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?

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 17:05:02 (#36 of 153)

I think I'll opt for Stephen, I like the idea of a King Steve. Also Matilda had already been an Empress and its hard to love a carpet bagger.

nac1001 - 27 Jun 2019 17:33:01 (#37 of 153)

The best named king we never had was Alfonso, son of Edward I and first in line until his death. Leaving the job to the less than wonderful Edward II.

AlanII - 27 Jun 2019 17:36:36 (#38 of 153)

The best named kings ever though were French. Louis the Fat, Charles the Bald and (though I have yet to locate him) Childeric the Sweaty.

HouseOfLametta - 27 Jun 2019 17:37:40 (#39 of 153)

John The Stupid was one of theirs.

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 17:38:37 (#40 of 153)

Henry the fowler

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 17:39:17 (#41 of 153)

Aethelred the unready is pretty good though

HouseOfLametta - 27 Jun 2019 17:40:39 (#42 of 153)

Ivar The Boneless.

GyratingTrampoline - 27 Jun 2019 17:43:14 (#43 of 153)

Cnut the Great, bit of a lost opportunity there

FleurDuMal - 27 Jun 2019 17:47:43 (#44 of 153)

William the Conqueror was called William the Bastard at home in Normandy.

He probably invaded Britain out of sheer desperation.

AlanII - 27 Jun 2019 17:48:26 (#45 of 153)

Didn't he relish the name?

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 17:48:29 (#46 of 153)

Steve's son and heir was called Eustace but he died and we got a boring old Henry.

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 17:49:10 (#47 of 153)

And we should have had a real King Arthur

Dender - 27 Jun 2019 17:51:50 (#48 of 153)

We did (very briefly) have a King Louis of our very own. Before he became Louis VIII of France, he was proclaimed King in England during the Barons Revolt against King John and is pretty much written out of our history now.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 17:53:17 (#49 of 153)

I went for Edward IV over Henry VI but obviously you're allowed to change sides in the wars of the roses. So I'll side with Henry VII over Richard II mainly because whatever his faults he managed to put an end to the whole sorry business and with it the middle ages. The Tudor state he built was strong enough to resist discontented Barons kicking off.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 17:55:42 (#50 of 153)

I wonder if King Stephen was anything like Stephen King?

Tadagee - 27 Jun 2019 18:05:38 (#51 of 153)

So I'll side with Henry VII over Richard II mainly because whatever his faults he managed to put an end to the whole sorry business and with it the middle ages.

Among all the other brickbats he has to deal with poor old Richard generally seems to be treated like he was personally responsible for delaying the arrival of the Renaissance in Britain.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 18:09:47 (#52 of 153)

Actually, the real reason I prefer Henry VII is I found all the whole rehabilition of Richard III thing a bit tedious, especially those twats who dug him up. I might have been more partial to him if he had stayed under the carpark.

RosyLovelady - 27 Jun 2019 18:32:50 (#53 of 153)

My late father told me that Lovelady was an Irish name and that was reason enough to change it when I was nine years old.

Many years later, I discovered that it's actually a Lancashire name--and all at once I had a reason to take a side in the Wars of the Roses.

RosyLovelady - 27 Jun 2019 18:34:44 (#54 of 153)

And Fleur's quite right:

Cromwell’s cancellation of Christmas has a lot to recommend it.

nac1001 - 27 Jun 2019 18:48:23 (#55 of 153)

I am a Yorkist until Warwick switched sides, then back to York after Barnet.

Parliament all the way

Check Subscriptions
Home » History