No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by Tadagee on Jun 26, 2019 10:29:34 PM
British Civil Wars: which side are you? Any why?

The Anarchy: Stephen or Matilda?

The Wars of the Roses: York or Lancaster?

The Civil War: Royalist or Parliamentarian?

DesEsseintes - 28 Jun 2019 20:45:28 (#106 of 153)

Neither of them in all three. Same as Brexit.

Which is the point, I am guessing.

Bernadette43 - 28 Jun 2019 21:33:53 (#107 of 153)

The Wars of the Roses, I would definitely be on the side of the White Rose, but I admire greatly Margaret Beufort who fought so bravely to put her son Henry V11 on the throne. Also the Welsh Jasper Tudor (brother to her husband) Edmund Tudor, played his part. She lived to a grand old age, and several of Henry V111's wives were in thrall of her.

Arjuna - 30 Jun 2019 21:21:59 (#108 of 153)

Historian Lisa Hilton discovers how, in just fifty tempestuous days, Charles I’s rule collapsed, laying the foundations for civil war, the loss of royal power and, ultimately, the king’s head

on next week

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006pb0

xbod72 - 30 Jun 2019 21:31:49 (#109 of 153)

Surely the foundations for the king's head were his neck?

xbod72 - 30 Jun 2019 21:32:34 (#110 of 153)

These historians sometimes seem to get to be able to ask themselves questions they can easily answer. I think someone else should ask the things.

Arjuna - 01 Jul 2019 09:32:18 (#111 of 153)

November 1641. King Charles I is in Edinburgh. While he is away from his capital, the leader of the House of Commons, John Pym, is plotting a move to limit the King’s power. The duel between these two men will spiral across the next weeks into an irrecoverable split across the country.

21 November: Pym dominates a stormy debate in the House of Commons over a document known as the Grand Remonstrance. It is a list of 200 complaints against Charles I. It claims he is under the influence of ‘evil counsellors’, a coded reference to the Queen – Charles I’s French Catholic wife, Henrietta Maria. In Ireland, a Catholic uprising, which has led to the deaths of thousands of Protestants, is focusing minds in Parliament.

It is one of the greatest debates in parliamentary history, lasting 14 hours. It is passed - 52% to 48%. The Grand Remonstrance - a vote of no confidence in the King’s rule - will now be presented to the King.

25 November: Charles arrives back in London. He makes a show of power and parades through the city with 500 horsemen. The King having returned, discussion turns to the rebellion in Ireland. An army must be sent to crush the Catholic rebels, but who should lead it? Pym fears the King will use the army to suppress his opponents. And Charles fears Pym will use the army to arrest his Catholic queen.

The King fights back. He issues a proclamation on 12 December ordering all MPs to London by 12 January 1642. He is confident that, with a full House of Commons, he will have a majority with which to stamp out John Pym’s faction. The clock is ticking. The deadline is set.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006pbh

It's on consecutive nights next week - Tuesday to Thursday

breakfast - 01 Jul 2019 09:45:07 (#112 of 153)

Charles needs to keep calm and not lose his head.

Hilary - 01 Jul 2019 10:14:33 (#113 of 153)

It is one of the greatest debates in parliamentary history, lasting 14 hours. It is passed - 52% to 48%. The Grand Remonstrance - a vote of no confidence in the King’s rule - will now be presented to the King.

With a majority as narrow as that, it is surprising that nobody called for the whole thing to be re-run, given that so many of the 52% clearly didn't have a clue what they were voting for, or what the likely consequences would be. We are more sophisticated nowadays.

TRaney - 01 Jul 2019 10:16:48 (#114 of 153)

https://twitter.com/rinnywee/status/11453193516266
74180?s=21

Arjuna - 04 Jul 2019 08:13:34 (#115 of 153)

Good piece on Henry IV's and others claim to the throne.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TK9CmllKrdXiMR
lRqAT8FJ9bHt-uITYs5-Kl-3epPmQ/mobilebasic

TRaney - 04 Jul 2019 08:17:04 (#116 of 153)

Mortimer is fond of disputing the accepted story. Didn't he claim Edward II lived to old age?

AlanII - 04 Jul 2019 08:29:18 (#117 of 153)

With a majority as narrow as that, it is surprising that nobody called for the whole thing to be re-run, given that so many of the 52% clearly didn't have a clue what they were voting for, or what the likely consequences would be. We are more sophisticated nowadays.

Hahaha

Arjuna - 04 Jul 2019 09:05:42 (#118 of 153)

It's always a tricky job trying to disentangle the various claims to the throne during the Wars of Roses. Perhaps its fitting that they ended with Henry VII whose claim was so weak that he didn't even bother to formally declare it.

Arjuna - 08 Jul 2019 07:52:36 (#119 of 153)

I have just finished reading The Winter King by Thomas Penn, the ruthless efficiecency of Henry VII's regime is frightening. He managed not only to clamp down on potential rivals but also build an astonishing war chest that surely acted as deterent to opposition. One of the root causes of the wars had been the system of Bastard Feudalism that enabled Barons to build private armies. Henry not only outlaws this but shows he has the means to pay for vast forces himself.

Hilary - 08 Jul 2019 08:54:06 (#120 of 153)

I should have thought some ruthless efficiency by a centralising administration was rather what the country needed after so many decades of ruinous civil war. And I do not find the abolition of private armies 'frightening'; quite the reverse.

Arjuna - 08 Jul 2019 12:44:52 (#121 of 153)

Not all aspects of his regime was frightening and accumulating huge amounts of cash probably was the only way to end the civil wars and he found the means to do it via the Council Learned in Law. It effectively turned the legal system into a revenue raising device.

The brainchild of Sir Reginald Bray, the Council Learned was introduced in 1495 to defend Henry's position as a feudal landlord, maintain the King`s revenue and exploit his prerogative rights. It dealt with the king's fiscal matters and enforced payments of debts. It proved to be much more efficient than the Exchequer. The council was a secondary department to the Star Chamber, but it was the Council Learned in Law that made the system of bonds and recognisances work so effectively.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Learned_in
_the_Law

DesEsseintes - 08 Jul 2019 18:34:15 (#122 of 153)

There you go, then. Nationalize everything, and smash thé forces of the business state, and well be fine.

Arjuna - 10 Jul 2019 10:58:47 (#123 of 153)

The first episode of Downfall of a King was pretty good, asides from some rubbish recreations and the appearance of Charles Spencer. I think one of the major problems in explaining the cause of the civil wars is knowing how far back to go, this concentrates on the months before Charles tries to make arrests in the house. It is certainly a turbulent period but parliament had made substantial gains in the year before hand, notably passing legislation to make itself indissolvable and indicting the Earl of Strafford for Treason.



Arjuna - 11 Jul 2019 07:29:54 (#124 of 153)

Excellent episode last night, it's good to see an historical documentary that doesn't just go over the same ground. The revolution of 1641 is an interesting story but in our school history things like huge crowds instigating action, surrounding palaces and attacking anyone who looked like a Bishop didn't get much a mention only Charles trying to arrest Pym and others.

Pym was certainly a political genius in the way he could manipulate Parliament. He could also deal with the press, a that time an entirely novel phenomonen that - " No Bishops, No Popish lords" was probably the first campaigning political catchphrase. It was also deceptive, I don't think there were any Popish Lords actually sitting, it's just an attempt to associate Anglican bishops with popery.

Lisa Hilton mentioned the perpetual parliament act and asked why Charles was daft enough to sign it. The answer is that he had been made to sign it earlier in the year. Huge crowds had penned him in at Whitehall and he feared for his safety if he did not. This was why he had left the capital for Scotland and only returned at the head of a military parade.

TRaney - 11 Jul 2019 21:49:11 (#125 of 153)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4426712/Why-t-women-accept-sexy-brainy-feminist.html

Check Subscriptions
|
Home » History