Stuart Britain- The Interregnum and the Restoration

Question 1

‘Without the New Model Army, the execution of Charles I would not have taken place; and neither would the restoration of Charles II.’ How far do you agree with this statement? [20]

Answer 1

Introduction: AGREE: After the Civil Wars, the NMA became a political entity which, as an armed group, wielded immense power which was able to influence the future of the monarchy
1- AGREE
-NMA purged the Parliament and represented an armed minority compared to the many conservative MPs who still sought a settlement, even if this meant no concessions from Charles. The NMA therefore acted as a minority, so his execution would not have taken place as Pride’s Purge ensured no opposition to the NMA’s plans would be present
2- DISAGREE
-Charles’ refusal to make concessions made it impossible not to executed him as experience showed his lack of trustworthiness made him dangerous. Even banning him from the throne would just result in a new civil war, meaning he had to be killed in order to end the hostilities. Therefore, it was Charles’ stubbornness which led to his execution. In the end, the execution was carried out under the NMA who understood that keeping him alive would renew conflict or mean the repression of the NMA and radicalism
3- AGREE
-The NMA’s unpopular military government led to the Restoration. Not only did the NMA prove incapable of leading a ‘civilian style’ government through its many failed Parliaments until 1655. The Rule of the Major-Generals which replaced this was even more unpopular, placing the military at the heart of governance and alienating moderates. This created an environment in which moderates and conservatives could then gather support through General Monck and bring about the Restoration of Charles II
4- AGREE
-The NMA heavily opposed the restoration, but as the Interregnum wore on, the heads of military governance became separated so much from civilian government that it did not grasp the needs and general atmosphere which hailed support for the monarchy, and by the time General Monck invaded in late 1659 it was too late and Lambert’s disillusioned forces simply melted away to join Monk’s ranks. This suggests that the bulk of the NMA now supported a return to ‘normality’ after years of ever changing parliamentarian rule. In this way, we can see that the NMA could be said to have encouraged the restoration
Conclusion: the NMA actions as a minority after the Second Civil War led to the polarisation of views during the Interregnum, which radicals becoming increasingly isolated, so allowing moderate opinion to rise within the lower ranks of the NMA who, after creating an environment of pro-monarchy through the failure of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, then sided with pro-royalist forces in late 1659 and acted quickly to bring Charles II back in order to avoid further confusion and instability