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?

PostmodernToss - 26 Jun 2019 23:00:09 (#5 of 129)

Definitely a Royalist for the ECW. I object to puritans on aesthetic grounds as much as anything.

Tadagee - 26 Jun 2019 23:19:00 (#6 of 129)

I've always been fascinated by Edward IV, so definitely for York even though as a Welshie i should probably be on the Tudor side.

Stephen i think gets a bad press and I've got a soft spot for him, even though he did sort of usurp the rightful heir.

1066 And All That pretty much nails it for the Civil War.

xbod72 - 26 Jun 2019 23:39:50 (#7 of 129)

No good reason but I find them, in particular Richard III, more compelling. Also recognised the North needed special attention.



The Northern Powerhump.

Shadrack22 - 26 Jun 2019 23:43:22 (#8 of 129)

Richard III’s reign. One of the great historical ‘what ifs?’ On the basis of the first two years, it was shaping up to be far better for the country than that of his successor.

Jacob_Richter - 26 Jun 2019 23:53:34 (#9 of 129)

I really couldn't care less about the first two. Parliamentarian for the third.

But whose side at Burford?

FGBFGB - 26 Jun 2019 23:54:15 (#10 of 129)

Apart from his abandonment of the rule of law and having people he suspected executed without trial.

FGBFGB - 26 Jun 2019 23:55:28 (#11 of 129)

Oh, and murdering his brother's children.

Shadrack22 - 26 Jun 2019 23:56:31 (#12 of 129)

Well I did say “better for the country” in a pragmatic sense.

Try The Winter King by Thomas Penn for what came next.

FGBFGB - 26 Jun 2019 23:58:41 (#13 of 129)

Well, was Henry Tudor worse? Restored peace, a solvent government, not a murderer.

Shadrack22 - 27 Jun 2019 00:07:03 (#14 of 129)

There was peace prior to Henry Tudor. It did not need to be restored. A grasping miser, extorting revenue via Morton’s fork, oppressing the people, unmourned on his demise and succeeded by the appalling Bozo-like egomaniac and cultural vandal Henry VIII.

upgoerfive - 27 Jun 2019 00:26:34 (#15 of 129)

Question: without HVIII's endorsement, would Protestantism have established itself quite as successfully as it did, or even, come to that, have even survived ?

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 06:12:39 (#16 of 129)

Henry VIII was not a Protestant, least never described himself in those terms, Anglo Catholic was probably a better description.. The two important measures taken by his regime were the dissolution of the monasteries and the publication of the bible in English. The first tied anyone who purchased ex Church land to resisting the reestablishment of of Roman Catholicism. The second allowed Protestants to actively recruit within the nation.

Tadagee - 27 Jun 2019 06:38:47 (#17 of 129)

Well, was Henry Tudor worse? Restored peace, a solvent government, not a murderer.

Edward Plantagenet might disagree.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 06:48:07 (#18 of 129)

There was peace prior to Henry Tudor. It did not need to be restored

There were rebellions in both regimes but Henry VII was strong enough to resist whereas Richard III failed, given his absurdly vague claim to the throne it was certainly no mean feat.

TinyMcSmith - 27 Jun 2019 06:58:04 (#19 of 129)

The Anarchy: Stephen or Matilda?

Bunch of arseholes, both.

The Wars of the Roses: York or Lancaster?

London innit!

The Civil War: Royalist or Parliamentarian?

The Ranters.

Shadrack22 - 27 Jun 2019 08:03:37 (#20 of 129)

Henry VII was strong enough to resist

He avoided taking part in battles himself after Bosworth and was fortunate in his military commanders (e.g. the Earl of Oxford).

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 08:28:50 (#21 of 129)

Henry VIII was not a Protestant, least never described himself in those terms, Anglo Catholic was probably a better description.

Nobody called themselves Protestant at the time. It started as a pejorative, I can't remember if it first became current just before or after his death.

He certainly fancied himself a theologian, but cut his cloth according to his political needs. His was a kind of Trumpian view that rites and beliefs should be whatever he said they were. Edward was more doctrinaire, but even Elizabeth retained random bits of popery.

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 08:32:34 (#22 of 129)

The second allowed Protestants to actively recruit within the nation.

In the sense that they could point out discrepancies between scripture and practice, perhaps. One of the interesting points about protestant promotion of vernacular bibles is that the intention wasn't to encourage people to read and come to their own conclusions but rather a conviction that if they read it they would agree with the protestant interpretation.

The Reformation is probably the historical event I've changed my views on the most.

TinyMcSmith - 27 Jun 2019 08:51:36 (#23 of 129)

Royalist versus Parliament is far too simplistic when discussing that period of history. Especially when we realise it’s importance for defining how English society functions today.

My favourite era. Well, apart from Arsenal’s double winning era.

TheExcession - 27 Jun 2019 08:59:36 (#24 of 129)

Aftermath of the English Civil War in a nutshell

Roundheads: We've got rid of an oppressive and incompetent king!

People: Hooray!

Roundheads: Oh, and we've also cancelled Christmas and fun in general

People: Oh... can we have the king back please?

Check Subscriptions
|
Home » History