EMH EarlyModernHistory

 

I have just put up on my academia.edu page my 1985 transcripts of the Holles and Rich accounts of proceedings in the House of Commons in 1624 and my transcript from 1985 and 2000 of Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 19th September, 1642 and 7th March, 1643.

  Centre for Anglican History and Theology University of Kent 21 st May 2022   Contesting the Church in England c.1640-c.1670     Between 1640 and 1670 the church in England underwent a series of traumatic changes in form and governance. Experiments in religious worship that were tolerated during the civil wars were viewed with horror by loyal episcopalians. When the monarchy was restored in 1660, strenuous attempts were made to stamp out religious non-conformity, but it was too late. A generation had grown up experiencing greater religious freedom and rejected attempts to re-instate the pre-civil war national church. The conference offers a forum for discussing new research and sources on the conflicting views of what the national church should be before and after the restoration, and asks the question: ‘Whose church was it, anyway?’           Conference Details For registration or queries, ple

  The revised instructions of 2 nd December, 1618 to Sir George Yeardley This document, which is now numbered FP 100 amongst the Ferrar Papers in Magdalene College, Cambridge, elaborates on the instructions given to George Yeardley on 18 th November, 1618. It incorporates advice apparently given to Yeardley when he was knighted at Newmarket on 22 nd November by King James VI and I. But it also contains provisions which suggest that, despite later claims by ‘R.F.’ on 7 th December, 1618 and in current historiography, Sir Edwin Sandys and his allies had had to take account of the views of other groups in the leadership of the Virginia Company of London. For example, item No.27 instructed Yeardley upon his arrival in Virginia to settle Martin’s Hundred in its ‘Circuit of land, with those privileges granted unto them: whereof they give you a brief.’ Since the patent for Martin’s Hundred largely exempted that plantation from the control of the colony’s local government, this provision

  Levin on Bernard, 'Who Ruled Tudor England: Paradoxes of Power' Author:  G. W. Bernard Reviewer:  Carole Levin G. W. Bernard.   Who Ruled Tudor England: Paradoxes of Power.  London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2021. 240 pp. $103.50 (e-book), ISBN 978-1-350-17691-1; $115.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-350-17689-8. Reviewed by  Carole Levin (University of Nebraska--Lincoln)  Published on  H-Albion (April, 2022)  Commissioned by  Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth (Red Deer Polytechnic) Printable Version:  https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=57256 G. W. Bernard’s  Who Ruled Tudor England: Paradoxes of Power  is a highly readable and thoughtful book, the core of which is serious criticism of Geoffrey Elton and his work on Thomas Cromwell and the Tudor revolution of government. Though the title is “Who Ruled Tudor England,” most of the book focuses on the reign of Henry VIII. One of the most interesting and unusual parts of this book is part 1, Bernard’s discussions of the lives of significant Engl

  TLRH | Early Modern History | The Popular Politics of Local Petitioning in Early Modern England Monday, 11 April 2022, 4 – 5pm 'The popular politics of local petitioning in early modern England' a seminar by Brodie Waddell (Birkbeck, Univ. of London) as part of the Trinity Centre for Early Modern History Research Seminar Series in association with the Trinity Long Room Hub.  The Trinity Centre for Early Modern History promotes understanding of the culture, society, economy, religion, politics and warfare of early modern Europe. The Centre organises seminars, conferences and public lectures on the early modern history of Ireland, Britain and Continental Europe, as well as on relations between European and non-European states and cultures.  Register  here . Please indicate if you have any access requirements, such as ISL/English interpreting, so that we can facilitate you in attending this event. Contact:  sflavin@tcd.ie Campus Location :  Trinity Long Room Hub Arts and Humanit

Both these posts have been advertised this morning. Anyone interested should follow up on Google for the details.

Sculptor: Nicholas Stone  

  Control of the Virginia Company of London in 1618-1619 The argument that Sir Edwin Sandys had come by the autumn of 1618 to play a predominant role in the affairs of the Virginia Company of London is a familiar one in recent works on the history of the English colony in Virginia. James Horn argued in 2018 that Sandys “took charge [of the company] in all but name in 1618” on the basis of the role he attributed to him in preparing the measures that constituted the reform programme embodied in the Great Charter and the appointment of George Yeardley as prospective Governor in Virginia. Paul Musselwhite took much the same view in an essay published in 2019 arguing that “Sandys and his allies took control of the company in the latter half of 1618”. A generation earlier in historiographical terms. Theodore Rabb had concluded that Sandys had moved into a dominant position in the company’s affairs in 1618. But the assessments made by Horn and Musselwhite differed from that of Rabb in one

  Sir Edwin Sandys’s status as a man in holy orders Sir Edwin Sandys is customarily portrayed in the historiography of early Virginia as a defender of English liberties, as an opponent of King James VI and I in the early Stuart Parliaments, as a defender of free trade and the architect of the “great reforms” of 1618-1619 and, later, as the victim of the machinations of his critics within the Virginia Company leading to its dissolution. This interpretation – much of it derived directly from the post-April, 1619 papers of the company itself and from the manuscripts of his allies, John and Nicholas Ferrar - can still be found in the latest works on the colony’s history. What is surprising about this view is that it involves accepting Sandys’s own evaluation of his career. This was much more complicated than historians of Virginia have realised. Take Sandys’s experiences as a member of the House of Commons, for example. This experience was gained illegally. In 1582, Sandys was presente