• About the Blog
  • About the Wolfe

The Eagle Clawed Wolfe

~ Musing on Early Modern History

The Eagle Clawed Wolfe

Tag Archives: Trials

Stalinism and White Lace- 55 Days at The Hampstead Theatre

19 Monday Nov 2012

Posted by Grant in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

55 Days, Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, Review, Seventeenth Century, Theatre, Trials

A couple of weeks back we went to 55 Days, at the Hampstead Theatre. It is a play on the trial and execution of Charles beginning with Iretons’ army marching on London just before Pride’s Purge and ending with the fall of the axe on Charles Stuart’s neck.

It is a brave choice for a play. The personalities and issues are complex and the it has to be pitched nicely at the assumed erudition of the audience. Assume too much knowledge and they will be lost, but the playwright takes too many liberties with the better informed at his peril.

The costume design is the most obvious statement of the play’s personality. Charles is resplendent in black velvet, lace, cavalier hair and pointed beard, straight from van Dyck. Everyone else is in early 20th Century drab. Had it not come off it would be easy to dismiss as an crass gimmick, but I rather liked it. It emphasised the apartness of Charles from all around him, friends as well as enemies. Charles was gorgeous and romantic but anachronistic amongst the bland modernity around him. There is also some nuance in the modern costume designs. The English soldiers uniforms are nothing like that of the wartime Tommy, rather great coats and berets which echo, if avoiding mimicking, Russian troops. Freeborn John Lilburne, with his round glasses, cap and coat is an unmistakable Trotsky and the suits, as attire becomes progressively more civilian are, except for Fairfax’s, dour and badly cut. The dialogue never departs for the Seventeenth Century English plot, but the visual cues are Revolutionary Russian.

Inevitably, the nucleus of the play is the character of the two principal men- Charles Stuart and Oliver Cromwell.

Mark Gatiss portrayal of Charles superficially is set apart by a couple of things. Firstly his incongruous costume and secondly his soft, refined but unmistakably Scottish accent. Like most of us, I’d assumed that Charles spoke like Alec Guinness. I’m not sure about the veracity of this burr, his father James’ Scottish accent was disparagingly commented on, but I’ve not read the same of Fife-born Charles, but it’s a reminder of his Stuart heritage and further sets him apart even from his English allies. His notorious stammer is sparingly used, almost exclusively on the plosive of Parliament. Gatiss is also a tall man, imposing despite his slight build , particularly alongside the diminutively cast gaoler, the Duke of Richmond. I do wonder how differently his aloofness have played from the shorter stature ascribed to Charles, staring up, not down on those around him.

Apart from this, however, although superbly played by Gatiss, the Charles of 55 Days is entirely conventional. He is devious, but inept. Tactically clever but strategically inflexible. He is waspish, theatrical and aloof, genuinely convinced of his divinely ordained kingship. He is charming, but his repeated duplicity, which he justifies by his holy kingship makes him untrustworthy and untrustable and frustrates and eventually drives away sympathisers and moderates. He is misunderstood, but explaining himself to win over those willing to be won is below his dignity. This is the Charles we know. Beautifully acted and painted but unsurprising.

Oliver Cromwell is always going to be the more challenging character. 350 years after his death, the English still don’t know what to make of him. Our national memory has its greats divided into its heros and villains. Churchill, Wellington, Henry V, Richard the Lionheart, Marlborough are the good guys. We accept the revisionist histories which say they were flawed, but they keep their place on the pedestal. Rarely (the likes of Clive and other colonial adventurers are amongst the few which occur) do our historical heros become otherwise. Equally those which we have labelled as villains, Bad King John, Richard III, Oswald Moseley, perhaps James II are irredeemable (often , granted, this is Shakespeare’s fault).

But Cromwell, despite being arguable the pivotal character of Early Modern England, fits comfortably in neither camp. Whilst the Irish and Scots are quite sure that Cromwell is one of the principal evils in their pantheon, Cromwell has had roads, schools and even tanks named after him and, most tellingly a fine statue outside of Parliament. He is both the poster boy of parliament’s rights (despite dissolving it), reformer of the hopeless English state but destroyer of joy and beauty. The restoration was a cause of relief throughout the nation. The man celebrated with sword and bible in Thornycroft’s bronze is also the man who (allegedly) banned Christmas and set loose the Major Generals.

Douglas Henschall isn’t the physical Cromwell we are used to. He is fair haired, mobile and energetic. There is a hint of flamboyance in his dress contrasting the uber-austere Cromwell of popular perception. At the start of the play he is nominally subservient to Fairfax, and a peer of Ireton but accepted by all as the real leader of the Parliamentarian cause. He is charismatic and as well as being universally admired is, more surprisingly, liked- a good companion as well as an inspiration.

The play charts his path from opponent of the trial of Charles to its architect and guarantor of its verdict and sentence. With each incremental step, his acceptance of the purge, agreement to the trial, betrayal of Freeborn John and rigging of the verdict is seen by Cromwell as necessitated, not by the neutral predetermination of fate, but of divine providence and, in the absence of anyone else with the strength, will and competence he, must be the instrument of God’s will. He moves progressively from a seemingly reluctant tool of this divine ordination to an increasingly enthusiastic one. Only as we near the denouement are we allowed a shadow of doubt as to whether his motives were more Machiavellian.

Henschall’s main mark on the part is the extraordinary meter of his delivery. His tortured pauses in his words, before his line, mid-sentence, or mid phrase at times left me expecting an intervention from the prompter. It was unsettling, but ultimately effective. His laughter, which infects his colleagues, as he signs the death warrant, was unsettling and one of the moments of the play.

In a set piece, near the end of the play, Cromwell visits Charles in prison,offering him a final chance to compromise, and promising that he and he alone could and would save him. Charles rejects him. No such meeting ever occurred. I have no problem with this device in itself- this is drama, not documentary, but I have always felt that the fact the two men did not meet has a poignancy in itself and I slightly regretted its loss.

There are a plethora of other characters perhaps too many to give them justice. The stately Fairfax, nominal commander in chief but with increasingly little stomach for the fight plays and Ireton, Cromwell’s peer play their role, but aren’t fleshed out. Freeborn John Lilburne, the leveller firebrand is a bit of a disappointing caricature; Richmond, Charles’ morally torn gaoler stands for all those the King betrayed and disappointed.

In a strange change in pace near the end of the play we are introduced to John Cooke, the solicitor general who led the prosecution, and was later executed as a regicide. The battle to make the trial legal was actually one of the most satisfying parts of the play and perhaps Cooke might have made an interesting third member of a triumvirate of leading men with the King and Cromwell, but we were left with a tantalising but unfulfilled sub plot and a rather confused portrayal of his devoted wife. In fact the female characters were rather badly served in the play. Lady Fairfax who famously heckled the court during Charles trial and was threatened with loaded muskets is one of the more interesting individuals of tale of the trial and probably worthy of a play of her own, but also felt rather bolted on to 55 Days.

I perhaps criticise too much, though. It was a cleverly staged, elegantly acted and thoroughly enjoyable night at the theatre and a thoughtful take one of the most gripping but elusive episodes in English history. That it watched Cromwell with a puzzled frown rather than truly explaining him is both forgivable and entirely proper. 350 years of historians have not, so why should two and half hours of drama?

The Tryal, Conviction, & Condemnation of the SCOTCH REBELS

31 Saturday Mar 2012

Posted by Grant in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dumbarton's Regiment, England, Seventeenth Century, Trials

So we have seen reports of the rebellion, pursuit and capture of the Dunbarton’s Regiment and Edward Kings account left them imprisoned, but for two of their number dead and two more fleeing through hostile country.

Our next document is “A Full and True ACCOUNT OF THE Tryal, Conviction, & Condemnation of the SCOTCH REBELS, OFFICERS in the L. Dunbartons Regiment; At Bury St. Edmunds in SUFFOLK, (On Wednesday, July 31st, 1689) For High-Treason.” [Licens’d, according to Order, 1689. LONDON, Printed for J. Pardo in St. James’s street, 1689]. This is a two page pamphlet, differing in format and printer from any of the previous accounts as well as much (if not quite all) of their Williamite sychophancy.

After a recap of recent their rebellion and capture, interestingly saying that they were ” made Prisoners of War” – I’m curious as to the nuances of that in context and brought to London. Forty “of the most notorious Criminals” were imprisoned in Newgate and the Gatehouse (presumably the one then next to Westminster Abbey) and eight came to trial in Bury St. Edmunds, after a July 13th adjournment.

Old Newgate Prison

"Old" Newgate Prison

Here, for the first time, we have names attached to the rebels. The eight tried were:

Captain —– Sutherland,
Cp. John Auchmonty,
Cp. Wiliam Deanes,
Cp. John Livingston,
Alexander Gawne, adj.,
Patrick Cunningham,
James Inuas
and Robert Johnson

Certainly some good “Scotch” names there and I will see if any other record exists of these men. There was a Leiutenant John Auchmonty who left the Jacobite garrison at Edinburgh castle before the siege by Royalist forces. Could this be the same man? Another avenue for investigation

Captain Surtherland was “so indisposed as he could not be moved without Hazard to Life” so did not attend the trial,  frustratingly we are not told whether this is due to illness, or whether, perhaps he was one of the Sleaford fugitives.

The jury were selected, it seem from 168 elligable persons “of devers Ranks and Qualities but not one who had less than Forty Pounds a Year in Land”. The defendants object to the selection of several jurors (presumably as they were county people through whose locality they had recently passed riotously through), the King’s Solictior only objected to two.

The indictment was for “High Treason, in Rebelling and Levying War against their  Majesties, their Crown and Dignity,&c.”

Auchmonty was tried first, perhaps suggesting his being the ringleader. Witnesses included officers of the regiments (sadly the reproduction of the pamphlet is poor here, but including a Lieutenant Robert Bruce) and 16 others from Ipswich and along the Rebels march route complaining of their “Pressing Men, Horses and Carts”

Auchmonty’s various defences, that the troops mutinied against him a, forcing his actions and that the monarchs were uncrowned were duly dismissed and he was convicted of High treason.

This prompted the other six  present to change their pleas to guilty throwing themselves at the King’s mercy, begging the Judges to intercede with the King for them (as they had with the King’s Officers at their capture). They cited their previous good service and undertook to serve the King for the rest of their lives. Adjutant Gawne was a “Romanist” and could “do as other to assure his Fidelity”, presumably a Test Act-like oath offered to pay a security instead. It is notable that whilst elsewhere, particularly in parliament this was seen as a Catholic conspiracy, only one of the seven ring leaders was a confessed Catholic.

The pamphleteer then raises the hope for the accused, before dashing it with almost comical suddenness

They did indeed all of them behave themselves with great Modesty and Prudence as Gentlemen and Souldiers, and seemed really inclined to give all Demonstrations that Men could of their future intentions of Loyalty, &c.

In Conclusion, Sentence of Death was passed on them all as in Cases of High Treason

There is reason to believe that all sentences were not carried out-the court would have had no choice but to pass the death sentence, mercy, as the officers were aware, lay with the King. There is reason to believe that not all of the were executed, but I’m not yet clear who survived and who died.

So this concludes my initial look at the four sources I have found on the Dunbarton’s Rebellion. It leaves a lot of gaps in the tale and has peaked my interest in a few related topics. I will be returning to the Dunbartons’ Rebellion periodically.

Recent Posts

  • When is the “Other House” not a “Senate”? What Cicero and Cromwell can teach Ed Miliband
  • Obedience to Lawful Orders : Macaulay, Glencoe, Afganistan and Iraq
  • The Independent Scholar- Italian Voices and Desperately Seeking EEBO
  • Apologies
  • Starkey’s “Tudors and Us”- Sex and the Reformation Come to Maidenhead

Archives

  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012

55 Days A.N.Wilson Age Arbella Stuart Army Bess of Hardwick Birkbeck Books Border Reivers Charles I Civil War Constitution David Starkey Domestic Violence Dumbarton's Regiment Economics Ed Miliband EEBO Elizabeth I England Enrico Dandolo Eric Hobsbawm Fifteenth Century Flodden Florence France Glencoe Henry VIII Heraldry Hilary Mantel House of Lords Italy JSTOR Lawful Orders Louis XIV Louis XVI Macaulay Mary Beard Media Medieval National Debt Newspapers Nuremberg Old Age Oliver Cromwell Other House Parliament Phineas Pett Podcasts Prince Rupert Race Review Richard III Roman Republic Scandal Scotland Senate Seventeenth Century Shipbuilding Sir John Forster Sir John Reresby Sixteenth Century Slavery Television Test Acts Theatre The Wolfe Thomas Howard Trials Tudors Twelfth Century Venice William Hepworth Thompson William III Women

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 11,798 hits

License

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Blogroll

  • British Army Lineages
  • Gentlemen and Tarpaulins
  • Long Lost Railways
  • Mercurius Politicus
  • Ready to wear (1640s style)
  • Saxon Fencing Club
  • The 1640s Picture Book
  • The Secret History of the Sword

Other Links

  • Birkbeck, University of London
  • King Cricket

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy