On the 330h anniversary of the Glorious Revolution --
the historical significance of the English Civil War (Part Four)
By Mark Wegierski
web posted April 16, 2018
Economic/Class Divisions: Although there was support for both sides
among all social classes, it is traditionally considered that the
English aristocracy centered in the House of Lords favored the Royalist
cause, while the middle-classes centered in the House of Commons
favored Parliamentarianism. (302 members of the House of Commons and 40
Lords supported Parliament, 236 Commoners and 80 Lords followed the
King.) Royalist support in the House of Commons is larger than might be
expected, while the image given by these numbers, with respect to the
House of Lords, is largely illusory. In fact, much of the high
aristocracy allied itself with Parliament. Lord Fairfax, a dashing
cavalry commander who would have seemed a natural supporter of the
King, was in fact a leading Parliamentary leader. Many of the great
aristocratic families were on the side of Parliament, or had certainly
become Whigs by 1688. The monarchy could count on the support of only a
handful of high aristocrats, such as the redoubtable James Graham, Earl
of Montrose. Many of the King's foremost agents and supporters were in
fact men of common origins, for example, Archbishop Laud, the zealous
champion of Anglicanism, so hated by the Puritans he was executed in
1645. An aristocrat and chief royal adviser executed by Parliament
already in 1641 was Lord Strafford: his execution was not only one of
the major causes of the conflict coming to a boil, but also showed the
real strength of Parliament, the virtual helplessness of the King, and
the extraordinary intensity of degree to which the incipient conflict
was to be prosecuted.
There are conflicting opinions where the support of the grouping called
"squires" lay. On the one hand, in Henry Fielding's Tom Jones, one of
the squires portrayed (Squire Western) is a caricature of an English
Jacobite, a common social type of the period. On the other, Cromwell
himself was a squire, and the Whig supremacy which emerged after 1688
is often characterized as "the squirearchy". Perhaps the richer and
more prominent squires supported Parliament, while the more indigent
ones tended to support the King.
It must be remembered further that the House of Commons represented a
very small section of society at the time, and it was often considered
that there existed an alliance of the monarchy and the common people
against the haute-aristocracy and the increasingly important (and
rapacious) merchant-classes (what would have been later called the
haute-bourgeoisie). The poorest and most rural sections of the kingdom
were generally the most likely to support the monarchy. It should be
noted also that the entire aristocracy in England in fact numbered less
than 1% of the population.
Country/Urban Divisions: It is generally incontrovertible that London,
as well as all the large trading-cities, supported Parliament. It is
not difficult to interpret the entire war as a struggle between the
English metropolitan node, the capital city, against most of the rest
of the countryside and hinterland. (The distinction between a decadent
London and the healthy countryside is one of the central dualities in
Fielding's Tom Jones.) Clearly, this corresponds to one of the
classic interpretations of the English Civil War, as a conflict between
the interests of the remnants of feudalism, and emergent capitalism.
However, the caveats must be added that, first of all, the
monarchic and aristocratic interests were not necessarily coterminous,
and, secondly, that many peasants must have perceived the emergent
capitalism as a greater threat than the feudal remnants. It should also
be added that the notion of a classic "feudalism" ever existing in
England has also been challenged, and that the peasantry of England
represented "the free peasantry" typical of Western Europe, as opposed
to the "serfs" of Eastern Europe, who were being subjected to the
so-called "new serfdom" after 1500 or so.
"Ethnic" Divisions: There is an apparently large degree of congruity
between basically "Celtic" areas of the British Isles on the Royalist
side, and the most "Saxon" or "Anglo-Saxon" parts of England supporting
Parliament. One of the strongest centers of Parliamentary support was
the Eastern Association area in East Anglia, which was probably the
most "Saxon" part of England (lying closest to the area of Denmark and
the North Sea coast from which the original invasions had come) -- and
which had also later been part of the Danish Viking area of the
Danelaw. The support for Parliament in that area might also have been
because of the economic wealth of East Anglia derived from the wool
trade. Searching for an explanation for the huge divergences between
Highland and Lowland Scots, some historians have hypothesized that the
Lowlands had been settled by Anglo-Saxon refugees from the Danish
invasions, or at a later point as part of the policy of the Norman
Kings. Scots-Gaelic was in fact virtually extinct already at this
point, the common language of Scotland being Anglo-Scottish
memorialized in its later form by the famous Scottish poet Robert Burns
in the Eighteenth Century. For example, "Auld Lang Syne" is a typically
Anglo-Scottish, not Scots-Gaelic phrase.
To be continued. 
Mark Wegierski is a Canadian writer and historical researcher.