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?

AlanII - 28 Jun 2019 14:10:31 (#97 of 129)

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

The grave would have been destroyed anyway during the construction of the car park. That was the whole point of the prior excavation. Believe me, like it or not, archaeologists display a far greater respect for human remains than the alternative.

FleurDuMal - 28 Jun 2019 14:12:43 (#98 of 129)

I still think he should have been re-buried in Yorkshire.

Shadrack22 - 28 Jun 2019 14:14:58 (#99 of 129)

not sure what good it has done digging him and burying him again

Adding to the sum of our knowledge.

Arjuna - 28 Jun 2019 14:17:13 (#100 of 129)

I know archeologists have respect for remains, I would just prefer to see any dead bodies that have to be moved just passed along quickly and quietly. I found the whole reburial absolutely grotesque.

xbod72 - 28 Jun 2019 14:40:36 (#101 of 129)

archaeologists display a far greater respect for human remains than the alternative.



A visit from a priapic phantom Jimmy Savile?

Arjuna - 28 Jun 2019 15:00:30 (#102 of 129)

The religious context of the wars is undeniable, the early to mid seventeenth century is by some distance the era when religion mattered most to people in this country. The reason is quite simple, it was a time when many were learning to read but most of those had only one book to read - the bible. It meant that they had a far greater knowledge of events in ancient Israel than they did of even the Elizabethan age. This was probably more evident on the parliamentary side, aristocrats would have had an education that included Greek and Roman classics as well as more contemporary works.

After Charles left London, things began to change extremely quickly. As there were no censorship laws, printing presses began to churn out huge numbers of cheap pamphlets from the ever mushrooming political and religious groupings. Propaganda was a crucial element of the war, the Levellers put out a series of tracts including their manifesto ideas were presented in their manifesto "Agreement of the People". Ranters, Diggers, Seekers and Quakers followed suit and Royalists were quick to retaliate.

On the day of Charles’s burial, a book entitled Eikon Basilike - The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes and Sufferings was published. Allegedly drawing on the private diary of the king, it included prayers urging the forgiveness of his executioners with a justification of royalism and the King's political and military programme. Parliament immediately commissioned Milton to pen a riposte and vast numbers of both were sold.

Many examples of these works still exist in this collection.

https://www.lincoln.ox.ac.uk/The-Thomas-Marshall-Collection-of-Civil-

TRaney - 28 Jun 2019 15:03:06 (#103 of 129)

It's kept me and my wife in work for a fair few years here, TR

Preconceptions duly updated Alan. Sorry for being impertinent.

AlanII - 28 Jun 2019 15:20:13 (#104 of 129)

No problem.

xbod72 - 28 Jun 2019 17:35:41 (#105 of 129)

The reason is quite simple, it was a time when many were learning to read but most of those had only one book to read - the bible.



I saw a TV programme only within the last decade that declared "the average number of books in UK households is 1."

Now, there's different sorts of averages, isn't there? I cannot imagine that it's the average where you take the number of books within households and divide them all up equally is the right one.

It might be the one where you line up all the households in order of how many books they've got and then you pick the one in the middle and that's only got 1 book. And it could well be the Bible.

DesEsseintes - 28 Jun 2019 20:45:28 (#106 of 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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

xbod72 - 30 Jun 2019 21:32:34 (#110 of 129)

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 129)

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 129)

Charles needs to keep calm and not lose his head.

Hilary - 01 Jul 2019 10:14:33 (#113 of 129)

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 129)

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

Arjuna - 04 Jul 2019 08:13:34 (#115 of 129)

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 129)

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

Check Subscriptions
|
Home » History