← Not Just the Tudors
Not Just the Tudors
Prelude to the English Civil War
00:55:50
How was 17th-century England hurled into one of the bloodiest periods in its history?
Loading summary
Transcript75 lines
- [00:00]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb. If you'd like Not Just the Tudors ad Free to get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to historyhit With a historyhit subscription. You can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my own recent two part series A World Torn, the Dissolution of the Monasteries and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com forward slash. Subscribe.
- [00:32]
Verizon Representative
Now. At Verizon, we have some big news for your peace of mind. For all our customers, existing and new, we're locking in low prices for three years guaranteed on MyPlan and my home. That's future you peace of mind and everyone can save on a brand new phone on MyPlan. When you trade in any phone from one of our top brands, that's new phone peace of mind. Because at Verizon, whether you're already a customer or you're just joining us, we got you. Visit Verizon today. Price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate. Additional terms and conditions apply for all offers.
- [01:02]
BetterHelp Representative
BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.
- [01:44]
Verizon Representative
When you're earning your degree, the right support can make a difference. That's why at Capella University, learning online.
- [01:51]
BetterHelp Representative
Doesn'T mean learning alone.
- [01:52]
Verizon Representative
You'll get support from people who care about your success, including your dedicated academic coach who's available every step of the way. Whether you're working toward a bachelor's, master's.
- [02:03]
BetterHelp Representative
Or doctoral degree, you can learn confidently.
- [02:05]
Verizon Representative
Knowing you'll get la yo da que necesitas un futuro diferente esta mas cerca de lo que tres con Capella University. Learn more@capella.edu.
- [02:20]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb and welcome to Not Just the Tudors From History Hit, the podcast in which we explore everything from Anne Boleyn to the Aztecs, from Holbein to the Huguenots, from Shakespeare to samurais, relieved by regular doses of murder, espionage and witchcraft. Not, in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors. London in the 1640s was a place unlike anywhere else in England. It was cacophonous, filthy and dark. Coal fires filled the air with acrid smoke and the muddy dung strewn Streets were busy with animals, carts and, above all, people. Over the previous 150 years, the population of the city had swollen from 50,000 to 400,000 as people migrated from the countryside. So it was also a place of clamor and dispute, of gossip shared and insults flung, a place of constant noise, the hum of human voices interrupted by church bells, the creak of hackney coaches and the sound of public punishment. And it was a place of high emotion, radical politics, and where a crowd could change the fate of a nation. It was here in the early 1640s, that the stage was set for a schism as deep as it was unprecedented. The emergence of a gulf between the King Charles I and Parliament, a gulf that became unbridgeable, that led on 22 August 1642, to the king declaring war on his own Parliament. But how? And why? In a close analysis of London from November 1640 through to the summer of 1642, my guest today offers us a fundamental new understanding of how the Civil War began. He is Dr. Jonathan Healy, Associate professor at the University of Oxford. He's been my guest before on his wonderful previous book, the Blazing World, A new History of Revolutionary England. But his brand new title, which is rightly getting rave reviews, is the Blood in a nation descends 1642. I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb, and this is Not Just the Tudors from history hit. Jonathan. Dr. Healey, welcome to Not Just the Tudors.
- [05:05]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Hi. Thank you for having me on.
- [05:07]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Now, this is a wonderful book that offers a sort of fundamental new understanding, I think, of how the Civil War began, but it manages to do so through these wonderful descriptions of characters, through this evocative sense of the period, and through really keeping us close to the chronology, to this as an experience that was lived through time. So we get a sense of pain. Case. But can you give me some ideas? We start talking about what you were trying to argue here in this book.
- [05:42]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
So, I mean, it's a narrative history, and I think that's a very, very important historical tool. I mean, I started as very much a sort of quantitative structural historian, and that's important, too. There's lots of ways of doing history, but I think if you're telling a story, which it does kind of happen in this sort of very compressed period of time where at any one moment you could be looking at it and you could see hundreds of different ways that things could pan out, that sort of narrative mode is, I think, a really useful analytical way of looking at it, because it forces you to put yourself in the moment, not Just in the shoes, but also in the moment of your characters. So that's the sort of argument in a way is that it kind of. It's a day to day thing. You go through a political crisis like this and there is very little that you can do to say how you will come out of it. So there's that. The other thing that I was really, really trying to emphasize here though was that the crisis which brought about the English Civil War was not just about politicians. I mean, it was about politicians definitely and it was about decisions by politicians, but it was also about people kind of behind the scenes making very curious decisions. But it was also about the crowd, it was about the. The population, particularly of their opinions, their political activism and that political activism and that political engagement by ordinary people in the streets of London and around the country as well. But it's quite a London focused book, was a critical driving force for what was going on in politics.
- [07:19]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Well, we will get to thinking about the crowd and London in particular as we go on, but can I start by asking you about the man at the top? Because you give this amazing sense of Charles I's character which is so important to understanding how things will play out. So tell us who he was.
- [07:42]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
I find him endlessly fascinating and I don't sort of. He sort of. He divides opinion, I think that's fair to say. But he's very human actually. And we've probably all met people a bit like Charles. They're people who are sort of a bit over fussy. They like things to be kind of ordered. They don't like to be confronted with people with different opinions. They are often quite honorable in a way and they stick to their principles, but they can be quite brittle. And that. That sort of lack of flexibility makes them great in some contexts but not so good in in others. And I often think that Charles was kind of ill suited to be king because he found it very, very difficult to engage with people who had different opinions to his own. But he did actually find his medium, if you like, which is effectively being a party leader. He was quite good at enc. Encouraging people who already agreed with him to follow him. He had a real sense of honour. He had a view that he had been appointed by God to protect England, to protect the English church and to protect his other kingdoms as well, Scotland and Ireland. He also had a really kind of strong sense of order. I mean, he'd grown up in a world where in society more broadly there's been huge kind of disorder in the population. A lot of social change, a lot of social dislocation, plague, famine, all these kind of things. But also in his father's court, which was famous, I mean, probably quite a fun place to hang out, to be quite honest, but famously debauched. And Charles really didn't like this. So one of the first things that he tried to do when he became king was to sort of bring a certain amount of order. You can even see it reflected in the architecture of the period. Although obviously some of that kind of goes back to his father. And I think that kind of personality, if you like, this sort of belief in kind of keeping things in a sort of properly ordered state for the. For the benefit of everyone, was quite hard to square with a population which is becoming incredibly opinionated about things that he thought they shouldn't be opinionated about, like religion and like politics and government by the 1640s, but also with things like the growth of London, which he found quite challenging to deal with, and things like that. So under the growth of the printing press, all these kind of things. So this was kind of challenges. So he's almost like the wrong person at the wrong time in some ways.
- [10:02]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And you begin your book in November 1640 with the long Parliament, and we'll go through subsequent events in some sort of granular detail. So I'm going to ask you a very difficult question now, which is how had we got here?
- [10:20]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yeah, I mean, that's a sort of. It's a long question, it's a difficult question. And I mean, there's lots and lots of different ways to think about this. The way I tend to see it is that there had been a political crisis in the 1620s. The English state had been very, very short of money and had found itself in a position where it needed cash. And in order to get that cash, you had to go to Parliament. But Parliament A didn't really want to give up tax money to the Crown, but also were angry about things like religion and some of the ways in which the Crown was trying to raise money. So there was basically a sort of a major political crisis. And how that ended was with Charles the King deciding to try and rule without Parliament for as long as he could. So he did. He ended up ruling without parliament for 11 years. And during that period, there was sort of broad peace in lots of ways. I mean, there was repression and there was things which were not so positive, but England was at peace. That was international situation was improving, the economy was getting better. So lots and lots of positives, but it didn't solve that fundamental problem of differences over religion is one thing, and the problem of paying for a state which is perennially poor and perennially short of money. And so some of the things that the government tried to do in the 1630s were intensely controversial and ended up alienating a very significant part of the sort of political thinkers. So in November 1640, you had a parliament which was broadly in. In sort of opposition, if you like. They wanted to reform some of the things that Charles's government had done over the last 11 years. The reason he had to call that Parliament, of course, was that he had, again, through a kind of desire for order and making sure things kind of were effectively sort of standardized across his three kingdoms, he tried to impose his kind of Anglican, I suppose, form of religion on Scotland. And that had set off a rebellion. And that rebellion created a need for more money. And he kind of finally got round to this point where he realized that the only way that he could get that money was to go back to Parliament.
- [12:21]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And one of the first things that Parliament decides to try and do is to impeach the Earl of Strafford, one of his trusted advisors. You can imagine how well that went down. On what grounds could Strafford be found a traitor?
- [12:38]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Very, very hard to make that stick. The issue with Strafford is, I mean, Strafford's probably had quite a sympathetic press of late, and I think he ended up being treated pretty badly. I mean, he ended up being executed.
- [12:51]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
As about as bad as it gets, really.
- [12:53]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Kind of fairly, kind of sketchy grounds. It's not great. I mean, you'd at least want to write a stern letter if that was you. So he's had a sort of relatively positive press. But the thing about Strafford, I think that scared people among this kind of broad political reformist faction was that he had this sense of when something needed to be done, it should be done, even if that was against the law as it stood. So he had this kind of idea of reason of state where basically, basically, it was all very well if the law said you couldn't do something, but if it had to be done, it had to be done. It didn't really matter. And in Ireland, he had sort of ruled using that kind of approach, and he tried to back that up by building up a significant armed force, and that meant that he could impose his will. And the. The scary thing about Strafford for the English political nation in 1640 is that they all thought that he would try and do that over in England. So that's why they had to go for him. But the trouble is they sort of found that basically everything he'd done, however bad it had been, and it was. It was sort of bad along the kind of ideological way, rather than being anything more serious than that. So it's quite difficult to make it actually look like any crimes have been committed. So what they had to do was basically say, well, you've been so tyrannical in Ireland and what you want to do in England is so tyrannical that it's brought the King's rule into disrepute and therefore you're creating a conditions of disagreement between the King and the people. So that is treason. Now, it's a bit of a stretch, if I'm honest. It's a bit of a stretch. And they found it very, very hard to actually get that, to get that to stick. In the impeachment trial, the impeachment trial much is very similar to the US today. The articles of impeachment are put forward by the lower house, by the Commons, and then the trial is before the Lords. But that didn't really work. So instead what the reformists had to do is they had to say, well, we've got this other way of doing it which goes back to the Tudors. Of course, not supposed to be talking about the Tudors, but it's something which gets used quite a lot in the Tudor period, is an act of Attainder, where basically Parliament passes an act saying, you are guilty of treason. I'm sorry. And it was. I guess it was. I mean, this is more your area than mine, I suppose, but I guess it was designed for a period in, say, the wars of the Roses, where people had left the country so they couldn't actually be put to trial. But if you've got the guy, yeah, sort of stood there the room saying, oh, I'm here and I'm on. I'm actually physically on trial in the next room. And then they're pushing this parliamentary bill through. It really is a kind of. It's the dark arts of politics. But then, of course, it has to get. Because it's an act of Parliament, it has to get the ascent of the King. And that's where things get really kind of controversial, because what the reformists do is they use the support that they have in, in London from the crowd to put very, very strong pressure not only on the House of Lords, but also on the Royal family. And eventually Charles, probably, because he. I mean, I don't think Charles liked Wentworth Strafford that much to Be quite honest. But he still didn't really want to have him executed, but with huge, huge pressure being put on his family, with crowds outside the palace of Whitehall, he eventually signed it. So it becomes this kind of really sort of like a sort of Rubicon moment. Because what's happened is the reformists in the Commons have appealed to the people and they've used the crowd to pressurize the monarchy. Now, in the 17th century political context, that's a very, very dangerous thing to do. Yes.
- [16:16]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So he's talking about a kind of political awakening of the people, but also of giving them a sense that they could have power in that moment. The other thing I want us to try and understand is about the nature of finances, because Charles makes some concessions to Parliament. But, you know, one of the immediate, the outstanding grievances is ship money, which proves to spectators that Charles is an absolute monarch. What's the problems with finance and what it connotes, you know, how proximate to tyranny is it to be an absolute monarch at this time?
- [16:52]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
It's not the same thing. It's sort of got merged in our own understandings, really. You can be an absolute monarch without being a tyrant in the political ideology of the time. And I mean, some have said that Charles wasn't really an absolute monarch because he didn't really rule above the law. And that's why shit money is so important. It feels sort of quite esoteric, these. But it's interesting the way people talked about it at the time. They talked about this as being the kind of crucial constitutional issue of the day. And what it was was that basically in the 1630s, the Crown is short of cash and they are worried about the international situation, they're worried about the French, they're worried about the Dutch, they're worried about pirates. There's quite a lot of pirates floating around from sort of Dunkirk and all this kind of stuff. And so, quite understandably, they say, well, okay, we need to build the navy, but they don't have any money. So what they do is, they say, well, there's this old levy that we can do where basically coastal communities can be told to provide a ship for the Royal Navy. And that's fine, that's relatively uncontroversial. But then they make the completely understandable logical leap, which is that if the coastal communities are getting protection, then so are the inland communities, because they're also getting protection from French invasion, or they might want to invest in a trading venture and they don't want that to be attacked by Pirates. So it's only fair for those inland communities to pay for it as well. Which seems very fair. Entirely logical. The trouble is, it is a new tax. I mean, there's no way you can get around that. They still say, oh, it's a levy. I mean, levy tax, potato, potato. So essentially what it means is that people are being taxed with the new tax without first having voted it in Parliament. Now, this is important because traditionally in England, there's an understanding that certainly by this point, that for the most part, any tax has to be done by consent and consent is given through Parliament. So what the Crown do, and it's quite clever what they do in a way, is they sort of say, well, okay, fine, we'll have a lawsuit. And the judges, the 12 common law judges, will give a judgment about whether it's legal or not. So there's this big law, big legal case, and it sort of comes down to this argument as to what happens in an emergency and who gets to decide when it's an emergency. Because most people agree that in an emergency situation, the Crown should be able to take people's money to defend the state. That's uncontroversial. But should that emergency situation be one where the way they put it is Hannibal is at the gates? Does Hannibal literally have to be at the gates? Or can it be a case that the King, who of course has lots of diplomatic networks and knows what's going on around Europe, he might have information that we mere mortals don't have. Can the King sort of say, ah, well, a few years down the line there will be an emergency? And that's what the judges decide in the ship money case. They decide that the King is the judge of whether or not there is an emergency. Now, it doesn't take a huge amount to see that that could be used, used cynically. And that's where people get very, very, very worried about it, because it means that the King has the legal power to basically declare an emergency when he wants or say that there might be an emergency in a couple of years and then take people's money without going to Parliament. So sounds really sort of obscure and it's got a slightly funny name, but it's a. It absolutely cuts to the heart of the constitutional issues of the time.
- [20:10]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
It's so interesting, isn't it, that we've got the American Revolution over a century later that is fundamentally the same issue. No taxation without representation. I mean, it.
- [20:20]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yeah, yeah. There's a huge. I mean, I mean, yeah, but I mean, that issue of taxation and representation is at the heart of what's going on in the middle of the 17th century. And of course, one of the first things that long Parliament do is they vote the judgment in that legal case to be wrong and they take it a little bit further as well. They sort of impeach a load of the judges as well. So never, never one to do things by halves. Get a few impeachments in while we're at it.
- [20:47]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So now let's fast forward a little to Charles's visit to Scotland in 1641. You've mentioned how badly it had gone trying to impose the Anglican prayer book on Scotland. What did he hope to achieve and what was happening in London in his absence?
- [21:08]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yes. So in the summer of 1641, Charles went up to Edinburgh and his aim was. Well, I mean, his fundamental aim was to get the Scots out of English politics. There'd been a Scottish army in England and there was a Scottish army in England until August 1641. And there was a Royal army which was sort of facing it off. So getting that army out of the way, because that army was supporting Parliament, supporting the reformist department, getting that army out of the way would free Charles's hand to. To do who knows what. And so he had the kind of fundamental aim to sort of get the Scots basically out of the way. But he also realized that in Scotland, the. Whereas there had been a very, very strong anti royal faction for a while under people like the Earl of Argyll, there was a reaction against that associated with people like Montrose, who had become a very famous royalist general. He started off as a kind of rebel, if you like, but he, he thought that the rebels had gone too far. So he was kind of gravitating back towards Charles. And Charles realized that he was potentially able to develop a party in Scotland, a sort of royalist party, if you like. And he tried to kind of cultivate that, because if that happens, then he might get control of the Scottish army, which could be used again to sort of to squash the English Parliament. And he sort of threw himself into this very murky plot to have a load of the opposition leaders, including Argyle, including Hamilton, one of his relatives, arrested and possibly either impeached or possibly even murdered there or then, nobody quite knows. And it became known as the incident, which is a sort of wonderfully euphemistic term. And what it had sort of two, two impacts really, the first of which was it, it actually kind of nipped that Scottish royalist party in the bud. It meant the Scots Parliament swung very much against Charles. And he was forced to swallow a load of really, really quite radical reforms actually in Scotland. So, for example, the Scottish Parliament would have control over his Privy Council. Charles's view of this was it made him little more than a Duke of Venice. So he was really, really cross about it. He didn't have much opportunity to overthrow it. But it also, this incident, it ca. A real kind of fear in London because people. Well, on the one hand the, the reformists thought that it showed that Charles was willing to do anything to maybe kind of just have people bumped off. And on the other hand, the sort of more royalist groups were worried about what, what this meant for the people around Charles and what this meant for. For Charles's family. So there's a kind of. It really kind of created this sense of fear in London about what people were prepared to do for these kind of political issues.
- [23:59]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And this has all been happening in Scotland and in London. But then in October 1641, Ireland rose in revolt. And you write that this changed everything. How so?
- [24:13]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
So the Irish uprising of late 1641, they had lots of impacts, one of which was for England. It was very, very frightening because very quickly they started to reports of massacres by Catholic rebels against Protestant settlers in, in Ulster in particular. And these reports were. They were. I mean, they were based on real event. They were genuine massacres in Ireland, but they were massively exaggerated. They became incredibly lurid. And the sort of. They were designed, if you like, by the press to sort of stoke fear about Catholics in Ireland in particular. So. So there's that. So again, it kind of creates like the Scottish incident, it immediately kind of creates this sense of fear. One of the things that you get very quickly after that is you get attacks on Catholics in London and in England. And also lots of people around England fortify their houses for. You get church in the records of churches, you get people, little records of people being told to stand on top of the church tower with, looking out to the horizon to make sure the. The Irish don't come or make sure there isn't a French invasion. Because everyone, people sort of thought this was all connected, this sort of grand conspiracy. So there's that. It sort of really kind of heightens the fear again in England. But the other thing is it creates a need for someone to raise another army. We just got to a situation where the Scottish rebellion had just finished, it had been successful, the Scots had got what they wanted, but the armies, the English Royalist army and the Scottish Covenanter army had finally been sent home. And Then suddenly, a couple of months later, you get this Irish rebellion and suddenly the English have to raise. Or the English and the Scots have to raise another army. Now, they've done that before. This is the kind of thing that happens in an early modern context, but you got to a position where Parliament and the King both have so little trust in the other side that the idea of one of them being in command of an army and someone has to be in command of it is just unthinkable. The. The Charles won't allow Parliament to be in control of the army because he thinks that that would be a complete destruction of his monarchical rule. Parliament don't want Charles to be in charge of the army because they think he will march it to London and have. Have a load of them arrested and, and, and executed. So it becomes this kind of political complete impasse, a Gordian knot, if you like. And that then again, continues to create this momentum into the crisis months.
- [26:40]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
That's really clear. Thank you. Can you tell me what the Remonstrance was?
- [26:45]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yeah, so, right, the Grand Remonstrance, or only ever called the Remonstrance at the time. The Grand Remonstrance is a. Is a Victorian name for it. So I was very careful about not using it, although I think I might have called it a Grand Remonstrance at one point. Very cheeky. Anyway, so one of the things that was happening by the end of 1641, you'd got this kind of split in the House of Parliament. Now, people think about the Civil War as being Parliament versus the King, but actually in Parliament there is a split between two sides. There's a royalist side, effectively, and a kind of proto parliamentarian, reformist side. And over the summer of 1641, that Royalist side in Parliament had been getting stronger and stronger, and it had been getting stronger and stronger for lots and lots of different reasons, one of which is that there was a reaction amongst kind of political conservatives against religious radicalism coming from London. The other is that political figures like the King's secretary, Edward Nicholas, and the Queen Henrietta Maria, who's a really canny political operator at this point, had been specifically writing to people, the Queen was writing to members of the House of Lords, saying, you must be in the House on this day because we, we need you to maintain this position. It's real sort of. It's kind of good political intrigue. So this royalist party had been building and building in. In Parliament, and what you. You got to a situation in, in November where you had the House of Lords was kind of broadly swinging towards the Royalists. The House of Commons was kind of on a knife ed lists, getting stronger and stronger. And so what the Grand Remonstrance was was it was an attempt by the reformists to appeal to another group outside Parliament and that was the people. It was an attempt to kind of put their case and then to publish it so that the ordinary people, and particularly people in London could see what they were trying to achieve and could then kind of throw their support to it. So it's a way of kind of appealing out of the Houses of Parliament and onto the streets.
- [28:55]
BetterHelp Representative
BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath. Breath in and out feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.
- [29:36]
Verizon Representative
Next Level Pet People will do anything for their dogs. That means treating them with next level protection from parasites with nexguard Plus, a Foxalon or Moxidectin and parental chewable tablets. Nexguard Plus Chews provide one and done monthly protection against fleas, ticks, heartworm disease, roundworms and hookworms, all in a tasty beef flavored chew. Use with caution in dogs with a history of seizures or neurologic disorders. Dogs should be tested for existing heartworm infection prior to starting a preventive. Ask your vet about Nexxgard Plus. Choose with McValue at McDonald's, you don't just get deals on the drinks, you get deals on McDonald's drinks. So when you're breaking a sweat, embrace the chill without breaking the bank. And when your crew is running on empty, keep your wallet full while refreshing the squad. Get more than you expect on your favorite medium drink drinks like frozen Fanta, blue raspberry iced coffee or lemonade. Now at just $2.29, price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with greenlight. Infinity's driving reports monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teen safe. Sign up for Greenlight infinity@Greenlight.com podcast.
- [31:19]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
I'm chilling. Charles himself is trying to do that, it feels, with his royal entry. And you paint this amazingly evocative picture of 17th century London. So give us a bit of a flavour and then explain exactly what he was trying to do and what he was seen to be doing with the royal entry.
- [31:39]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yeah, I mean, I love the bit where I got to just write about what London was like. Cause it's just so interesting and it's full of people from all around the country and all around the world, actually. And it's a kind of real sort of teeming city with lots of, lots of kind of stuff going on below the surface and lots of crime and all this kind of stuff, but also kind of growing very, very quickly with these suburbs around the edges growing very, very fast. And Charles, as a man who liked order, was not a big fan of London, to be quite honest. I mean, his main contribution to London in the 1630s had been to do things like banning taxi journeys which were shorter than three miles. Good luck with that one. But also he'd waded into quite a lot of building regulations. Very unsexy, but also constitutionally very, very important. And the other thing about Charles, though, is that in the 1620s and 1630s, he'd had a really kind of cynical, or really, he'd been really skeptical about the idea of appealing to the people. He didn't see it as something becoming of a monarch to sort of ground your authority in the acclamation of the people. He saw that as unduly democratic. But by 1641, you've got a situation where the other side are doing it. And there are people around Charles like Edward Nicholas and like the Queen as well. In fact, she's, again, she's a really, really smart political operator who are saying to him, you've got this party building around you. They're worried about this kind of attacks on the social order. They're worried about disorder. They're worried about what the reformists are doing. Why don't you appeal to them? And on Charles's route back from London, he found that as he went through the north of England and down the eastern side of England, he found that people came and they came to show their appreciation, they showed their loyalty. And he's sort of thinking, well, okay, this is a really good thing. Let's do the same in London. London, let's have a big Royal entry into London, where I will have a big feast and I will get my. Get my people to come out and sort of look at me and show their loyalty. So he did, and it was on the end of November 1641, and he came in for the northern part of London from sort of Moorfields and all that kind of way. And he went, he had a big feast at the Guildhall. And the end of it was this incredible seed where by this point, of course, it's 4:00 in the afternoon, it's still. It's almost completely dark. He gets all these kind of soldiers and courtiers to line the streets holding torches, these kind of blazing, flickering torches, and they process down, back to Whitehall. It would have been this incredible spectacle of the power of the monarchy and with these. All these crowds out there cheering at him and shouting, God bless King Charles and Queen Mary, Queen Henrietta Maria. But, you know, combining that with this kind of militarism, the gentleman pensioners, for example, were all armed to the teeth and people following him with pistols and stuff. So it's a. It's a real kind of PR triumph, but for two reasons. One, it shows how popular he is, but secondly, it shows how powerful he is with this military support that he's got.
- [34:35]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And on 29 November, a massacre is narrowly avoided at Westminster. What happened?
- [34:42]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Well, I mean, this is again one of those moments where things get quite frightening. And what happened was, partly as a result of the appeal, appeals to the crowd through things like the Grand Remonstrance, you'd started to get the development of quite significant protests outside the palace of Westminster. So at this point, you didn't have that sort of busy Parliament Square with all the taxis and buses whizzing around. It was much more of a sort of open pedestrian space. And that meant that it was a great place to have a protest. And people were starting to come down from the City of London and to protest outside Parliament. And what they were protesting for is very interesting because it's often taken as being a signifier of kind of fundamental religious issues. And I'm not saying that they're not there, but the protesters were chanting for no bishops and no papist Lords, so anti Catholic and anti bishops. But what this was is in a specific context of the sort of the voting patterns in the House of Commons, in the House of Lords, because in the House of Commons, you still just about got a kind of a reformist majority, but in the House of Lords you've got this royalist majority. But people Realized that if you could get the bishops, the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, I think it's 26. I can never quite remember the exact number. It's in the book. And the roughly 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, if you could get them out, then that would alter the balance of power and then the reformists would be able to push their agenda and their agenda by this point is this kind of radical constitutional reform which would give them, just like the Scots had got in their Parliament, give them control over for the King's Privy Council and his, and his government and his army as well. So that's what they're protesting for. And anyway, by there's on the 29th, a royal guard had been appointed under the Earl of Dorset, who's the guy who owns Knoll House if you're a National Trust member. It's a wonderful Tudor, really one of my favorites. And there's a big portrait of him in there. And I, I once said to one of the poor volunteers in there, oh, is he the guy from the massacre in Parliament? And she sort of looked at me with horror. Anyway, so, so you saw a long standing royal servant and he'd been put in charge of the guard in Parliament and these people were kind of crowding into the, into the Houses of Parliament, sort of real kind of warren in there. They got outside the House of Lords and so Dorset was sent out to basically get rid of them. And eventually having, he's, well apparently been really polite and understanding, eventually he got so angry about it that he snapped and just shouted give fire to his soldiers. And at this point everyone sort of ran out and it was a stampede. And this again, this causes real sort of fear, but it also sets off debates in the House of Commons. Some people said, well yeah, it's perfectly understandable he was under pressure, whereas others say, well, it was very, very close to being a massacre in this very House of Parliament. So yeah, it's another one of these moments which builds up the fear, creates distrust and makes people feel like they're on the cusp of real kind of violence right in the heart of London and Westminster.
- [37:43]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And that only continues as Charles decides crucially to go to Whitehall for Christmas. Issues of proclamation turns up at Parliament, various things which, you know, with hindsight seem rather ill judged. And we can see this building sense of disorder and protest and things that might now not look deeply significant, like who's going to be appointed as Lieutenant of the Tower of London, are really contentious. So what can Charles do in response to this sort of febrile environment.
- [38:23]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
I mean, Charles ultimately wants to send Parliament away. I mean, they have sat for longer than anyone expected, so there's a reason for that. But to do that, he needed to get a majority in both Houses. And his plan for doing that is quite sensible. He realizes that by December, quite a lot of moderates have basically said, well, I don't really want to be around for this. So they've gone up country. And so what he does is he issues a proclamation which basically says, come down to London for the 12th of January, and then you can do your duty. And what he's hoping is that all these moderates will come back, he'll have a majority in both Houses. So that's what he wants to do. But at the same time, he's also sort of building this military force in the capital and he's building up a force at Whitehall with disbanded soldiers from his old royal army. And the. These get called cavaliers because they're sort of swaggering ruffians in one description. And that's where the Tower of London comes in. Because the Tower of London at this point is not just some sort of cute historical palace that people go and see the ravens at. It's a massive collection of cannons and soldiers and gunpowder. It's got more gunpowder than anywhere else in the country. So he tried to get control of that by putting a very loyal cavalier in charge of it. And that then set off this kind of. Kind of outpouring of popular agitation. Just after Christmas, actually, within the 12 days of Christmas, just after Christmas Day in 1641, the maddest Christmas that I ever saw, as, as one person described it, where you've just got crowds coming down to Westminster every day, chanting, and some outbreaks of really quite serious violence outside the Houses of Parliament. It really does feel in those days that the order is just. Just falling apart in London and Parliament.
- [40:09]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Tries to take advantage, I suppose, of this moment in impeaching 12 bishops. What did this mean?
- [40:19]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Well, that would have solved the problem of the House of Lords, because what you still still, at this point, you've still got this kind of split between the reformist Commons and the Royalist House of Lords. And so what happens is, I mean, it's one of these kind of almost sort of comedy of errors moments. You've got a protest outside the Houses of Parliament, the bishops can't get to the House of Lords because one of the things that the protesters are doing is they're trying to stop the bishops getting There. So they're sort of peering in their coaches and saying, oh, yes, this is a bishop, send him away kind of thing. And so, quite understandably, they sort of say, well, that's a bit unfair, we should really be in the House of Lords, it's our right to sit there, that we've been appointed by the King. So they present a petition to Charles saying, we don't think this is a free Parliament because we're not in it. And Charles passes it to the Lord Keeper, man called Edward Lyttelton. And he who, I mean, he's sort of quite a moderate, he doesn't really believe in it, but he read it out and it causes an absolute stir in Parliament because the implication is. And the bishops had tried really hard not to give this implication, but the implication, it was taken as suggesting that the bishops were a central part of Parliament and if they didn't attend, it wasn't a free Parliament. The other implication being being because they said that it was the crowds outside Parliament. So Parliament was therefore being coerced. The other implication was that potentially you could say that Parliament going all the way back to November 1640 because of the Scottish army, because of the crowds at the Straffords trial, was also under being coerced. So maybe you could overthrow all the legislation which had passed. And this was too much. It was a sort of massive, a massive PR blunder. And when this petition got taken to the House, got reported to the House of Commons, you could sort of see some of the reformists were sort of, sort of really, really pleased about it. They thought, oh, brilliant, the bishops have really messed up here. Whereas others immediately thought, well, this is the prelude to a royal attack on Parliament. Anyway, the upshot was that the 12 bishops who signed this petition were very swiftly impeached. Most of them were sent to the Tower of London. Those who weren't impeached decided that discretion was the better part of valor and stayed away. And that then created, for a brief period of time, a majority for the reformists in both, both Commons and Lords. So this suddenly is a really dangerous moment for the king. Really dangerous.
- [42:48]
BetterHelp Representative
BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your chops, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better. Right, that's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy, no pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.
- [43:29]
Verizon Representative
How many discounts Does USAA Auto Insurance.
- [43:32]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Offer too many to say here? Multi vehicle discount, safe driver discount, new.
- [43:36]
Verizon Representative
Vehicle discount, storage discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usaa.com autodiscounts restrictions.
- [43:55]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And those who had predicted a prelude were right. How did he respond?
- [44:00]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Well, so, funnily enough, although this was a very dangerous moment in the hazards of Parliament for the King, he'd actually, around about the same time, basically won control of the streets. Because what had happened is that there had been these brawls and the Cavaliers had sort of come out and some of the protesters had been killed, partly by the Cavaliers, partly by soldiers in Westminster Abbey. Sorry. But also, Charles had issued this order to the Mayor, he's given an order to the Mayor of London saying that if there's any more protests, you must get the militia out and they can shoot people to kill them. That was it. He'd had enough. And this order, this shoot to kill order had been given. And as a result of all that, and also probably because one of the main aims of the protesters have been to get the bishops out of the House of Lords, and they managed to do that themselves, the protesters were staying home. And remember that Charles, at this point, has gathered this collection of Cavaliers at Whitehall. So suddenly, although he's lost the Houses of Parliament, Parliament, he's got control of the streets, he's got military control of London, so he's in a position actually that he can potentially launch a coup against Parliament. And that's what he does. So on the 3rd of January, very sort of fastidiously, very kind of, with a sort of veneer of legalism, he has a group of MPs and one member of the House of Lords impeached in the House of Parliament, the Attorney General stands up in the House of Lords and impeaches a group of MPs. And the logic is probably, I mean, a. He does actually probably want these people dead because he doesn't like them very much. And their kind of resistance to him goes back to the Scottish rebellion, so he hates them. But also it's a very, very clever tactical move, because what this will do is it will tie the Houses of Parliament up in knots. They will spend all their time dealing with this impeachment. They won't be passing legislation to control the army and to control the government. And he can just sit there now and wait while Parliament just argues amongst itself about these impeach. All the moderate MPs come back from the country and then redress the ballots.
- [45:58]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
That's the plan.
- [45:58]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
That's the plan. But as so often, it doesn't go to plan. Yeah. So immediately, rather than doing exactly as they are told, the House of Lords immediately then says, well, actually, this is a bit irregular, we don't think. And they're very pedantic about this. We don't think it's quite legitimate for the Attorney General to stand up in the House of Lords and impeach a sitting Lord Lord. Because impeachment should come from the House of Commons. And the Council of Commons think, well, it's unfair for people to be impeached in the House of Lords if they're in the House of Commons. So they say, oh, this is. This is a bit off. So instead of doing what Charles wanted and basically having these members immediately arrested, the House of Lords sets up a committee to investigate whether the King is being legal. So it's immediately kind of. It's immediately been thrown back in the King's face. So at that point that evening, probably he hatches a different plan, possibly. Possibly being influenced by the Queen. And that plan would be to finally do what people have been worried about for such a long time, which was that he would finally use his armed force against Parliament. And the plan was for the next day, he would gather several hundred cavaliers, they would march down to Westminster, march down to Parliament, and they would arrest the impeached members. Focus on the ones in the House of Commons, the five members in the House of Commons they would arrest. So then there's this very tense night and these wonderful descriptions of the tension in London that night. Because people. One of the parts of the royal plan is to reinforce the Tower of London, but of course, you. That's noisy. London's quite small at this point. And sound travels. And so you get all these soldiers being put into the Tower of London and the local people hear it and there's this panic around London, but eventually everyone sort of goes back to bed and then in the morning it's incredibly tense. All the shops are shut in much of London and Westminster hall and all these kind of places. Everyone knows that something's going to happen, happen. And the other thing that's happened is that one of the courtiers close to the Queen, Lucy Hay, the Countess of Carlisle, had actually gone and warned at least one of the five members, or possibly the one in the House of Lords, Lord Manderville warned them this was what the King was going to do. So everyone in the morning who needed to know what was going to happen, knew what was going to happen. But they sort of go through the Commons is sat debating throughout the morning when they're all sort of getting reports from Whitehall and then they go on their lunch break and someone goes up to Whitehall to see what's going on. They sort of all these soldiers around eventually and they go back and they meet after lunch. And then it gets to sort of midway through the afternoon. And then finally it happened. Charles came out of Whitehall, gathered something like 500 soldiers and then took them all the way down what's now Whitehall was then called King street to the House of Commons.
- [48:43]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And it turns out to be absolutely crucial that Lucy Hay, Countess of Carlisle, has tipped them off.
- [48:50]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Off, yeah, because they knew what was going to happen. They knew from her that it was going to happen at some point that day. They'd had another warning from the Earl of Essex, you could see what was going on at Whitehall and they'd had a third warning. As soon as Charles came out of Whitehall and gathered all these soldiers and sort of trundled down this. What was quite a muddy and icy street. It was trending quite slowly. An employee of the French Embassy was running in front of them and was able to sort of say what was. What was going on. So they'd had these series of warnings. They knew what was going on on, they knew it was about to go down. And the five of them slipped out of the palace of Westminster and went by boat up to the City of London and hid. So when Charles got there, he sort of came into the House of Commons and said, where are these five, five, five traitors? And the speaker was, well, they're not here. And also, I can't say anything. I can only give voice to the House of Common who has called me here. So Charles was not able to arrest these five members. They escaped to London. If he had been able to, who knows what would have happened? Because he would have been able to take them out pretty quickly if he'd wanted to, and they would have at least ended up in the Tower awaiting trial. And you can't do much politics if you're in the Tower. So, yes, again, at the start, we talked about these kind of moments where it really isn't clear where things are going. And that's one of them. If they hadn't been warned, then who knows what would have happened?
- [50:11]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
But instead it is Charles himself who will have to flee London. And by the end of January, as you put it, the storm broke. So, I mean, what is happening now in the aftermath of this attempted seizure of the five members and that Failure.
- [50:30]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Well, the first thing that happens is that Charles tries again. And the day after he went into the City of London and went to the Guildhall, which is very, very close, actually. I mean, he didn't know this, but it's very, very close to where the five members were probably hiding on Colma Street. And he tried to get the city to hand them over, and the city said no. And there's this one incident which happened when Charles was on his way back in a coach, is that someone ran up to his coach and threw in a pamphlet which basically sort of. I mean, it all but accused him of being a tyrant and encouraged people to withdraw their allegiance to him. And these pamphlets have been scattered around St. Paul. So this is real sort of sense of an uprising of the people in. In London. And Charles, Charles, he can't escape it. He's in this coach, which is supposed to give him protection against the elements and the outside world. But people are able to run up to him and throw in this kind of stuff. So it's very, very frightening for Charles. And very soon he leaves London and sort of ends up in. Initially goes out to Hampton Court and then Windsor. But there's still this kind of political crisis in Parliament. What it ends up hinging on is this question of the militia. Because of what had happened, because of this sort of what was perceived as a military attack on Parliament. The reformists wanted to get control of the county militia because that would protect them. But of course, the county militia had always been controlled by the Crown. And for Parliament to take control of it was a real kind of really sort of radical step. And there's no way that Charles would, or. It's very unlikely that Charles would actually sign off on a bill, bill, the parliamentary bill, taking away his control of the militia. So what eventually happened, and this is again in an atmosphere of sort of big street protests outside Parliament, including one which is a really interesting one, where huge crowds of women came down to Parliament. This is one of the first sort of women's protest movements in the Civil War. It becomes an occurring theme. And eventually, with this kind of process going on, eventually, in early March, Parliament passed a. What was called the militia ordinance. It sounds very unsexy. Again, it's sort of. Not a kind of. Yeah, not unstirring, I suppose, but it's really, really important because what they were doing by passing this as an ordinance, it went into legal force, even though it didn't have the ascent of the king. And in order to do that, they basically had to argue that Constitutionally, they had the right to do that. If the King was obviously going crazy or acting against the interests of the country, of the people, then it was Parliament's role. And it's almost like the same logic as ship money, but it's Parliament taking the emergency powers, if you like, because they represent the. As they see it, they pass this ordinance giving them control of the militia and. But as I say, they do it on the basis that they are the ones who represent the nation best. They are the ones who represent the people. So you've kind of come from a situation where most people accept that ultimately it's the King who represents the nation to a moment where Parliament is saying, no, we as representatives of the people are the ones who represent the nation better. And that is an insurmountable divide. People are not going to square that circle without fighting it out, if you like.
- [53:40]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And so it will come to pass. I mean, military preparations step up on both sides. We get to June and we get the 19 propositions that are put to the King as a moment of perhaps attempting to prevent war. How radical were they? Was there any way that Charles could have accepted?
- [54:02]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
I don't think so. I mean, he could, but I don't think he would have considered himself to be a king in the sense that he understood it. I mean, we talked about Charles being brittle quite early on. He took any kind of criticism or resistance to him as essentially being akin to wanting to overthrow his monarchy. And what the 19 propositions were asking, alongside some fairly kind of intrusive things about kind of having some control over how his children were brought up, is things which, as a father, I don't think he would ever want to accept that, let alone as a kid king. But also they took control of the government, the legal system, all these kind of things. And in Charles's eyes, these propositions would have made him simply like a Duke of Venice, not a king worthy of the name. I mean, to our eyes, broadly speaking, they would have made him a constitutional monarch. There's one way of looking at the 19 propositions is to sort of say, well, ultimately that was the set of ideas that won out in the United Kingdom kingdom. But I don't think there was any chance really of Charles accepting them. And it's interesting that he sent people off, he had some of his best writers, including the Lord Falkland, who's kind of incredibly intelligent, well liked aristocrat, and they go away and they write a response to it. And they basically say, if we do this, then ultimately the poor people are going to overthrow the government completely and then they won't have to work and basically the whole state will fall apart because the ancient sort of hierarchy will be destroyed. So again, this sort of royalist party, which has been a thread throughout this story, who believe in the social order and want to sort of preserve things as they are, broadly speaking, they become a key constituency. And in 1642, one of the real successes of Charles, actually is that even after this catastrophe in January, where suddenly everyone's against or most people are against him, he still manages to build up this party of support. So you get to late 1642, when there's actual armies in the field and it's pretty, pretty evenly split down the middle. So again, he's quite good as a party leader. He's good, actually. Civil war suits Charles because he doesn't have to necessarily bring people on side with whom he disagrees.
- [56:13]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And looking at it from the other side for Parliament, the King's actions are really no less than a declaration of war.
- [56:21]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yeah, I mean, they definitely show that he can't be trusted. I mean, if you are one of the reformist leaders, like John Pym or something like that, that you are looking at this and you're saying, well, if this guy gets control again, then I'm off to the block and I'm not particularly keen on that. So that it does create this urgency for the reformists to make sure that they are safe and the only way they can really do that is to make sure that the King loses all power. Arguably, it's very dishonorable, horrible reasons. It's all self preservation, but essentially what they're arguing for, what they have to argue for is a constitutional monarch. So, yeah, I mean, one of the things I love about this whole period and this whole story is that you can't look at anyone and go, oh, yes, that's absolutely the forerunner of modernity. Well done to you. You just can't. These people are. They live in their time and can be, can be horrible, horrible people. And yet the world that they created through their horribleness or through their self interestedness and their venality, the world that they created is one that has become our own through all these kind of fascinating events. So it's great, I love it. It's ambiguous shades of gray.
- [57:34]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
It certainly is. So we get to Civil War, 22 August, and my final question for you is this. And it's a tricky one, because we started with a tricky one, let's end with one.
- [57:45]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
I like the tricky ones. The Tricky ones are good.
- [57:46]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Was there any point at which civil war could have been stopped?
- [57:51]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yeah, that's a really good question. I used to set this question to my students. I think the answer I used to give was that it was the Irish rebellion, which was the sort of moment when it became inevitable. But I actually think that the more I did the work on this book actually, and the more I read about it, I think I changed my mind quite a bit about that. I think it came very, very close to a royalist victory in that winter. I actually think if Charles had just kind of have held back and not gone in the two footed challenge on the Houses of Parliament, if he hadn't done that, if he'd held his nerve, I think he would have probably come out of it okay. I think he would have got, got his majority in both houses. I think he would have got a financial settlement. I think the sort of moderate royalists, the sort of Hydes, the Falklands, all these kind of people, they would have been the ones in positions of authority. I think a lot of the moderate reformists would have kind of swung behind this new state, this new settlement, and I think he would have been fine. So I think my thinking I'll probably change my mind in a year or so. I don't know, who knows? That's the great thing about this kind of stuff. I think my current view is that actually that moment when he goes into Parliament on 4 January 1642, that's the moment of no return. I think. Ask me again in a week, I might have a different answer.
- [59:09]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
It's so interesting, isn't it? When I went up to university.
- [59:15]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
We.
- [59:15]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Were busy debunking the great men theory of history, and yet I do feel that the role of individuals is so important. You think about if the Civil War had not happened, if Charles had held back. You say in your book that the slaughter of the Civil War was proportionately greater as a proportion of population than that of the First World War. I mean, the number of people who died as a result of Charles's actions that winter is extraordinary.
- [59:45]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
It's a tough conflict. It really was, it was nasty. And that's even before you get onto what happened in Scotland and Ireland of course as well, which is all part of it. But yeah, I mean, I hope that I've kind of shown that the people of London had a critical role. But one of the great things about writing narrative history is it really does force you out of that historian's hubris, which thinks that you can explain everything and actually it sort of forces you to think about just how contingent a lot of things can be. Not everything, but, you know, a lot of things, particularly in politics.
- [60:21]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Yes. And I don't think it does take us back to a great man theory of history, by the way, because you're pointing out exactly the importance of ordinary individuals in the making of history as well.
- [60:31]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Yeah, yeah. I mean, if that guy hadn't run up to Charles's coach, what would have happened then? One of the great things about that story is that he goes to the printer's house. House and they can't find a Bible. So they asked the printer's wife if they can borrow her Bible. Imagine if she didn't have her bible. What, what would have happened? I don't know. Who knows? Who knows?
- [60:51]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Well, this has been utterly fascinating. Thank you so much, Jonathan. It's always a pleasure to talk to you and this book, the Blood and Winter is an absolute triumph. Thank you so much for coming on to talk about it.
- [61:03]
Dr. Jonathan Healy
Thank you. It's always great to see. Come on. Not just the Tudors. It's brilliant.
- [61:08]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Thanks for listening to Not Just the Tudors and to my researcher Alice Smith and my producer Rob Weinberg. And do join me, Professor Susannah Lipscomb next time for another episode of Not Just the Tudors from history. Hit.
- [61:32]
Verizon Representative
Now at Verizon, we have some big news for your peace of mind. For all our customers, existing and new, we're locking in low prices for three years guaranteed on MyPlan and my home. That's future you peace of mind and everyone can save on a brand new phone on MyPlan. When you trade in any phone from one of our top brands, that's new phone peace of mind. Because at Verizon, whether you're already a customer or you're just joining us, we got you. Visit Verizon today. Price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate addition. Additional terms and conditions apply for all offers. When you're earning your degree, the right support can make a difference. That's why at Capella University, learning online.
- [62:08]
BetterHelp Representative
Doesn'T mean learning alone.
- [62:10]
Verizon Representative
You'll get support from people who care about your success, including your dedicated academic coach who's available every step of the way. Whether you're working toward a bachelor's, master's.
- [62:20]
BetterHelp Representative
Or doctoral degree, you can learn confidently.
- [62:23]
Verizon Representative
Knowing you'll get la juda que necesitas un futura different ma serca de lo ca University.
- [62:29]
BetterHelp Representative
Learn more at Capella Eduardo.