Loyalty to the Monarchy in Late Medieval and Early Modern Britain is a collection of thirteen thoughtful essays, originally presented at a conference held at Nottingham University in January 2018, with an introductory essay by the editors. They are divided chronologically into three sections: late medieval and early Tudor, later Tudor and early Stuart, and Civil War and Restoration. While each period had its unique challenges, all had the reciprocal obligation of loyalty between the Crown and its subjects. Most of the essays focus on the English experience, but two are concerned with Scotland, one with Wales, and another with the Virginia colony. With civil wars at each end, assorted rebellions, and two changes of dynasty in between, the chosen period is particularly fruitful for an exploration of what it meant to be loyal during those tumultuous times. A common theme in all the essays is that although kings and queens appealed to their subjects’ loyalty at times of stress, they realized that loyalty was something that needed to be nurtured all the time.

Several essays examine ways monarchs exploited chivalric traditions to strengthen ties with their more powerful subjects. Edward IV used tournaments to bind the nobility to the Yorkist cause and frequently participated in them, while Elizabeth, who could not follow his example, stressed other chivalric themes. For those further down the social ladder, the Tudors used proclamations, sermons, and homilies to achieve similar results. Charles II's coronation showed that such appeals were not always successful. Intended to minimize past turmoil with an overwhelming public relations spectacle, the festivities had mixed results.

Of course, just as kings sought to encourage the bonds of loyalty, so subjects managed to exploit this need for their own advantage. Sir Amias Paulet and his son, Sir Hugh, who established their loyal credentials by suppressing rebellions and supporting Henry VIII's religious changes, were able to convert their loyalty into amassing lucrative local offices in Somerset. Others demonstrated that their loyalty was blatantly self-serving. The dedications of books donated to Henry VIII reveal the donors’ desire to gain favor, gain support for a particular policy, or simply boost sales. As time went by, some royal servants discovered that their loyalty to the Crown came at a price. Charles I pushed more duties on the shoulders of his sheriffs, particularly the collection of his novel and hated taxes. Consequently, they found themselves caught between their loyalty to the Crown and their natural affinity with their neighbors. Scottish Royalists were caught in a similar dilemma with the added complication of the National Covenant.

As the Civil War approached, radicals discovered new definitions of loyalty. The Puritan martyrs John Bastwick, William Prynne, and Henry Burton adopted the tactic of denying royal authority by comparing their situations to that of the apostle Paul before the tyrannical Roman emperor Nero. At their trials they claimed that they owed loyalty to a heavenly Caesar, not an earthly one. The martyrs’ claim that they were loyal to the Crown, just not to the policies of this particular king, may have assuaged their tender consciences, but it was denied by rulings in courts of common law. In Storie's Case, courts ruled that loyalty was established at birth and was irrevocable. Storie had argued that he had previously revoked his obligation to Queen Elizabeth and sworn allegiance to Philip of Spain and thus could not have been deemed guilty of treason. Calvin's Case further established that not only did loyalty begin at birth but it was also determined by the place of birth. The lawyers may have been satisfied that natural law confirmed in common law that subjects owed perpetual loyalty to the Crown from birth, but kings learned, or should have, that having the law on their side was not sufficient. In their separate essays these authors have demonstrated that effective kingship required more.