Bellany, Alastair and Cogswell, Thomas. The Murder of King James I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.
Alastair Bellany and Thomas Cogswell collaborate to create an original book that looks at the creation and movement of the radical theory that King James I was murdered. The book is rather refreshing and does not look at whether James I was murdered but instead looks at the spread of the theory that Duke Buckingham poisoned him on his death bed. The death of King James occurred during a difficult time in English history, and his successor, Charles I, would inherit a kingdom on the verge of revolution. Shortly after the death of James I, rumors spread that Buckingham poisoned James to give the throne to Charles. The spread of the theory of murder sheds light on England’s political and social history in the early years of the 1600s.
England in the 1620s was a kingdom filled with fear and paranoia. The country was gripped by fear of a catholic invasion, and the Protestant nations of Europe were threatened by the dual threat of Austria and Spain. The Netherlands and various German states were under threat, and Austria invaded some German states to place a Catholic king on the throne. Charles tried to walk the knife’s edge of supporting protestants in Europe and avoiding war with the Catholic nations. Charles I actions towards Spain drove a wedge between him and English citizens. The grievances that English citizens had towards Charles and his use of the king’s power sparked the tender generated around James’ I death.
The death of King James was a traumatic event for many in the King’s court. Duke Buckingham was a great friend of James, and he grew in power due to his friendship. In the last days of James’ life, Buckingham brought several medicines to heal James. The medication did not work, and James died several days later. Buckingham was with James till his dying breath, which implicated him in the eyes of some to poison the king. The death of the king sent shockwaves throughout English society. Some in Parliament were hesitant with the growing power of Buckingham and the monarch. James died in 1625, George Eglisham wrote a pamphlet in 1626 that argued that Buckingham caused James’ I death. Eglisham’s pamphlet recounted courtly suspicion and a conspiracy to kill the King of England.
Eglisham’s pamphlet The Forerunner of Revenge was based on an underlying distrust of monarchical power in the early 1600s. Members of Parliament saw an increase in the monarch’s strength as a direct threat to their power. The theory that Buckingham killed James I was not just reserved for members of Parliament. Bellany and Cogswell demonstrate that people from all spheres of English life had heard that the King had been murdered. In one notable example, a man who cared for cattle at a local fair listened to the rumor of the murder of the king. The distrust of the monarch trickled down to every stratum of society.
The Duke of Buckingham was murdered in 1628 by loyal members of the Parliament after the Duke survived multiple instances of impeachment. Both times that Buckingham faced impeachment, Charles I granted a favor for his friend by dissolving Parliament before a vote could occur. The treatment Charles I gave to Buckingham widened the divide between the monarch and Parliament. Popular sentiment was in favor of the death of Buckingham, and he was very unpopular in Parliament. Through abolishing Parliament Charles, I became a threat to the power of Parliament by abusing his powers as king.
One of the wild theories that circulated in the 1620s was Charles I was complicit in the murder of his father. Charles I had much to gain from his father’s death, but having his father killed was a step too far. No evidence was ever brought forth that Charles killed his father, but the rumor persisted. The pamphlet was a product not just for English readers but, instead, was intended for a European audience. Eglisham produced the pamphlet in Brussells, and the death of King James was a moment that would have impacts on broader European events. Charles I would bring England into a war with Spain and be the monarch who suffered the fate of a violent revolution that took his life.
The Murder of King James I is a good book that takes a new look at a significant event in English history. Instead of ruling on the validity of 400-year-old rumors, focus on the spread of information. Their analysis reads like an intellectual history that examines how the event of James’ death was remembered around Europe shortly after it happened. Parliament’s distrust towards Charles I and his actions while king led to a revolution between the monarch and Parliament that engulfed all of England.
I enjoyed how Bellany and Cogswell approached the death of King James I. They avoided blaming who killed James and instead gave an honest history of how it was perceived in England at the time. I also was astonished that looking at pamphlets from the 1620s could be used to examine the roots of the English Civil War. Between the fear of Catholic influence and the divide between the King and Parliament, the English Civil War has roots that trace back decades. The emphasis on pamphlets on the period provides insight into how people thought of their government and its members. The Murder of King James I blends political, social, and intellectual history for an original synthesis.
I disliked the number of direct quotes. Direct quotes are great to provide a sense of the people from the time, but many paragraphs are filled with lengthy passages. Some selections could be paraphrased or used in the notes section. Overall, the book was an insightful read that had a hint of true-crime drama mixed with several different historical approaches to create a unique synthesis for the foundations of the English Civil War.
