"The English Civil War. King or Parliament?" Topic

The war without an enemy. Who would you have pushed a pike for?
Royalist
Parliament
Covenanter
Montrose
Local Clubmen (hate both sides)

Montrose's Irish

Parliament

parliament

Royalist.

Loyal to the Royal.

Parliament, for sure! – though I would have been a Shotte man rather than a Pikeman, I am not tall enough!

Montrose Highlander

Died in the wool Royalist. Only mistake Charles ever made was not using acid when he dissolved Parliament.

Royalist. Although on the game table I am relegated to being a Roundhead because my regular opponent "cannot possibly be on the side of Oliver Cromwell!"

So – your choices are Honest and True Royalist or Vile Traitor to your Rightful King?

Now there's a toughie

Wrong but wromantic.
Wroyalist, of course.

Royalist

Royalist.

Could never support a Stuart king after the Union of Crowns, especially the arrogant Charles 1st, so Parliament for me.
interesting that so many of our colonial cousins would have been on the Royalist side!

I'll let you take a guess…

Flawed as he was I'd be right there alongside Prince Rupert as a sexy young cavalier with long flowing locks and a goatee :)

Royalist.

Royalist

Royalist, although in the wish washy Clarendon wing!

Vive Le Roi!

God save the King!

Cromwell for me.

Parliament, of course.

Phil

Covenant for me!

Jim

Royalist

Royalist!

Montrose's Irish.

Eric

Montrose

Highwayman. Why not take advantage to remove both sides of their coin?

Montrose

With notable Parliamentarians in the family, it can only be Parliament for me.

Don't really GAF either way but I'd probably go with Cromwell, he was an honourable enemy after all.

Royalist

Royalist

The side that has the biggest floppy hats!

God and Parliament!

Clubmen
Montrose
Royalist

Parliament no question.

Very interesting.
Seems to me Charlie would, if down to us, have kept his head on his shoulders.

Eastern Association.

Seems to me Charlie would, if down to us, have kept his head on his shoulders.

I'm not sure a load of (probably) out of shape, middle aged men who are handy with a paint brush and a tube of super glue would have been much of a match for the NMA……

Well naturally God was on the side of righteousness and the Parliamentarian cause. They had the Lord and the people on their side – numbers always count. AND Charles was a filthy traitor who lost both his trials of combat and then in the court after which they lopped his head off.

On the other hand, if there's no Royalist army, there's no table-top wargame. There's something to be said for blind obedience and unquestioning loyalty – so I'll do both.

Being of Scottish heritage I suppose I'd be one of Montrose's dragoons.

Never could understand why anyone would support a guy who kills his king in a coup and then takes over as dictator.

Parliament of course. I have to live here. No Louis XIV style absolutist tyrants in Merrie England!

It cracks me up that our friends over the pond think the Stuart monarchy was a good thing. We kicked the sorry shower out for good in 1688.

I am reminded of the great playwright Monty Python who asked the question "who made you King?"…or was it "how did you become King?".

Parliament for me.

Martin Rapier,

That's funny. Thank you – your comments made me laugh. I think also the BBC 'A History of Scotland' (2008) presented by Neil Oliver pretty well illustrated that the Stuart gene pool was deeply flawed – what a bunch of (insert favourite expletive here).

As far as 'understanding' supporting a 'guy' who kills a King and becomes a dictator … it's an interesting point. I'd suggest the type of monarch Charles fought to be was far closer to absolutism and dictatorship than modern concepts of constitutional models. The current Western alliances include a number of absolute monarchies, Oman, UAE and Saudi Arabia to name just three which have far more in common with the Stuart model than the Western European ones.

Over the centuries the peoples of the UK have killed several of their Kings in coups and on battlefields. Kings have also murdered rivals in secret and usurpation was rife. There seems to be something ingrained in the national psychology or public memory; however, which forgives them if they stick a crown on their own head afterwards – which Cromwell stopped short of doing. To his credit he also led a public trial and was not alone in removing his predecessor.

To this day people in the UK can still get hung up on this subject – which is not a criticism … I love how we invest in history and it can be a lot of fun.

I tend to be for Parliament just becasue power was more broadly shared but that's about as far as it goes. I have nothing in common with puritanism or the deep rooted class system. I suggest if we went back in a time machine none of we 'modern' people could tolerate 17th century Britain for 24 hours or any of their views.

It cracks me up that our friends over the pond think the Stuart monarchy was a good thing. We kicked the sorry shower out for good in 1688.

errr I'm pretty sure the Stuarts reigned until 1714….

Anyone but Cromwell.

I would have fought for Parliament I think.
Which is strange because one of my ancestors on my Mothers side was a Colonel in the kings army. His name was Richard Bole. He fought a regard action at Alton in Hampshire and was killed defending the church.

Wow Fenman that is super cool. Did you know Donald Featherstone re-fought the battle of Alton in his book Wargames Campaigns?