← HistoryExtra podcast
HistoryExtra podcast
Britain's wild republican decade
00:39:23
Alice Hunt explores the extraordinary period when the monarchy was abolished - and replaced by a republic
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:02]
Tommy John Advertiser
So you're getting hungry. Really hungry. Head to Jack in a Box and pick up a smashed Jack. It's a juicy, delicious smashed burger topped with cheese, pickles, grilled onions and Boss sauce. And it's now available on Sourdough, the Smash Jack. Only a Jack in the Box? Order one on the Jack app today. Great days start with great underwear, so if you're looking for something special, give Tommy John and Gift a better day. Everything we make is meticulously crafted from breathable stretch fabric for the perfect fit, including our sleepwear for him and her. It feels good to give, but it feels great to give. Tommy John Find something for everyone and pick up something for yourself. Because at Tommy John, greatness is in our very fabric shop. Tommyjohn.com Spotify right now and save 30% sitewide. Tommyjohn.com Spotify see site for details.
- [00:55]
Shopify Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. Shop pay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer carts going abandoned and more sales going cha ching. So if you're into growing your business, get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit shopify.com to upgrade your selling today.
- [01:22]
Danny Bird
Welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History magazine. For some, it's hard to imagine Britain without a king or Queen. But nearly 400 years ago, that extraordinary prospect became a reality. In January 1649, after a bloody civil war, King Charles I was put on trial, found guilty and beheaded. The 11 years that followed saw a bold republican experiment that dominated the lives of those across Britain and Ireland. In today's episode, Danny Bird speaks to Alice Hunt about her new book on this revolutionary chapter in British history. Alice discusses a transformative decade which saw some of the 17th century's greatest literary and scientific minds cut their teeth. She busts some myths about Cromwell and his puritan cronies and reveals how Britain's brief Republican has left an indelible mark on its modern monarchy and constitution.
- [02:31]
Alice Hunt
Alice we're here to discuss your new book, Britain's Revolutionary Decade, 1649-1660, and you open it with an event known as Pride's Purge, describing it as the starting point of an extraordinary period in British history. Why is Pride's Purge such a pivotal moment in the story of the republic that followed?
- [02:51]
Shopify Advertiser
Pride's Purge is really important because it was the purging of certain members of Parliament kicking out MPs from the House of Commons, which enabled the House of Commons to then go ahead and put the King, King Charles I, on trial. So before Pride's purge, they were debating in the Commons whether to come to an agreement with Charles I after years of war. And there were some in the House who wanted to come to an agreement, and there were others in the House who really thought the King should now be brought to account. Eventually, they kind of take this very radical and controversial decision, which is they will block any of the MPs who might themselves block putting the King on trial from entering the House of Commons. This is what happens on the 6th of December, and it takes its name from Colonel Pride, who was one of the quite senior army officer, and he stands at the top of the steps that lead up into St Stephen's Chapel and he has a list of all the MPs who are not in favour of putting the King on trial. And he stops them from coming to work and they're sent away. And then this purged House of Commons, this rump Parliament, this fag end of a Parliament, which is how it becomes known an insult passes an act which enables them to put the King on trial. And it's that trial which then sentences the King to death. And the republic is ushered in after that.
- [04:22]
Alice Hunt
You also mention in your book that initially the civil wars weren't about abolishing the monarchy, but more about defining it. Can we pinpoint when things started shifting towards republicanism instead? What caused that decisive change in direction?
- [04:36]
Shopify Advertiser
Yes, it's right to note that the wars didn't set out to abolish monarchy. They didn't want to bring down monarchy. It wasn't a republican revolution in that way. It was a war between king and Parliament. Parliament wanting the King to recognize Parliament and to agree to certain terms, to be a limited monarch to a certain extent. And they tried to negotiate with King Charles I, it became increasingly difficult to do so. But it was not until quite late on 1640s, 1647, 1648, where more and more people began to think that actually he was not going to be able to come to an agreement. He wasn't going to be brought into negotiation which would bring the kind of settlement which many wanted. And there is then, at this time, kind of beginning of republican thinking. And many more people than I think history has wanted to believe were prepared to contemplate and imagine a solution which would involve not having a king.
- [05:36]
Alice Hunt
Let's move on to the moment that led to the creation of a republican system in England. The regicide of Charles I. How did the Execution of the King impact the national psyche at the time and in the years that followed, was that moment seen as legitimate?
- [05:51]
Shopify Advertiser
Well, the story goes when the counts tell us that there was a great groan on Whitehall as the King's head fell to the floor. Thousands had gathered to watch the execution of the King. And it was a huge and shocking act for people on both sides of the political divide. Sir Thomas Fairfax, who was the architect of the New Model army and described by Charles I as the brutish general. He had fought against Charles I, but he did not want the King to be killed. It suffered very much for being perceived by many to be illegitimate. And this was because the Parliament that pushed it through was itself thought to be illegitimate. And that goes back to what we were talking about at the beginning, that the purging of Parliament really dogged the republic all the way through the 1650s because it was never seen as a representative parliament. Europe was shocked. European monarchies couldn't believe what England had done. Many people thought that something would happen as a result of this, that to touch the King's anointed in this way, to kill him, would surely bring down the wrath of God, but it did not. I mentioned Fairfax earlier and Fairfax certainly had his conscience pricked by what was happening. Bulstrode Whitelock is another really interesting figure from the period whose diaries and memoirs constitute such a valuable source. Not totally straightforward source, but a really valuable source nonetheless. He was troubled by the execution of the King, even though he went on to serve the republic and to become an ally and a confidant of of Cromwell's. An MP called Thomas Hoyle committed suicide on the anniversary of the execution. Fairfax, as I said, retired to his country house, Nun Appleton. He didn't completely retire, he was still involved in events, but he couldn't attend the trial of King Charles I, and I think, wrestled with his conscience and wrote a poem about it. It was that fatal day he described it, and this is the man who led the army that crushed Charles I. So, yes, people did struggle, others defended it. This was a legitimate act, Thomas Harrison said, carried out in kind of plain sight in the daylight, and legitimate for that. Many defended what had happened, thought it was absolutely the right thing to do, to bring a tyrant, as he was called, to account.
- [08:27]
Alice Hunt
One of the themes you emphasise in the book is that this was very much England's republic and that it wasn't necessarily embraced by Scotland or Ireland. Can you walk us through how this system was imposed on those nations and what the consequences were?
- [08:41]
Shopify Advertiser
I nearly Called the book England's Republic, actually, because it was England's republic and it was not what Scotland wanted. Scotland had also fought against Charles I, but they did not want England to put their king on trial and execute him. Scotland was independent, of course, an independent kingdom and Charles was king of Scotland. So the Scottish were furious England had done this to their king. They had conditions that they wanted Charles I to rule by. They really wanted Charles I to acknowledge their kirk, their Presbyterian Kirk, and to push towards establishing that in England. But they didn't want there not to be a king. Ireland, like Scotland, also proclaimed immediately for Charles II when Charles I was killed. Both Ireland and Scotland negotiate with Charles Stuart, who's in exile on the continent, to, you know, they will help him restore his throne, regain the throne in exchange for military help. So Cromwell goes to war, he goes to war in Ireland. One of the most difficult episodes of this decade that has cast a long shadow over the republic and a very, very difficult time for Ireland with long term consequences. And he goes to war in Scotland as well. And the word that is used by Andrew Marvell, one of the most brilliant poets of the period, and he uses this word knowingly, I think he says Cromwell tamed the Irish, he brought subdued the Irish and again also the Scots in 1650 and again in 1651. They are forced to acknowledge the republic.
- [10:31]
Alice Hunt
And we will of course get onto Oliver Cromer as he is a figure that looms very large over this period. But before we get into some of the big names that many people listening might be familiar with, I was curious to know, how did ordinary people navigate this tumultuous period? What did the republic mean for the average citizen at the time?
- [10:51]
Shopify Advertiser
Well, there's a whole range of responses to the period. There are some people who just wanted it all to be over, the wars to be over. I think we need to recognise the trauma of the Civil wars, the lives that had been lost, the land that had been ravished. And for many people, they wanted there to be peace. And if this meant acknowledging or acquiescing to the republican regime and to a different kind of government, so be it. There were die hard royalists who resisted what was happening, who plotted against the republican regime, who worked with Charles Stuart and those in exile to try and overthrow the Republic. There were ordinary people who retreated and wrote poems about what was happening. A brilliant poet called Hester Poulter, who has remained really not very well known at all. She was a royalist and she mourned for the dead king and wrote poetry about it. Another female figure, Lucy Hutchinson, was married to Republican John Hutchinson, Republican army officer. She was not pro Cromwell, but she was absolutely pro Republic. A whole range of attitudes, some who changed their minds. And I think they're really interesting. March McNeath, for example, a journalist from the time who had written editorials for both sides, changed his mind. And I think it's easy to say, oh, he's just a turncoat, an opportunist and, you know, just shifting wherever the wind blows. But I like to give them more credit than that. I think some people are really trying to think through what is happening. What do they want from good government? What do they want for their lives and for the future? And this republic looks like it's set to stay. They don't know it's going to be an interregnum. Blinds.com's Cyber Monday last chance is happening now. Don't miss out on up to 45% off site wide.
- [12:53]
Tommy John Advertiser
A blinds.com design expert can help you.
- [12:56]
Shopify Advertiser
Make the perfect selection on your schedule.
- [12:58]
Tommy John Advertiser
We can handle everything from measure to.
- [13:00]
Shopify Advertiser
Your whole home installed for one low cost. With over 25 million windows covered, Blinds.com is the number one online retailer of custom window coverings. Save up to 45% sitewide plus a free professional measure right now@blinds.com rules and restrictions may apply.
- [13:17]
Tommy John Advertiser
Great days start with great underwear. So if you're looking for something special, give Tommy John and Gift a better day. Everything we make is meticulously crafted from breathable stretch fabric for the perfect fit, including our sleepwear for him and her. It feels good to give, but it feels great to give. Tommy John. Find something for everyone and pick up something for yourself because at Tommy John, greatness is in our very fabric. Shoptommyjohn.com Spotify right now and save 30% sitewide tommyjohn.com Spotify see site for details.
- [13:47]
Alice Hunt
You also mentioned some of the luminaries from later on in the 17th century, and I was wondering if you could go into a bit more detail about how they navigated that period of Britain's history.
- [13:58]
Shopify Advertiser
The big names that we've heard of, but we might not necessarily know what they were up to in the 1650s. And one of the joys of writing this book has been tracing some of these figures that are well known, often for later. But finding them in the Republic has been so interesting. So Samuel Pepys, who was a teenager when the king was executed, was there in the crowds playing truant from school. Should have been at school, but you know who Wouldn't go and watch what was happening. This is the most significant thing to have happened ever. And later he works for the republic and works for Cromwell's general at sea, Edward Montagu, who later becomes the Earl of Sandwich and then goes on. He begins his diary on the 1st of January, 1660, which is the year that the republic finally dies, and of the restoration of the king. Other figures. John Dryden, who becomes poet laureate under Charles ii. He's working in Cromwell's household for a while, in the protectoral household, towards the end of the 1650s. John Milton is there, absolutely at the heart of the republic, given rooms in Whitehall to defend the republic because he's such a brilliant polemicist. And when the republic is dying, he sits down to write Paradise Lost, one of the greatest poems ever to be written. And it emerges from the dying ashes of the republic as the republican dream is falling apart. And as Milton sees the English rushing back into the yoke of monarchy, the scientists. So in Oxford during the 1650s, clustering around Cromwell's brother in law, John Wilkins, who is the warden of Wadham College, this group of scientists, and they call themselves the Experimental Philosophy Club. And among them are Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, Robert Hook. Very young John Locke is there. And these are figures that we associate with the Royal Society, as it became known in the 1660s, but they were in Oxford in the 1650s and enabled by the climate of the time to get on with their work. They weren't all republican supporters, in fact, most of them probably were. Royalists would have preferred a monarchy, but they believed their kind of ethos of their society was that science was a force for good and a social good. And they had many republican sympathizers who were supporting them.
- [16:16]
Alice Hunt
And among them, it's fascinating that this period of British history still feels a bit taboo. Why do you think that is?
- [16:23]
Shopify Advertiser
It's partly that it didn't work and it failed and became called the interregnum. And therefore, as a cast, as kind of aberration, Restoration historians did a good job of forgetting it and associating it with a time of usurpation and tyranny and unhappiness. And as a joyless time, I think we found it hard in this country to reconcile ourselves with a republican past. We don't quite know what to do with it. How revolutionary was it? What has lasted, what happened to Ireland is very much part of that story. The figure of Cromwell is part of that story too. Ruthless on the battlefield, a tyrant for many. But then in the late 19th century sort of seen as a hero. It's a period that hasn't been taught that much, a period that was blotted out in the curricula for a while. I mean, when I did my degree, this was a long time ago, but, you know, still relevant. My degree was actually in English literature and I had one paper that ended in 1642 and the next paper began in 1660, and the intervening 18 years were just not there. Despite Milton writing then, despite Andrew Marvell, despite the revolutionary work of someone like William Davenant, just not there.
- [18:00]
Alice Hunt
On the flip side, it seems like there's been a surge of interest in this era recently. Do you think that's linked to this new beginning of sorts, with Charles III's accession, especially after the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II?
- [18:12]
Shopify Advertiser
Yes, I think whenever there's a change or a regime change, then there's a moment to reflect on what our government is and what our constitution is. And there's nothing like a coronation or at the death, a funeral, and then the coronation, which come in quick succession. These moments which concentrate the public consciousness on our constitution, which we are seeing kind of being played out in ceremonial form, and that's to be welcomed. I think we should always be scrutinizing and thinking about how this country is run and what the role of the monarchy is. In part, we should look further beyond this country and think about the fact that when Charles III became king of this country, he also became king 14 other independent countries, eight of which are in the Caribbean, one of which, Barbados, had itself recently become a republic. And many of those countries are undergoing now a series of rethinking their own constitutions, wondering whether they also want to become republics. So, yes, I think the long reign of Elizabeth II kept some of these questions and scrutiny of the constitution at bay for a while.
- [19:32]
Alice Hunt
Just zoning in on that point about the monarchy and this period, perhaps of introspection that's occurring in this country right now, but also across the Commonwealth. You make an interesting point in the book about the monarchy's portrayal of itself as a symbol of continuity. While the 1650s are often seen as this brief rupture or interregnum, in what ways has this revolutionary decade influenced the monarchy since?
- [19:58]
Shopify Advertiser
It's a really good question. I think you could say, because the monarchy is restored, that it's therefore the success of monarchy. But the monarchy that was restored was very different. The acts that cut off Charles I's head absolutely destroyed the idea of monarchy, the idea of the sacred monarch. So the kind of monarchy that we had before 1649 was never to be brought back. When it came back, it was restored with the knowledge that it was fragile. That people now consented to a monarchy, that was a really new idea. That was an idea that was advanced by people like John Milton that you consented to who was in power. A monarch was not a given or a guarantee. The idea that the monarch is appointed by God or that is somehow God's representative on earth, an idea that James I promoted and handed down to his son, Charles I. Charles II tried to keep that going, but it was a fiction. They knew at the coronation of Charles II that there was an alternative form of government to monarchy. The roots of constitutional monarchy are in the 1650s. It's because of the 1650s and the debates around the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of Parliament that a king nowadays cannot enter Parliament without being invited. The party politics we have the factions and the debates, but the kind of oppositional form of politics that we have also comes from the 1650s. I think it's really poignant that Elizabeth II called her heir, her first son and heir, Charles. I think it's an acknowledgement of the century that undid, transformed and restored monarchy. And I think within that is an acknowledgement that the monarchy exists as long as the people want it.
- [22:00]
Alice Hunt
Of course, we can't talk about this period without mentioning Oliver Cromwell. He's such a central figure. How do you think his legacy is understood today? And does your book challenge any of the common perceptions people have about him?
- [22:11]
Shopify Advertiser
One of the common perceptions of Cromwell, I think, is that he was a killjoy and canceled Christmas, which is a pub quiz question, by the way, which I got wrong because the question was, who canceled Christmas? And I said, but it wasn't Cromwell, it was Parliament. And of course, the answer to the question was Cromwell, because that's what everyone thinks. He did not cancel Christmas himself. I challenge the idea that Cromwell was a king in all but name. That's one of the other, I think maybe well known things about Cromwell was that he actually, he just wanted to be a king, didn't he? And it pretty much was king like, wasn't it? When he was a protector, he was ambitious, he was ruthless on the battlefield. Could be. He was described often as kind of almost intoxicated in battle. There are moments where he himself would admit that he was in the heat of action. There are moments when he behaves rashly, like when he dismisses in this sort of violent coup, the rump parliament in 1653. But he did not want to be king. I think he wanted a position of authority and power because he wanted to do things, but he did not want to be king and he refused the title of king twice. He loathed that hereditary way. He called it very sensibly saying, if you have hereditary rule, how do you know if you're going to get a wise man or a fool? So he did not subscribed to that. And when he was Lord Protector, he agreed to nominate his successor, but it would not be automatically hereditary. It wouldn't automatically go to his son, Richard Cromwell. It did in the end, but he never formally even agreed to that as a nomination. He and other republican elites or part of the political elite did like fine things, liked music, held parties, appreciated art. And that's the other misconception, I think, is that anyone associated with this time were iconoclasts. That is such caricature. And it really doesn't see them as real people. You know, I think we need to flesh out the complexities of this period and also with the people and show them with all their inconsistencies and seemingly paradoxical interests and tastes. You know, they could, on the one hand, condemn certain behavior and on the other hand enjoy a drink and have a party and build a fine house and spend money. And I think we need to try and reconcile those two sides a bit better.
- [24:59]
Alice Hunt
I'd like to move now to religion, because that was such a driving force during this period. How did the religious factions and conflict shape the political landscape of the era?
- [25:08]
Shopify Advertiser
What happened to religion in this period, I think needs to be understood in a kind of longer story of the Reformation in Britain and the different shades of Protestantism that had emerged as a result of the Reformation way back in the early 16th century or mid 16th century. And the clash is between different versions of Protestantism. Catholics still are persecuted under the Republican regime in the 1650s. There is no toleration of Catholics, and that could be agreed upon by those in government. What they couldn't agree on was how far to extend liberty of conscience, they call it, or toleration of more unorthodox forms of Protestantism. And some really interesting, radical, alarming beliefs arise during this time and become quite popular. The Quakers, for example, are born during the 1650s. And to even an independent like Cromwell, who believes in no national church, in no state church. So Cromwell and his allies, the Quakers, are quite alarming because their behavior is quite. Is disruptive and their beliefs unorthodox, but they're really successful. The Quakers, as they preach in pairs, traveling around the country and they convert Thousands during the 1650s. And the Quakers survive, as do the Baptists. Other radical sects do not survive. The Muggletonians, Ranters, seekers, all with their very particular understanding of sin and salvation and hell. But in a climate where the unthinkable happened, which was to execute the King, unthinkable things become thinkable and extraordinary ideas proliferate. And one of the legacies of the Republic is non conformism.
- [27:17]
Alice Hunt
Just zoning in on that point about nonconformism. Was there a particular figure from this revolutionary decade that really stood out to you, Someone whose life story best captures the spirit of the age?
- [27:27]
Shopify Advertiser
Well, my favourite figure from the Republic is a little known man called Samuel Hartlib, who was a Polish refugee Protestant, fled Poland in the 1620s due to the ongoing religious wars in Europe. His mum was English, mother was English, so he moved to England and became quite well connected because his mother was quite well connected. So he met lots and lots of people in England, seemed to know absolutely everyone. And by the time we're in the 1650s, he really does know everyone across the political divide. And he's communicating with a huge range of people within Britain, but abroad as well. He just loves new ideas. Hartlib, for me, epitomizes what I feel is the sort of spirit of this time which is restless, curious, innovative, seeking to change, seeking to reform things, all infused with a godliness, a belief that England is somehow elect and a chosen place. It could be a kind of fit place to welcome the second coming of Christ. I mean, this is a kind of apocalyptic thinking, but it's his commitment to wanting to embrace the new, I think that, I think is something I wanted to try and capture about this period, to show that, yes, there were things that were frightening, upsetting, dislocating, disturbing for many people, but it was also a time that thrilled with ingenuity politically, political solutions, experimental, but also culturally, scientifically, and new schemes, you know, really new ideas that Hartlip himself was at the centre of promoting, pushing the publication of tracts which justified ideas for a national bank or a national health service, or state schools or. Or how to reform agriculture, how to heal the land, how to make the country prosperous again, both spiritually but also economically.
- [29:44]
Alice Hunt
Do you think there was ever any real chance that the Republic could have lasted? Or was the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 inevitable?
- [29:52]
Shopify Advertiser
I absolutely do not think that it was inevitable. I think many people probably would have preferred a monarchy, that's what they knew. And when the Parliament that came back in 1660, that was a kind of full Parliament that voted for the monarchy, which suggests that, at least through the MPs, that was what the country wanted. But if Cromwell hadn't died when he did in 1658, if there had been longer for the Constitution to settle, as Charles Stuart became less and less known, remembered, his fortunes were really flagging at the end of the 1650s. You know, he'd been in exile for a long time and they, his supporters, and he thought, how are we going to get back? You know, it seems to be working over there. But then Cromwell dies and it unravels very, very quickly after that. If he hadn't have died, I think it could have lasted. I also think, and this is a bit provocative, but I wonder that if Cromwell had accepted the title of king, that it also would have lasted and it would have been a monarchy in the sense that there was a king, but he would not have been a king that we would recognize.
- [31:11]
Alice Hunt
Looking at Britain today, do you think the upheaval of that revolutionary decade still resonates? Are there any lessons or parallels we can draw from that time?
- [31:19]
Shopify Advertiser
It's really interesting over time when the Republic has resonated and when it hasn't. It was forgotten for a while, but there were moments towards the end of the 17th century, of course, with what's been called the Glorious Revolution. But yet again, when the country decided to tinker with its constitution and bring in William and Mary, there were times then when they were looking back to the 1650s. There were times in the 19th century when the republic was looked at quite differently and the legacy of Cromwell. And I think nowadays we have more of a willingness to look at periods of our past which we think history might have misrepresented to us. And I think this is one of those decades that the history that we've been taught or learned, the history that we got at school, that we get from Ladybird books or pub quizzes, still shows that we still need to do some reckoning with this period. And I think we are in a moment of that now. We understand political flux as well. I mean, the tumultuousness of the decade, the political change, the speed of the change in which the regimes have come in and out and parliaments are opened and then dismissed. I mean, it makes the last few years of the Conservative government look like an exercise in stability. I mean, it was absolutely extraordinary. There are times when we've become very caught up in the drama of Parliament, when there are periods in history that have also been like that, that they resonate. I Mean, the debates that happen in parliament in the 1650s are absolutely fascinating to eavesdrop on. Really, really interesting, difficult, serious debates about legitimacy and sovereignty and freedom.
- [33:03]
Alice Hunt
Finally, Alice, what was the most surprising or unexpected discovery you made while researching this book? And did it change how you think about Britain's revolutionary decades?
- [33:12]
Shopify Advertiser
There was a moment when I kind of changed the way I thought about the people who were running the country. And one of these moments, I can remember it distinctly. I went to Ford Abbey in Dorset, which is a privately owned house, but it's open to the public. It's absolutely beautiful. A former Cistercian monastery nestled in this valley in dorset. And in 1649 or around then, it was bought by Edmund Prideaux, who became Cromwell's Attorney General and was a prominent figure during the 1650s and made a lot of money from having been in charge of the post, really, and setting up postal routes. And he bought this monastery, which was dilapidated, and restored it and put in a beautiful staircase and Italian windows and commissioned tapestries. And it just changed my idea of who these people were, the Puritan elite, that they weren't. I'm going to use a phrase that a review of mine used recently, fun sponges. It's just such a brilliant phrase, psychotic fun sponges. But they weren't. It was the kind of nuance that I wanted, a way to think about these people beyond the political role that they had. And this happened again and again as I researched further some of the key figures from the period, the houses that they bought, the interest that they had. John Lambert, the brilliant soldier and the architect of the first ever written constitution that this country has ever had. In 1653, living in Wimbledon, house used to belong to Henrietta Maria, Charles I's wife and an exceptional gardener took over the gardens that had been planted when Henrietta Maria had the house and tended his tulips. And I found that surprising, delighting and illuminating about the period and about the mostly men who were running a republic or trying to.
- [35:23]
Danny Bird
That was Alice Hunt, whose book Britain's Revolutionary Decade 16, 1649-1660 is out now, published by Faber. And for more on one of the most turbulent periods in British history, click the link in today's episode description to listen to our episode with Ronald Hutton as he answers your top questions on Cromwell's Protectorate. Thanks for listening. This podcast was produced by Jack Bateman.