic History Review 14 (1966): 73-97.
- Jesse, John Heneage. Memoirs of the Court of England.
4 vols. London: Richard Bentley, 1840.
- Keblusek, Marika. ‘The Exile Experience. Royalist and Anglican
Book Culture in the Low Countries (1640-1660)’ in The Bookshop of the
World: the role of the Low Countries in the book trade 1473-1941.
Ed. Lotte Hellinga. Goy-Houten: Hes & De Graaf, 2001. 151-58
- ---. ‘Wine for comfort: Drinking and the royalist exile experience,
1642-1660’. A pleasing sinne: drink and conviviality in seventeenth-century
England. Ed. Adam Smyth. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004. 55-68.
- Kelsey, Sean. Creating a Republic: the Political Culture of
the English Commonwealth 1649–1653. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1997.
- Killigrew, Thomas. Complete Dramatic Works. London:
Printed for J.M. for Henry Herringman, 1663.
- Knowles, James. Politics and Political Culture in the Masque.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2007.
- ---. ‘“To Enlight the Darksome Night, Pale Cinthia Doth Arise”:
Anna of Denmark, Elizabeth I and the Images of Royalty’. Women and
Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens. Ed. Clare McManus Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 21-48.
- ---. ‘‘‘The “Running Masque” Recovered: A Masque for the Marquess
of Buckingham (c. 1619-20)’. English Manuscript Studies 9 (2000):
- Law, Ernest. The History of Hampton Court 5 vols. London:
George Bell and Sons, 1888.
- Levy Peck, Linda. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early
Stuart England. London: Unwin Hyman, 1990.
- Lugger Knoppers, Laura. Constructing Cromwell. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2000.
- Madan, Falconer. Oxford Books. Oxford: Clarendon
- McManus, Clare. Ed. Women and Culture at the Courts of the
Stuart Queens. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
- ---. Women on the Renaissance Stage: Anna of Denmark and Female
Masquing in the Stuart Court, 1590-1619. Manchester:
Manchester UP, 2002.
- Merton College, Oxford MCA 1.3 (College Register
- National Library of Wales Wynnstay MS 167.
- National Library of Wales Wynnstay MS 168.
- National Library of Wales Wynnstay MS 170.
- National Library of Wales Wynnstay MS 171.
- National Library of Wales Wynnstay MS 172.
- Orgel, Stephen. The Illusion of Power. Berkley, Los Angeles,
London: University of California Press, 1975.
- Parry, Graham. The Golden Age restor’d: The Culture of the
Stuart Court, 1603–42. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1981.
- Peacey, Jason. ‘Order and disorder in Europe: parliamentary agents
and royalist thugs, 1649-1650’. Historical Journal 40 (1997): 953-76
- Potter, Lois. Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature,
1641–1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
- PRO LC/3/1.
- Raylor, Timothy. Cavaliers, Clubs, and Literary Culture: Sir
John Mennes, James Smith, and the Order of the Fancy. London and Toronto:
Associated University Presses, 1994.
- Roebuck, Graham. ‘Cavalier’ in The English Civil War in the
Literary Imagination. Ed. Claude J. Summers and Ted-Larry Pebworth.
Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 1999. 9–27.
- Roy, Ian. ‘George Digby, royalist intrigue and the collapse of
the cause’. Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution.
Ed. Ian Gentles, John Morrill and Blair Worden. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1998. 87-90.
- Sessions, William K. Bulkley and Broad, White and Wayt.
York: Ebor Press, 1986.
- Sharpe, Kevin. ‘The image of virtue: the court and household
of Charles I, 1625–1642’. The English Court: From the Wars of the Roses
to the Civil War. Ed. Starkey et al. London and New York: Longman,
- ---. Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature
in the England of Charles I. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.
- ---. The Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1992.
- Sherwood, Roy. The Court of Oliver Cromwell. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1989.
- Sillitoe, Peter. ‘Where is the court but here?’ Defining Elite
Space in Early Modern Drama. Diss. University of Sheffield, 2007.
- Smith, Charles Kay. ‘French philosophy and English politics in
interregnum poetry’. The Stuart court and Europe. Ed. R. Malcolm
Smuts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 177-209.
- Smith, Geoffrey The Cavaliers in Exile. Basingstoke: Palgrave,
- Smuts, R. Malcolm. Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist
Tradition in Early Stuart England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
- ---. ‘The Court and the Emergence of a Royalist Party’. Royalists
and Royalism During the English Civil Wars. David L. Smith and Jason
McElligott. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.
- Smyth, Adam. ‘Profit and Delight’: Printed Miscellanies in
England, 1640-1682. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 2004.
- Starkey, David. ‘Introduction: Court History in Perspective’.
The English Court : From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War.
Ed. Starkey et al. London and New York: Longman, 1987. 1-25
- Strong, Roy. Splendour at Court: Renaissance Spectacle and
Illusion. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973.
- Swedish Diplomats at Cromwell’s Court, 1655-1656.
Trans. and ed. by Michael Roberts. London: Royal Historical Society, 1988.
- Ta ton Mouson eisodia: THE MVSES WELCOME TO THE HIGH AND MIGHTIE
PRINCE IAMES BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF GREAT BRITAINE FRANCE AND IRELAND.
- The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth, Commonly called Joan Cromwel,
the Wife of the late Usurper. London: Printed by Tho.
- The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil
War. Ed. David Starkey (Harlow: Longman, 1987)
- THE KING AND QVEENES Entertainement at RICHMOND. AFTER THEIR
DEPARTVRE from OXFORD: In a Masque, presented by the most Illustrious
PRINCE, PRINCE CHARLES. Oxford, 1636.
- The Unparalleld Monarch. Or, The Portraiture of A Matchless
Prince, Exprest in some shadows of His Highness My Lord Protector.
- Thurley, Simon. ‘The Stuart Kings, Oliver Cromwell and the Chapel
Royal 1618-1685’. Architectural History 45 (2002): 238-274.
- Toynbee, Margaret and Peter Young. Strangers in Oxford. Chichester:
- Underdown, David. Royalist Conspiracy in England, 1649-1660.
New Haven: Yale UP, 1960.
- Van Beneden, Ben, and Nora De Poorter, Eds. Royalist Refugees:
William and Margaret Cavendish in the Rubens House, 1648-1660. Antwerp:
Rubenshuis and Rubenianum, 2006.
- Worden, Blair. ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Council’. The Cromwellian
Protectorate. Ed. Patrick Little. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007.
- Young, Peter and Wilfrid Emberton, The Cavalier Army. London:
George Allen and Unwin, 1974.
Responses to this piece intended for the Readers'
Forum may be sent to the Editor at M.Steggle@shu.ac.uk.
2007-, Matthew Steggle (Editor, EMLS).