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?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Shadrack22 - 26 Jun 2019 22:46:27 (#1 of 129)

Matilda

York

Parliamentarian

darkhorse - 26 Jun 2019 22:48:33 (#2 of 129)

Cavalier or Roundhead?

Maybe a question appropriate to thread of its own.

YorenInTheNorth - 26 Jun 2019 22:52:59 (#3 of 129)

Matilda. The legitimate heir to the throne.

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

Parliament. Constitutional Governement vs Tyranny.

Remain. Because Farage is a cun....oh. Ignore that, forgot what time I was in. The curse of being a Timelor....oh. Ignore that too.

Arjuna - 26 Jun 2019 22:56:46 (#4 of 129)

Scottish Coventators were allied with the English Parliament in the first civil war but not in the second, then they fought a war with a victorious Parliament or to be more accurate the half of parliament that had won the internicine struggle at the end of the second war.

and then there is Ireland.

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?

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 09:55:53 (#25 of 129)

Christmas was actually cancelled before the King was beheaded.

The war was never actually fought to get rid of the King, there were few Republicans on the Parliament side until after the second war. It was fought in defence of the gains Parliament had made in 1641 that were the beginnings of a constitutional monarchy. It was only when the Independents in Parliament decided he was incapable of playing that sort of role that they moved against him and their rivals in Parliament.

moto748 - 27 Jun 2019 10:01:02 (#26 of 129)

even Elizabeth retained random bits of popery.

Mostly just their heads.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 12:04:57 (#27 of 129)

In the initial Wars of the Roses, it would be hard to put up an argument for Henry VI as he was clearly unsuited to be a King.

RosyLovelady - 27 Jun 2019 12:07:22 (#28 of 129)

I've always rather liked Henry VI, ever since I saw him portrayed by Terry Scully (and whatever happened to him?) in An Age of Kings in the early 1960s.

GyratingTrampoline - 27 Jun 2019 13:34:40 (#29 of 129)

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.



Damn you must be old

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 13:35:41 (#30 of 129)

it's all the blood

breakfast - 27 Jun 2019 14:03:32 (#31 of 129)

Definitely the White Rose.

Parliamentarians, although as has been noted Oliver Cromwell was a bit of a misery guts.

Tadagee - 27 Jun 2019 14:20:14 (#32 of 129)

Puritans disapproved of having sex standing up in case it lead to dancing.

FleurDuMal - 27 Jun 2019 15:40:08 (#33 of 129)

The White Rose, obviously.

On balance, I’d side with the Royalists, as they were more fun, but Cromwell’s cancellation of Christmas has a lot to recommend it.

surferboogiewhatever - 27 Jun 2019 15:51:52 (#34 of 129)

Matilda

York, mainly because my dad's from Yorkshire, but I find several people on the Yorkist side quite interesting.

Tough one. Sellar and Yeatman said it all really - I suppose Parliamentarians in the sense that I think a republic is generally a Good Thing, but I don't think much of their methods.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 17:02:48 (#35 of 129)

Puritans weren't that miserable, it was the Presbyterians that were the real kill joys and twas they who banned Christmas in 1648, the year before Puritans took power. Strict Presbyterians in Scotland continued the Christmas humbug for hundreds of years, they might be some who are still on it now.

Although both groups were mainly about separating jollity from religious occasions not getting rid of it altogether. Its also worthy of note that Puritans allowed far more religious freedom than than the monarchy. Recusancy fines were abolished, thus church attendance was no longer complusory and it's still the only period in English history when there was no official religion.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 17:05:02 (#36 of 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

John The Stupid was one of theirs.

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 17:38:37 (#40 of 129)

Henry the fowler

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 17:39:17 (#41 of 129)

Aethelred the unready is pretty good though

HouseOfLametta - 27 Jun 2019 17:40:39 (#42 of 129)

Ivar The Boneless.

GyratingTrampoline - 27 Jun 2019 17:43:14 (#43 of 129)

Cnut the Great, bit of a lost opportunity there

FleurDuMal - 27 Jun 2019 17:47:43 (#44 of 129)

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 129)

Didn't he relish the name?

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 17:48:29 (#46 of 129)

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 129)

And we should have had a real King Arthur

Dender - 27 Jun 2019 17:51:50 (#48 of 129)

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 129)

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 129)

I wonder if King Stephen was anything like Stephen King?

Tadagee - 27 Jun 2019 18:05:38 (#51 of 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

In the meantime, King Alexander Boris of the world.

HerrWalrus - 27 Jun 2019 19:10:14 (#59 of 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:03:10 (#67 of 129)

I don't want to sound stalky AlanII but are you really an archaeologist? I thought you lived in Lux. Is it big there?

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:03:34 (#68 of 129)

I'm picturing you like Indiana Jones now, complete with hat and whip

Tadagee - 27 Jun 2019 21:04:29 (#69 of 129)

And nothing else?

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:05:27 (#70 of 129)

Note the word 'complete'

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:14:48 (#71 of 129)

One thing I did notice about the Richard III circus was the complete absence of current royals. Henry VII dated his reign to the day before Bosworth so he could frame Richard as an usurper. Thus, it seems he is still regarded as de facto rather than a de jure King.

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:17:10 (#72 of 129)

I think Henry VII recognised Richard as legally king (to avoid legal chaos by erasing two years of Government). By declaring his reign from the day before the battle it meant everyone who fought for Richard (really aimed at the Lords/Barons) were technically guilty of high treason.

A legal axe over their heads.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:17:24 (#73 of 129)

Although Parliament passed a law in 1495 to prevent treason laws from being abused in this way again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1495

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:18:16 (#74 of 129)

Interesting. Thanks.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:19:00 (#75 of 129)

It does explain why many in Parliament wanted to crown King Oliver.

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:22:30 (#76 of 129)

Good point.

barkis - 27 Jun 2019 21:26:02 (#77 of 129)

#75

And in fact as protector he was king in all but name. He had all the ceremonial stuff. Also he appointed his eldest son to succeed him (though he may not have been compos mentis at the time).

Napoleon, the other strange idol of republicans, certainly hoped to establish a dynasty.

popstar7 - 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 (#78 of 129)

How was Napoleon on Christmas? And dancing on Sunday?

TRaney - 27 Jun 2019 21:31:39 (#79 of 129)

He decimalised it to the 10 days of Christmas

barkis - 27 Jun 2019 21:31:52 (#80 of 129)

#78

I think it was mostly "not tonight Josephine".

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:32:51 (#81 of 129)

Napoleon brought back the Catholic Church and invited Pope Pius to his coronation just so he could watch Napoleon crown himself.

whatever you say about him, the dude had style.

YorenInTheNorth - 27 Jun 2019 21:32:54 (#82 of 129)

#78

He took hall a million on a tour of the Moscow Christmas markets in 1812.

popstar7 - 27 Jun 2019 21:35:09 (#83 of 129)

Napoleon brought back the Catholic Church

Ah, a remainer. Good lad.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:35:47 (#84 of 129)

Robespierre had abolished the Catholic Church and replaced it with The Cult of the Supreme Being

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Suprem
e_Being

popstar7 - 27 Jun 2019 21:38:22 (#85 of 129)

I got suspended from school for that.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:46:04 (#86 of 129)

And in fact as protector he was king in all but name

but what sort of King? This was the real issue that had caused the war. Parliament had wanted Charles to be a constitutional monarch and acts had been passed by parliament to that effect and sanctioned by Charles in 1641. Cromwell as Lord Protector governed in accordance with two written constitutions, the Instrument of Government (1654) and the Humble Petition and Advice (1657).

Also he appointed his eldest son to succeed him (though he may not have been compos mentis at the time).

The Humble Petition and Advice gave him the power to nominate a successor although there was never any written evidence that he selected Richard.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:47:41 (#87 of 129)

I got suspended from school for that

By some accounts, Robespierre's ceremony sounded like a school assembly. He stood there pontificating about his new cult whilst mirth and giggling broke out in the audience.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 21:51:52 (#88 of 129)

In the aftermath of the French Revolution the aristocrats of Paris reacted in a similar manner to the restoration court of the Merrie Monarch. They emphasized their own style and decadance portraying the revolutionaries as dour and joyless.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incroyables_and_Me
rveilleuses

barkis - 27 Jun 2019 22:03:04 (#89 of 129)

#86

Cromwell had the Instrument of Government written after he'd got rid of the parliament he'd appointed. No English or British monarch has behaved so despotically.

Arjuna - 27 Jun 2019 22:15:10 (#90 of 129)

No English or British monarch has behaved so despotically.

Clearly untrue, between 1629 and 1640 Charles had governed for eleven years without Parliament. He only recalled Parliament as he had to fund a war with his other Kingdom but found they had no interest in rubber stamping his programme.

surferboogiewhatever - 27 Jun 2019 22:17:17 (#91 of 129)

she couldn't bear to see him just lying there

His feet are missing, he could hardly stand up.

FleurDuMal - 27 Jun 2019 22:22:59 (#92 of 129)

Hah!

SinnerBoy - 28 Jun 2019 13:51:21 (#93 of 129)

PostmodernToss -

Definitely a Royalist for the ECW.

Me too, mostly because I dislike religious extremists, but also, I've got the right look.

RosyLovelady - 28 Jun 2019 13:53:01 (#94 of 129)

King Charles the Martyr was a bit of a religious extremist in his way.

AlanII - 28 Jun 2019 14:07:22 (#95 of 129)

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

Arjuna - 28 Jun 2019 14:07:45 (#96 of 129)

He even had Bishops in the House of Lords until Parliament passed this act to exclude them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Act_1640

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?

AlanII - 04 Jul 2019 08:29:18 (#117 of 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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 129)

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

RosyLovelady - 12 Jul 2019 08:39:25 (#126 of 129)

I get her confused with the academic woman who reckons she can stop Brexit by the power of public nudity.

Tadagee - 12 Jul 2019 10:42:41 (#127 of 129)

Why can't women accept you can be sexy, brainy AND a feminist?

- women

+ Daily Mail readers

Fixed the headline.

Arjuna - 12 Jul 2019 10:43:49 (#128 of 129)

She is sexy like a Siberian husky

Arjuna - 12 Jul 2019 10:44:55 (#129 of 129)

academic woman who reckons she can stop Brexit by the power of public nudity.

BBC4 haven't signed her up, may be ITV2 are interested.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » History