"English Civil War, which side would you support and why?" Topic

The Royalists because they had feathers in their hats.

I clearly need to do more research then…

I was under the distinct impression that Cromwell felt it his god-given duty to eradicate the Catholic church in England and rest of the british isles…

Parliament may have been up for religious reforms, but I didn't think Cromwell was…

So to qualify, I would support the Royalist side purely to be anti-Cromwell.

Cromwell's views on religion certainly changed with time and increasing power. Towards the end he didn't give a toss about religion.

To address another point I don't think that looking at this in terms of real and legal power is looking at it through 21st century eyes.

James Harrington put forward the vast majority of the arguments I've been making in 1656.

Pictors I wasn't singling you out with the comment of 21st century eyes but I think the focus on intolerance of one side or the other fails to understand the close connection between religion and the state. Take the Puritans for example. They pushed for toleration to preach their own religious tenets. When they came to America they, in turn, denied others that right. It was always religious freedom to worship as our faith teaches. It was never religious freedom for the other guy to worship as he believes. So we are not talking about 21st century ideas of toleration.

As for the king imposing the book of common prayer, he had the right to do so. He was the head of the Church of England. He was simply exercising his right.

Rich

Mince pies! Mince pies!….they stink of Popery

DOWN WITH POODLES!

I ride with Black Tom!!!

Born in the West Country, educated at Oxford, now living in the Czech Rep (Prince Rupert anyone?), I think that makes me a Royalist. At least until the first engagement; quite a lot of the rank and file seem to have been just as flexible in their allegiances as their commanders…

Both sides have plenty wrong with them, but it was the Parliamentary side that sponsored the Putney Debates, so they get my vote.

Hmm, tricky one. I ust say that Natholeon summed it up pretty nicely for me, with perhaps the exception of the Glorious Revolution.

I would initially have sided with Parliament, as revolts of this kind help to make the share of power more balanced (see king John 'sans terre').The king needed to be reminded of the role Parliament plays. He can't just go stomping about like Henry VIII or Richard III.

However, I would have been repulsed by the fanatical Cromwell (bearing in mind that I can only use my XXI century point of view regarding religious tolerence). I would therefore have supported Manchester and Essex in their row with Lt-Col. Cromwell. Not only because I wouldn't deem the execution of a king as right or ethical (legality doesn't really matter in war, compared to morality), but also because would have objected both to the use of independants and the conditons of the Solemn Oath & Covenant. This isn't because I'm against Presbytrianism, but because England's religious fate shouldn't be dictated by a will to have troops crossing the border (even if Charles' father linked the 2 nations together at his coronation, I don't think Englishmen of the time would have been particularly impresed).

I would have been even further disgusted by the plans for a Protectorate line of succession (Bonapart and Casar, anyone?). Unfortunately, my knowledge of the 2nd and 3rd Civil Wars ddoesn't yet allow me to give a definate opinion on whetherI would have gone so far as to switch sides in anything other tha rhetoric.

As to the Glorious Revolution, part of me says that it could be a good thing, but I also think that to have a foregin ruler might stick in the troat a bit…but then as James I wasn't English and all the European royals are pretty much related, it wuldn't have mattered all that much. Again, further reading is necessary forme to formulate anything close to a sensible opinion on that point.

As has been said above, I also, as a natural tory, cannot conceive Britain being anything other than a Parliamentary Monarchy. Republianism may well work in France (where I've live some 16 years), but it isn't for the U.K.. As Chesterton put it: "The French do not seek comfort here, but rather unrest. This restless people seeks to keep itself in a perpetual agony of the revolutionary mood. Frenchmen, seeking revolution, may find the humiliation of humanity inspiring. But God forbid that two pleasure-seeking Englishmen should ever find it pleasant!"

link

From choice a 'clubman' – a plague on both their houses.

But I doubt I would have had a choice – whichever side impressed (as in conscripted) me first.

Personally I enjoy Christmas and Mince Pies far to much to fight against them. I suspect that had the Parliamentarians come clean over their Christmas Agenda from the outset they would have gained little support and would have quickly found their own heads on the block!

On that theme, what is it about Civil Wars and hidden agendas? Was it really a case of terminological inexactitudes from the outset or were momentous decisions really arrived at 'en route'? For example,

ECW Parliamentary recruiting officer -'No men, we aren't against the King! We are only against those who advise him so poorly!'

ACW Union recuiting officer – 'No men, we aren't fighting to free the slaves!'

Royalist – I like Christmas pudding.

Difficult: repulicanism is the ideal policitial structure, BUT look the idea of the Religious Right using the military to enforce their theocratic state is a real nightmare. That said, rather like Calvin's Geneva if you kept your head down there was no need to fear the Inquisition.

Bettter sit it out and wait for the Enlightenment.

By the Grace of God, King. Vive le Roi!

Just taking a look at what parliamentary government has led to recently . . .

Dieu et mon Droit!

I would have to go with parliament – an imperfect democracy is better than no democracy and with Charles (and his supporters) adicted to the devine right of kings then that would lead to an unhealthy state.

Religious intolerance was rife but a variety of "high church" practices were frowned upon by Cromwell and his associates but the levellers had some excellent ideas.

The Christmas ban was idiosyncratic but logical at the time as was Cromwells campaign in Ireland barbaric -yes- but look at the 30 Years War and similar things happened there.

I have managed to trace my family tree to 1651, back to the Bickerstaff and Ormskirk area of Lancashire. A number of ancestors were protestant ministers and the puritan divine Issac Ambrose is also very likely to be connected to the family.Even a townsman of Liverpool just before the siege bears my family name.

A relation was also involved in the sequestation of royalist estates after the civil war.

So you guessed it, it would have to be parliament!

Hard question.

1. The quote earlier, ("wrong but romantic…" etc.) was 1066 and All that.

2. As to the question, it's a hard one for me. Cromwell paved the way for Jews to re-enter England with legal standing (and permitted their entry into the colonies, thereby allowing my ancestors to find refuge on these fertile grounds of the 'goldene medina'), but then they closed the theaters. I think Parliament wins out in the end, though.

Being the pragmatist that I am, which side do the various rules favor?

Rich

Well assuming that my 21st century preconceptions would have survived, I would have started out as a Parliamentarian but have been horrified by Pride's Purge and then the closure of Parliament by Cromwell. Twice. Not very 'democratic' at all really.

And if Prince Rupert had been the leader of the Royalists, him I would have followed!

I ride with Black Tom!!!
</Q> One of my ancestors is his grandfather.

Many Parliamentarians were fighting the king not out of any noble idea, but out of personal motive and to protect personal priviledges. Take for instance local hero John Hampden. He opposed having to pay 'ship money'. As Buckinghamshire has no coast, he argued that he shouldn't be expected to pay towards the cost of the navy, ignoring the fact that with out a navy we could be invaded. Presumably when the Spanish were marching through Berkshire he would refuse to pay towards an army, because they were not in Buckinghamshire!

Like most struggles in dictatorships this was about to be in charge, have nice houses etc, rather than any moral dimension.

Royalists – because that's what I've got…