
In search of Britain's most important – and elusive
The atmosphere would have been rather different 380 years ago. Then, in the mists of the mid-17th century, there would have been red-coated men massing on the north side of the village, a clank of weapons being checked, a stamping and snorting of horses under rein.
And, perhaps too, a sense of being on the precipice of history.
On June 14 1645, Naseby witnessed one of the most important battles in British history. You might even stretch this superlative to wider European and global history. In the dawn hours of that crisp summer day, Charles I was still – relatively – ensconced on the English throne.
By the afternoon, he was halfway to the executioner's block, Oliver Cromwell was well on his way to power, and the country had taken a colossal leap towards fully fledged parliamentary democracy.
Back in the tranquility of 2025, down at Naseby Village Hall, Richard Brinkman is more than happy to shatter the rustic peace by talking of war. So is the tour group – some 15 of us – gathered in an upper room overlooking the football pitch. Maps are spread out, diagrams of troop manoeuvres are pinned to the walls – and the small audience is all ears.
'The English Civil War was, well, very uncivil,' Brinkman says, pithily. 'It killed seven per cent of the population. To put that into context, the equivalent figure for the First World War was three per cent.'
A fair few of those who went to their graves did so at Naseby. There were over 1,000 Royalist casualties on June 14 1645. And around 400 men from Parliament's freshly assembled New Model Army – which operated under the leadership of Cromwell and the experienced military campaigner Sir Thomas Fairfax – also met their maker.
But the butchery was most damaging to the king's cause. By the battle's end, Charles's ability to field a proper fighting force – and any realistic chance of triumph in a conflict that had erupted from the collapse of the relationship between the crown and the Commons – had vanished.
It was quite the collision; a clash of ideals, beliefs and principles, as well as swords. And it is well worth further investigation in the present. Richard Brinkman is one of several guides who devote time to the Naseby Battlefield Project (NBP) – the historical society, set up in 2007, whose tours are the best way to gain an understanding of what happened.
Over the course of the morning, in a short convoy of cars (the entire theatre of action is almost five miles in breadth), we head out to chart the events of that destructive day at four key hotspots. Fairfax's View, directly north-east of Naseby, occupies the hilltop from which the wily Parliamentarian general appraised his enemy, concealing some of his much larger force behind the ridge line so as to disguise a numerical advantage that might have dissuaded the Royalists from fighting
By contrast, Prince Rupert's Viewpoint lurks at the opposite end of the battlefield, gazing south-west from a position some four miles away, in the direction of Market Harborough.
Rupert of the Rhine was both Charles's nephew and his foremost asset; 'the fighter jet of his era,' Brinkman says of an immensely gifted young commander (Rupert was 25 in June 1645) who had learnt his craft amid the cut and thrust of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), which was still raging across continental Europe.
But he was also hot-headed; a character flaw that would see him charge headlong into the fray that morning – and then charge right out of it again, leading his cavalry on a mission towards the Parliamentarian rear in search of familiar foes espied, and scores he wished to settle. His impetuosity would have big consequences – leaving the royal infantry badly exposed.
These poor souls would meet their fate on the slope below modern-day Naseby's postcard landmark – the Cromwell Monument, an obelisk that was unveiled at the top of the field in 1936. Here, slaughter occurred; slaughter so vicious that the war might have ended that day.
Watching the carnage unfold from the other side of the field, Charles readied himself to sally forth – only to be stopped by Scottish nobleman the Earl of Carnwath, who seized the royal bridle and asked: 'Would you go upon your death, sire?'. The king escaped, and would fight on for nearly two years – but the initiative lost at Naseby was never regained.
These three key locations are all signposted, and open to the public. A fourth, hidden at the back of a farm, is all but inaccessible without a tour. But when we arrive at Sulby Hedges, we are hailed, from afar, by Alan Larsen – a professional re-enactor, who blasts a pistol as he rounds the corner of the field, dressed as a Parliamentarian dragoon (mounted infantry).
'I trust I have your attention?' he enquires, as the smoke dissipates – before launching into a treatise on this out-of-the-way location's relevance. Sulby Hedges, he explains, was the spot where the two armies first engaged; a sudden exchange of fire which triggered the battle. In further demonstration, Larsen proceeds to load and shoot a musket (while maintaining his balance in the saddle).
For all its significance, the Battle of Naseby can be difficult to trace in the fields where so many came to grief. A good deal of the problem is that much of the battle-site is fenced off as private land.
When I meet him for a coffee, local historian Peter Burton expresses his frustration that there is not more for tourists to see. Unlike Bannockburn or Hastings, Naseby does not have a dedicated visitor centre. A suitable plot was purchased as long ago as 2009, and planning permission was granted in 2011, but the funding (roughly £300,000) could not be raised.
A fall-back plan to install a museum at All Saints' Church also came to nothing. The latest suggestion is to give the area a higher profile by denoting it as a country park.
Nonetheless, the sphere of action was so vast – with the remains of the royal army fleeing north towards Market Harborough, its baggage train scattering and the king's private papers seized – that it is strangely easy to trip over somewhere (or something) pertinent.
The neighbouring village of Sibbertoft, three miles north of Naseby, is a case in point. Its fields were in harm's way as the New Model Army took aim at the fleeing royalists' backs. So much so that musket balls have been an ongoing threat to the machinery at Brook Meadow farm for over a century.
Owner Jasper Hart proudly shows me his collection of 17th-century shrapnel and lead shot, all unearthed on his land, or prised from the tyres of his tractor. His daughter Claire, meanwhile, manages the farm's accommodation – a trio of luxury chalets built overlooking a lake where, when I check in, Northamptonshire anglers are passing the afternoon in studious contemplation.
Woodpecker, the newest chalet, is a splendid place to spend a night; a viewpoint every bit as illustrative as Fairfax's or Rupert's – albeit onto the beauty of the English countryside rather than the movements of an ideological foe. When I wake the next day, a haze is hanging over the lake. Somewhere beyond the farm, I hear the crack of a rifle, and a shout.
Clay-pigeon shooting it may be, but in the uneasy light, I can half believe it might be Oliver Cromwell himself, back to stride the scene of his greatest hour.
Visiting there
The Naseby Battlefield Project offers regular guided tours of the battle-site. Eleven tours are still in the diary for 2025 (the next on June 22, the last on December 7), priced at £25 per person. Participants require access to a car.
The NBP is also hosting a 380th anniversary event today (June 14) – including a battle re-enactment (free; cars £10).
Staying there
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: At 4.25pm, 800 years of history drew to a close. Exit the dukes and earls
Eight centuries of English history ended at 4.25pm when the House of Lords accepted that hereditary peers should be given the heave-ho. There was no division on the third reading of the Bill. 'The contents have it,' declared Lady Fookes on the Woolsack, from under an orange hairdo that matched splashes of her jazzy jacket. And that, m'dears, was that. Chop! Exit the dukes and earls and viscounts and hereditary barons. In their absence we will have a Lords entirely appointed by prime ministers. Our political class has distinguished itself. It has made a blot on our democracy even stinkier. And yet, as human spectacle, the Lords has its moments. One Lord Spiritual (ie bishop) was in attendance. It was that one from Newcastle who assassinated Justin Welby. She speaks all the jargon about 'impact assessments' and wears an old pair of Maurice Saatchi's spectacles. Nearby: Kenneth O. Morgan (Lab). Very Welsh. Aged 91, he could be a good 20 years older. Imagine the poet R.S. Thomas's suave twin. The Europhile Duke of Wellington (Crossbencher) graced us with his presence, handsome and maybe a little disappointing. More upmarket PR man than a Wellesley. At the far end of the House stood Lady Meyer (Con) in an eyepatch, no doubt the consequence of a recent duel. The air kept being rent by the bark of a country pheasant. On closer analysis this turned out to be a repeated coughing from Lady Butler-Sloss (Crossbencher), retired beak and formidable aunt of the actor Nigel Havers. PG Wodehouse knew her ilk. This was no day for worn arguments about hereditary peers, Lords reform and so forth. The only political gravy swilling around in the bottom of the pan concerned a plea from the Tories that the ejected lords be offered life peerages. Lord True, Tory leader, suggested he and his lot could go on dirty protest and ignore parliamentary conventions unless a few of the departees were shown some clemency. Former MP and Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth (Con) said Labour had now 'lit the fuse... for an elected House' and that could 'blow everything apart' both in the Lords and the Commons. Lord True added that the British people 'have never been asked to assent to an all-appointed House'. Fair point. Quick poll for a website, perhaps: do you approve or not of an Upper House that will now be composed entirely of political-party greasers, prime ministerial acolytes and failed MPs? The tone from departing blue-bloods was one of acidic sorrow rather than anything nastier. Lord Mancroft (Con) felt he and his noble comrades were being 'thrown out like discarded rubbish'. He had not thought it legal, these days, to be sacked on the basis of your birth. 'It feels deeply, deeply offensive.' Lady Smith (Lab), Leader of the House, assured him it was nothing personal; her trouser suit of imperial purple possibly betrayed her truer feelings. Lord Grocott (Lab), who had long waged class war, gloated. Telly scientist Lord Winston (Lab), hands in pockets, made an incomprehensible speech about genes. The 20th Earl of Caithness (Con) thanked Labour for having given him a financial boost in recent years. Having inherited the earldom in 1965, he recalled that the daily allowance when he first attended was a touch under a fiver. Only when the Blairites started filling the place with their own c.1999 did the rate shoot upwards. Things can only get better. All of which leaves me little space to describe the jaw-locking dullness of Sir K. Starmer's session at the Commons liaison committee. Jings, it was joyless. In the second row of the public seats sat a lass in a blue dress who was fighting hard to stay awake. Her eyeballs kept doing that thing where only the whites are visible. She yawned, sighed, eased her neck but it was no good. Both eyes shut, she slumped forward, dead to Westminster. Just like a hereditary peer.


Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Angela Rayner blocked from allowing councils to tax tourists
Angela Rayner pushed for councils to be given powers to tax tourists as part of the government's devolution agenda but was rebuffed by the Treasury. The deputy prime minister wanted to give directly elected mayors the ability to charge their own taxes on hotel stays as part of the government's Devolution Bill, published earlier this month. However, the move, first reported by The Daily Telegraph, was rebuffed by Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, amid fears that it could reduce revenues for businesses already struggling with higher national insurance taxes and rises in the minimum wage. A spokesman for Rayner's department did not deny the rift, saying only that there were 'currently no plans to introduce a tourism tax in England'. Many European cities, including Barcelona, Lisbon, Venice and Amsterdam, charge tourists a tax on the cost of hotel rooms and private rentals, either as a flat rate or percentage of the room charge. Cities in Scotland have their own tax-raising powers. Visitors to Edinburgh and Glasgow will pay 5 per cent on hotel stays from July next year and January 2027 respectively. Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, is among the local leaders pushing to be allowed to charge more in England, while Sir Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, has suggested he would be open to a tourist tax in the capital that would provide more revenue for local projects. Last month, both mayors signed a joint letter with their counterparts in Liverpool, the North East, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands, calling for 'Barcelona-style' tourist tax. • The Sunday Times view: Business is an easy target for tax. Ministers should resist News of the disagreement over a tourism levy came as polling suggested the public would support a new tax regime to attract wealthy foreigners to the UK, provided they use private schools and private healthcare. In total, 67 per cent of people — and 69 per cent of Labour voters — supported special tax treatment for high net-worth investors, according to a report published on Tuesday. A majority of the population said they believed Britain should allow more of the world's wealthiest investors into the country, but only if they make a contribution to the economy and its public finances. Some 66 per cent thought part of that contract should be that foreign investors are banned from using the NHS or the state education system. The survey results were contained in a report jointly published by Onward, a think tank set up by the former Conservative MP Sir Simon Clarke, and the Adam Smith Institute, the free-market campaign group. Called The Prosperity Package, the report calls for a new tax regime for global investors to help stop the exodus of wealth from the UK. Britain is estimated to have lost a quarter of its billionaires over the past two years and is expected to lose a record 16,500 millionaires this year, according to research published over the past month. The acceleration in wealth migration since Labour came to power follows Reeves's decision to abolish the non-domiciled tax regime and apply inheritance tax to family businesses and farms. The old non-dom regime allowed wealthy foreigners who had lived in Britain for more than seven years to avoid paying UK taxes on their worldwide earnings in exchange for a fee starting at £30,000 a year. In its place, Labour introduced a new residence-based system that makes wealthy foreigners pay UK tax on their global earnings after living in the UK for four years, while their worldwide assets become subject to UK inheritance tax after ten years. • Surge in wealthy using insurance to beat inheritance tax hit The authors of The Prosperity Package report suggest an alternative that they believe would boost growth and increase tax revenue by attracting global investors to the UK. Under their scheme, wealthy foreigners would be allowed to move to the UK and keep their global assets, income and gains away from the taxman for 15 years in exchange for an annual fee of £300,000. In addition, applicants would be required to invest a minimum of £3 million into one of eight government-designated 'Industrial Strategy Sectors', delivering cash into areas such as clean energy, the life sciences, and digital technologies. Those who apply to the scheme would also have 'no recourse to public funds' and be required to take out private health insurance and educate their children in the private school system. When the proposed scheme was put to a representative sample of 2,000 Britons, it was supported by 53 per cent of respondents and opposed by only 15 per cent. • Non-dom crackdown 'could leave £4bn hole in public finances' The report says that modelling of the regime suggests that if implemented and taken up by 1,000 people, it would give a £30 billion boost to the economy after ten years and raise a cumulative £13 billion in extra tax revenues. The proposal has similarities to the previous Conservative government's Tier 1 investor visa scheme, which required applicants to invest a minimum of £2 million in either UK government bonds, British shares or loans to UK-registered companies. That scheme was abolished in 2022 after being criticised for being open to abuse by allowing foreigners with questionable sources of wealth to gain residency. The authors of The Prosperity Package report say their proposal would raise more tax revenue and they propose stricter checks on applicants. • Why the super-rich are leaving Britain Maxwell Marlow, of the Adam Smith Institute and author of the report, said: 'The public are clear — they want fairness, not a fortress. If the wealthy contribute significantly and don't draw on the state, most voters are open to their investment. Our proposal meets this test and puts Britain back in the race to attract global capital.' The plan has already attracted some cross-party support. Lord Mendelsohn, the Labour peer and the party's former business and trade spokesman in the House of Lords, said: 'I do not agree with some colleagues that we should wave goodbye to the wealthy; we should be doing whatever we can to welcome them back, and new investors, entrepreneurs, and high spenders to our shores. 'Crucially though, they must contribute to Britain, rather than just using it.'


Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
Watchdog must fine social media companies that are slow to remove racism after Jess Carter abuse, says culture secretary
The online safety regulator should use powers to fine social media companies that are not quickly removing racism, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told Sky News, after concerns were raised by England defender Jess Carter. Carter has declared herself ready to play in the Women's European Championship semi-final against Italy on Tuesday after speaking out on the hate she has faced online during the tournament. Players have expressed frustration they are having to use their platform to pressure the tech firms, given how often footballers have had to deal with racist abuse. There is now the Online Safety Act which should be compelling the companies to take action. "We've introduced new laws so that platforms are under a legal obligation to take down that sort of disgusting content immediately," Ms Nandy told Sky News. "And they can be pursued through fines, through Ofcom, if they don't do it. "It's now up to those platforms and up to Ofcom to fulfil those roles that we've given them and make sure that this is stamped out online, that it's dealt with very quickly." But Kick It Out chairman Sanjay Bhandari told Sky News on Sunday that "it's got worse on social media, not better" - singling out Elon Musk's X and Mark Zuckerberg's Instagram. Neither of the companies has responded to requests for comment, including via a public X post. England defender Lucy Bronze said "online abuse is getting worse and worse" in women's football. Ms Nandy said: "The racial abuse that's been directed at Jess Carter is utterly disgusting and unfortunately is too common for women at the top of their game, not just in football but across sport as a whole. "We're considering as a government what more we can do to protect women players who reach those levels of exposure." The government has made dealing with sports issues a priority, with legislation passed today to introduce an independent regulator for men's football. The watchdog aims to ensure clubs are run sustainably and are accountable to their fans. Ms Nandy said: "There are now protections in law for fans and for clubs to make sure that we have really fit and proper owners; that there is somebody who can tackle rogue owners when problems arise, that we get a proper financial flow to ensure the sustainability of clubs throughout the football pyramid and to make that fans are put back at the heart of the game where they belong." The Premier League remains concerned the regulator could harm the success of its competition through unintended consequences.