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?

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 17:49:10 (#47 of 140)

And we should have had a real King Arthur

Dender - 27 Jun 2019 17:51:50 (#48 of 140)

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 140)

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 140)

I wonder if King Stephen was anything like Stephen King?

Tadagee - 27 Jun 2019 18:05:38 (#51 of 140)

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 140)

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 140)

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 140)

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 140)

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

Parliament all the way

surferboogiewhatever - 27 Jun 2019 18:55:54 (#56 of 140)

we should have had a real King Arthur

Or a Geoffrey or a Frederick, or possibly even an Edmund, if various brothers had died in different orders. Not all of them, of course, as any one of them would have changed the course of history in ways we can't predict.

breakfast - 27 Jun 2019 18:58:44 (#57 of 140)

We could still have a King Arthur if Charles opts for the correct forename. But he'll choose George. Like we haven't had enough of them already.

breakfast - 27 Jun 2019 19:02:20 (#58 of 140)

In the meantime, King Alexander Boris of the world.

HerrWalrus - 27 Jun 2019 19:10:14 (#59 of 140)

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

Pity we couldn't restrict it to every four years, like our own World Cup. Having said that, a lot more retail shops would go out of business without the December mayhem.

FleurDuMal - 27 Jun 2019 19:24:38 (#60 of 140)

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.

Such a shame it was the wrong side.

AlanII - 27 Jun 2019 19:43:06 (#61 of 140)

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.

Bloody hell, we (archaeologists) have enough trouble financing our work anyway and, you object to that?

surferboogiewhatever - 27 Jun 2019 20:53:19 (#62 of 140)

But he'll choose George.

I think he'll choose Charles. He might have thought of being George when he was younger, but he's been known as Prince Charles for 70 years now, and I think he's media-savvy enough to realise that it's going to be hard for a lot of people to stop thinking of him as Charles now.

TheExcession - 27 Jun 2019 21:00:53 (#63 of 140)

The whole Richard III being dug up thing was fascinating, but there are some very very weird people who were involved. I'm particularly thinking of the woman on the TV programme about it who burst into tears at the sight of his bones and starting crying about 'how she couldn't bear to see him just lying there' At the time it got me wondering quite how she would have reacted if a bloke who'd been killed over five hundred years ago had sat up and tried to engage her in conversation.

barkis - 27 Jun 2019 21:01:02 (#64 of 140)

A good reason for supporting the Tudors is that it means we English can't be held responible for anything that happened since, there not having been an English dynasty.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:01:54 (#65 of 140)

Bloody hell, we (archaeologists) have enough trouble financing our work anyway and, you object to that?

just think that dead bodies are best left alone, not sure what good it has done digging him and burying him again

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:02:09 (#66 of 140)

The Scots, Dutch and Germans also bail you out of course

Check Subscriptions
|
Home » History