In Elizabeth’s reign, a prophecy had circulated widely:‘When Hempe is spun, England’s done.’‘Hempe’ was an acronym for the Tudor monarchs since the break with Rome: Henry, Edward, Mary and Philip (II of Spain, Mary’s husband), and Elizabeth. Prophecies were taken seriously, as signs of God’s plan, and the belief was that once Elizabeth died, England would collapse into anarchy. But the peaceful accession of James allowed a more benign conclusion: now England and Scotland were under the same ruler. England was done: long live Britain.

Not that this book wasn’t interesting or worthwhile. For one thing, it reminded me how Protestant views changed the world. These ideas eventually led to the belief that a government should serve at the behest of the people. If you could select your own pastor rather than accept an appointed bishop, then why not select your own ruler as well? If your king is a heretic, isn’t it your duty to resist rather than to obey? One can easily understand the simple progression from battling against hierarchies within a church to fighting against hierarchies anywhere. Conversely, Catholics tended to support royal absolutism. Jonathan Healy does a magnificent job of telling this story. He focuses on trying to explain what it was like. He does not go deeply into the military tactic of the battles or the minutia of Court or Parliamentary wrangling. He does try to explain the mind set of this religion-soaked world where fine points of theology were matters of life and death. The threat of international Catholicism was more powerful than the communist threat of the 1950s or the recent Islamophobia. Their equivalent to 9/11 was Guy Fawkes' almost successful attempt to blow up Parliament and the King. Ugaz’s case is all too familiar in Peru, where powerful groups regularly use the courts to silence journalists by fabricating criminal allegations against them.’ Healy] makes a convincing argument that the turbulent era qualifies as truly ‘revolutionary,’ not simply because of its cascading political upheavals, but in terms of far-reaching changes within society.... Wryly humorous and occasionally bawdy”— The Wall Street Journal Another slightly Whigish characteristic of this book is that, in Jonathan Healey's telling, the story of seventeenth century England is, broadly speaking, a story of progress. We entered the century a land of witchcraft trials, frequent executions, and famine; we ended it with all of these in sharp decline, and a pattern of economic growth and specialisation that foreshadow the later industrial revolution. Bottoms and fartsOn top of all that, MPs didn't know whether they were coming or going as whatever monarch was on the throne was forever proroguing them. The century began with James VI of Scotland heading south to become England's James I and ended five monarchs later with a Dutchman and his English wife on the throne.

The England of the late 17th century was richer and more powerful than ever. Its people, increasingly literate and better informed, participated more actively in the public sphere. Charles I had mutilated and imprisoned authors of “seditious” works, and forced some publications underground, but the revolution of the 1640s released a cascade of critical print, not all of it, as contemporaries complained, “lascivious, idle and unprofitable.” The “paper bullets” of the civil war had impact comparable to cannon. John Milton, known more as a pamphleteer than a poet, called for a completely unfettered press. By the time of the “Glorious Revolution” the country was awash with news and information that fueled a contentious political culture. The path and fate of the various religious entities and how they attempt to control and are controlled by various political forces is worth pondering for any folk that believe Christian Nationalism provides a solution to anything . (Unless you believe there is a shortage of violence - it can probably help solve that). IMO, in the phrase "Christian Nationalist", the Christian is quite silent. It was not to be. Following the execution of the stubborn and slippery king, a Commonwealth was proclaimed. Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland – here given no more and no less space than required – and of Scotland secured these isles in preparation for experiments in government. First, there was the fundamentalist Nominated Assembly, or Barebone’s Parliament, which Cromwell disbanded in favour of the settlement devised by the soldier and intellectual John Lambert – for whom Healey, a fellow Yorkshireman, cannot disguise his admiration. Lambert’s Instrument of Government, Britain’s first and only written constitution, reimagined the old trinity of King, Lords and Commons as Protector, Council of State and Commons. Cromwell took top spot in 1653, though the Protectorate was doomed from the afternoon of September 3 1658, when “Cromwell died, people not much minding it,” as an Essex clergyman wrote in his diary. The most interesting parts to me were the glimpses of the impact on every day people, and I do wish that we had learnt a bit more about what the government of the day was doing outside of the various plots to get either Protestants or Catholics in power - e.g how was healthcare provided, how was literacy going? Etc… but maybe that would have made it a ridiculously long book.

Healey’s enthusiasm and love for the period is clear. Thanks to the explosion of published material of the time, there is a wealth of surviving pamphlets, manuscripts, diaries and documents forming a treasure trove of material for scholars such as Healey to delve into. This was the first century to provide such riches for it’s future historians.