The Writing of Royalism 1628–1660

In The Writing of Royalism, Robert Wilcher charts the political and ideological development of royalism between 1628 and 1660. His study of the literature and propaganda produced by those who adhered to the crown during the civil wars and their aftermath takes in many kinds of writing to provide a comprehensive account of the emergence of a partisan literature in support of the English monarchy and church. Wilcher situates a wide range of minor and canonical texts in the tumultuous political contexts of the time, helpfully integrating them into a detailed historical narrative. He illustrates the role of literature in forging a party committed to the military defence of royalist values and determined to sustain them in defeat. The Writing of Royalism casts new light on the complex phenomenon of ‘royalism’ by making available a wealth of material that should be of interest to historians as well as literary scholars.

• This volume covers a wider range of writing than previous studies on royalist literature • An informed historical narrative provides a detailed context for the reading of each text • The book offers readings of both canonical and hitherto neglected texts

Illustrations; Acknowledgements; Introduction; 1. The halcyon days: 1628–1637; 2. The Bishop’s Wars and the Short Parliament: July 1637 – October 1640; 3. The Long Parliament and the trial of Strafford: November 1640 – May 1641; 4. The beginnings of constitutional royalism: May – October 1641; 5. The emergence of the constitutional royalists: October 1641– March 1642; 6. The beginning of hostilities: March 1642 - April 1643; 7. Learning to write the war: April – September 1643; 8. Declining fortunes: from Newbury to Marston Moor: September 1643 – June 1644; 9. Defeat, captivity, and exile: July 1644 – September 1647; 10. Trial and martyrdom: September 1647 – January 1649; 11. Lamenting the King: 1649; 12. Coping with defeat and waiting for the King: 1649–1660; Index.

‘… a thorough, well-informed, clearly written and intensely responsible survey of a kind which ought to win over any historians still sceptical about whether narrative history and literature can be combined.’ History