Kevin Sharpe: The Magic And Mystique Of Monarchy

The early modern period has been characterised as one filled with deference, superstition, and religious fervour. Kevin Sharpe’s own interpretation reflects this portrayal, as he insists, ‘the magic and mystique of monarchy’ was still present during the 1640s - a time which Sharpe himself noted as one where ‘open disagreements and divisions’ began to appear. Therefore, Sharpe paints the picture of a public loyal to the monarch’s authority, in spite of their apparent discontent at the crown’s policies. Similarly, Glenn Burgess stresses contemporaries believed, that monarchs received their authority from God, and subsequently the people could not ‘resist or actively disobey’ the king. This is because the king was then only accountable to God:

Some contemporaries also alluded that the public had the right to remove kings, although this was rare. Thus, it is more the case that at a time, where you could lose not only your ears but your life: it would take ‘bravery - or idiocy - to assert that subjects could lay violent hands upon the Lord’s anointed’, as J. P. Somerville comments. In turn, this inability to attack the king directly - for fear of accusations of treason and persecution - led to the targeting of royalist ministers to criticise the crown’s policies and judgement. For example, a libel from 1640, which depicted Wentworth and Laud as having picked out the king’s eyes - along with help of accomplices described as ‘many rookes and magpies’- , would have the given readers the impression, that the king’s judgement had been encroached upon by his counsellors. This is because Charles could no longer see the truth without his “eyes”, suggesting that he had been deceived by his own counsellors - who were conspiring with help others - . Subsequently, the king is presented as the victim of the piece. Yet, this libel is still damaging to Charles, since it subverts the king’s authority because it questions the king’s judgement and ultimately his right to choose his own ministers - as the ones he has picked appear to be unsuitable. Therefore, this demonstrates it was not