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

I am not sure if this topic has been discussed before, but which side would you support and why?

Heh. Reminds me of a quote from somewhere… can't remember where…

"Royalists : wrong but romantic, Roundheads, right but repulsive."

I think I'd go for the Roundheads : No king but King Jesus!

The Soccer Hooligans. They have more class than most Brits. Or was that the Royals? I can't tell the difference. They all talk funny!

signed,
Joe American.

"For Christs Crown And Covenant"

Being a descendant of a sept who left clan McAllister to support the Covenant, I suppose I'd throw on the Blue Bonnet and Hodden Grey.

Royalists.

For no other reason than the religious intolerance of the Parliament agitators.

And when it was all said and done, you have replaced the divine rule of kings, Charles (head, body and all), the Monarchy and tradition, with Cromwell…
… as much a tyrant as the King he just fought to oust!

hypocrite!

Parliament … As long as I didn't have to be a Puritan.

Mike B

I am not sure if this topic has been discussed before,

Oh, not in the last 4 months…

I think you almost have to side with parliament. The truth of the matter is that the monarchy was broken and needed to be replaced. Even Harrington, who was a friend of the King, recognized the failed structure that the monarchy was in that time.

So parliament was correct, in the sense of history. But they also had a better legal argument, especially after the King's reply to the 19 Propositions basically admitted that he was equal with lords and commons in the structure of government.

Even without that, from the knowledge that they had at the time parliament had a better legal argument.

I just don't see how you can support the system that is broken and a King that was so shifty in his approach to dealing with the problems his regime faced. Especially when you look at what the country faced in the growing threat of the counter reformation.

I kind of support term limits for politicians, so I guess that chopping a king's head off is just a more radical expression of term limits.
It does seem a rather "banana republic" thing to do, though.

I'm Wrong but Romantic (1066 and All That, if memory serves) – though I dislike both side's take on religion intensely, I dislike the Puritans & Covenanter more.

I am a Levelling Man.

Things will not turn out well for me.

Leveller. I'm doomed!

roundheads had cooler looking uniforms.

Sorry, the Puritans and Covenanters were just evil, couldn't possibly align with them.
The notion that Parliament was in some way right is a little bit bizarre as well. Seeing as the first election after the end of the First Civil War was 1660 (and then only when Monck and the army forced them to), just fourteen years, there doesn't seem to be much "right" about the behaviour of the parliament.

The most telling statement so far – "especially after the King's reply to the 19 Propositions basically admitted that he was equal with lords and commons in the structure of government" sums it all up.
A real tripartite form of government ignored and overthrown by all three components of it. Not because it didn't work, but because personal greed and ego decided that the system was not as important as the people that made it up.

So that would be King for me. The good guys.

Royalist all the way, how can you support people who banned mince pies for christmas.

Montrose, and all the Scots before the Bishops War and the Covenanters after the establishment of the Protectorate. So basically, the Scots.

"A real tripartite form of government ignored and overthrown by all three components of it. Not because it didn't work, but because personal greed and ego decided that the system was not as important as the people that made it up."

Yeah but the king was trying to rule without the other two parts.

The argument at the time was what the tripartate form of government was. The king claimed that it was King above the (3) 1) commons 2) lords temporal 3) lords spiritual while the parliament claimed that it was (3) 1) commons 2) lords 3) King.

The dispensing power was one of the big sticking points. The king thought he could dismiss parliament, and the laws it made, at any point in time. Well he might have been able to but the king went around the laws and introduced new forms of taxation that existed outside of the acceptable constitution.

The King was trying to hold up a broken system with patches when the other side, while not necessarily recognizing the historical big picture, could at least see that the reality of the situation did not match the legal fiction that existed on the out side.

The monarchy was broken. Full stop.

It was destroyed after the war of the roses when free alienation of land won out over perpetuities and the great magnates, as a class, disappeared. As the king could not rely on their support anymore you saw the decline of the monarchy throughout the 16th century and at least Elizabeth and Henry had piracy and the church to keep them in funds for a little while.

As well as the sale of crown lands.

By the time the Stuarts came to the throne the throne wasn't worth much, it, as the government, could not do the one thing that governments are meant to do and that is protect the people.

Given that there was a serious fear of popery in England at the time because of the massive success of the counter reformation or at least it's early success, the paranoia enhanced the already explosive mood in the country.

The King, of course, could not see this because his own prejudices got in the way and power is difficult to willingly surrender.

He was standing in the way of the future. If they couldn't go around him, they just had to go over him. And it is easier to go over someone when they are about 10 inches shorter. :)

The proof of it is that after the restoration the Stuart reign was always unstable unless being propped up by the French. The final settlement, after the Dutch invasion, was achieved because legally power was settled in the hands of the people who really held it.

Evil can be defined many ways, I think of things in a very utilitarian way, if something works then it is good. The monarchy did not work in 1640, or in 1603 for that matter, by standing up for the monarchy as it was Charles was standing up for something that did not work. For all it's flaws the other side was at least trying to do something about it. I think some should rexamine their view of good vs. evil.

My head says for Parliament but my heart would ride with Prince Rupert.

For God and Parliament!

I think I would have looked for a plantation on Barbados or similar and got the hell out.

Both sides were as bad, King believed he had the divine right, Parliment thought they had the divine right, bad news both ways and both sides were after preserving their own advantages neither had the good of the people or the country at heart, merely there own priveledges.

Today I'm a firm supporter of Constitutional Monarchy as the best form of government. So how would this translate to making a choice of sides in our period?
I would have supported Parliament in the first Civil War, then watched aghast as the army showed where authority really lay. At that point I am unsure whether I would have swapped sides or simply stayed out of the whole mess as best I could.
The execution of Charles would have angered me, despite all the things he had done to annoy me, as he was still the legitimate executive authority in the land. I hadn't gone to war to kill the King, but to coerce him into accepting that Parliament must govern alongside him.
The Protectorate would have been the ultimate form of illegitimacy and I would have prayed every day for the death of Cromwell.
The Restoration would have been a truly wonderful moment in my life. I would have supported the Clarendon Code and Charles II, even if I didn't always trust him, as I had seen the evils of a republic. If I lived long enough I would have disliked James intensely for being too much like his dad and supported the Glorious Revolution, despite being a natural Tory. At least we are merely swapping one King for another, not abandoning kingship altogether. And this guy accepts Parliament's right to share in governing.

All this assuming I am a man of substance. Otherwise it is join whichever side passes through the village first and die face down in a bog somewhere.

Given the intolerance of the Puritans, definitely a Royalist.

Not a great fan of religeous military dictatorships.

Had Cromwell listened to the democratic demands of the army, maybe I'd change my mind.

But Charles' Dad had the best answer to Puritans. 'Encourage' them to get the hell out.

I'm for the Royalists – one does not take the head of one's King.

Royalist..who's to say that a Parliament full of men know better than one King?

Pete

I'm with Lord Falkland, generally Royalist but preferring that peace could be negotiated, which I reckon it could if a) Charles wasn't so full of himself and b) Parliament were not so rabidly religiously bigoted.

Ok, then I guess that means I get shot at I Newbury, hmmm.

On the other hand Sir Trevor Williams said 'heigh God, heigh Divil, I shall be for the stronger side' – obnoxious but sensible!

"Constitutional Monarchy as the best form of government" ?

but the point of a consitutional monarchy, is that the monarch has no constitutional power to govern.

so why bother with the monarch as head of state?

i'd level the lot, myself… bad end or no.

"so why bother with the monarch as head of state?"
You would prefer Brown, Blair, Cameron? I think not.
Even though I would have supported Parliament

I'm a ranter- so for leveling as well.

I don't know hy people can accuse parliament of being 'religiously bigoted' without accusing the king of the same- and both are nothing compared to the Scots!

The king did cause quite abit of bother with forcing his prayer book on everyone , well attemping to force it on everyone.

See- only planned to write one line- deffently a ranter!

Having to suffer through the remnants of the Puritan ethic here in the US I would say I'd be staunchly behind the Royalists (no matter how legal the Roundheads' position was)!

But I'm only a little ways into my first book on the ECW, so I may change my opinion later once I'm a bit more "edumacated". 8)=

Digger.

"we live we eat together
we need no swords
we will not bow to any master
or pay rent to the lords"

Ranters – ha ! Hedonists !

The cutting off of the king's head seems drastic, but at the time beheading was not an unusually cruel punishment. And the king had broken his (unwritten) contract with the state. And the "divine right" he clung to so strongly was a joke – a very tenuous path traced back to Owain Tudor marrying a King's wife.

The real bannana republic act was Cromwell trying to install his son as the political heir – making Lord Protector an inherited position. And for that reason alone he is not "our best of men" – ultimately he betrayed all that had been fought for in order to put power into his own family's hands, making him as tawdry and self serving as Napoleon.

(think I'll go and calm down now !)

Dremel Man said :
Royalists.

For no other reason than the religious intolerance of the Parliament agitators.

But it was the parliament that gave religious freedom once the king had been disposed of – freedom for all (including jews for the 1st time in English history). Only Catholics and Quakers were deemed to be too far (IIRC), for very different reasons they were both assessed to be a great danger to the state.

King, but only to go against Cromwell.

Fromt eh artwork I've seen the Royalists typically have bigger feathers in their hats, so Royalists for me.

Cromwell was also unreasonably warty and he had a basin haircut! So I'd have to say no to him

Parliament.

I'm making a list….

"For Christ and the Covenant!"

"No King but King Jesus!"

"No Bishops!"

ex-Covenanter re-enactor.

I wouldn't pick a side in the ECW, I'd stick to the Bishop's War instead

I used to ride a horse to work, and wear a floppy feathered hat in the office, but my boss fired me because he didn't like my cavalier attitude…. OK, I'm sorry.

Answering the question, my actual politics lean heavily towards parliament for the first war at least, and a pox on the lot of them after that. I do prefer to play royalists though – go figure….

20th Maine – Divine Right comes not from your claim to the throne per se but by the fact you got there. Doing so shows you're in Gods' good books.

Royalists – better parties.

Well, you don't necessarily have to stick with just the one side, do you?

Sir John Hurry holds the all-comers side-changing record. He fought with :-

- the Scots Army of the Covenant in the 1639 Bishops' Wars

- for Parliament with Waller and Essex at Portsmouth and Edgehill in 1642

- the Royalists with Prince Rupert at Chalgrove Field and Marston Moor 1643/1644

- Parliament again with Waller in October 1644

- the Scots Army of the Covenant again against Montrose in 1645

- the Royalists again in the 2nd and 3rd Civil Wars. Captured at Preston 1648, he escaped to the continent for a bit of peace and quiet.

- then with Montrose against the Scots Army of the Covenant in 1650. Captured again, he was finally beheaded, which put an end to his illustrious career.

link

I rather like Carlo Fantom's attitude – "I care not for your Cause: I come to fight for your halfe-crowne(s), and your handsome woemen", except that he ended up being hung 'for Ravishing', of course.

Hmm. I think I can see a pattern here …

Hard to say, which side had the hottest looking women?

I'm not sure where these claims of parliamentary intolerance come from either. Parliament didn't like Catholics, but that was more of a political thing than a religious one at the time. Other than that most things went. Vane's strongest motivation was to achieve religious freedom more so than political republicanism. He was always willing to narrow the enfranchised, but he typically did not budge on religious freedom.

The King was the one that tried to impose the book of common prayer, his philisophical supporters, like Hobbes, would argue that while you may believe what you want in your head and *maybe* in your own home you'd better tow the line in public.

So I think you guys have the religious intolerance boot on the wrong foot.

The presbyterians were pretty intolerant but their party was outmanuevered again and again in parliament, mostly by Vane.

Royalists – better parties.

The best way to choose :-)

Think who you'd rather go out on the razz with, Henry Ireton or Lord George Goring :-))

I wonder how many US TMP posters are supporting the royalist cause?
Strange as the American revolution got rid of a far more tolerant monarchy!

I find it amazing how similar Cromwell is to Napoleon.

Both rose to power from a revolution
Both supplanted a king

Considering the area I was born and brought up in, it would have to be the Army of the Solemn League and Covenant for me. How could I pass up the chance to join in cheery Psalm sing-songs, enforce Presbyterianism on our religiously-confused southern bretheren and plunder from the River Tweed to the Midlands …

Knowing my luck I would of been a clubman!

For the King for he was the King.

Parliament, but shoulder to shoulder with Thomas Fairfax: getting rid of a bad king who had despotic tendencies, but when the puritanism got out of hand reluctantly deciding that monarchy – crucially constitutional monarchy – had to be given a chance.

I think too many are looking at the situation through 21st century eyes.

In the middle ages, the king made law and enforced law through the sheriffs His expenses were expected to come out of his household money. That is unless there was something exceptional such as war. The king would turn to Parliament to raise money to support the war. This was how HYW was financed (that and plunder). Thus, Parliament's primary function was to raise money by taxes to support war for example.

Henry VIII needed popular support for his break with Rome. He entrusted judicial authority to Parliament in order to OK his actions to break with the Rome.

Fast forward to Charles I. Here was the dilemma. Charles had the right to make law and enforce law but not the right to levee taxes in order to pay the expenses to enforce the law. Parliament had the right to raise taxes and judge the law but it didn't have the right to make law and enforce those laws.

To break out of this impasse, Charles tried to find way to raise money without the influence of Parliament judging his laws. Parliament saw this, rightly so, as a threat to their existence. If Charles could get tax money without Parliament, he wouldn't need Parliament.

Parliament, in opposition to Charles, decided it had to infringe on the king's right to make law and enforce law. This was a power grab by Parliament. Charles' attempt to acquire taxing power without Parliament was also a power grab. Thus Parliament was attempting to take what was rightfully the king's. The king was attempting to take what was rightfully Parliament's. If the king won there would be no Parliament. If Parliament won there would be king in name only. It was inevitable they would fight.

As to which side to take. Come on, this was a family squabble fought by amateur armies. The main show had been over on the continent: the Thirty Years War.

Rich

Parliament didn't like Catholics, but that was more of a political thing than a religious one at the time

I've never understood this point of view (sorry !). From my reading I'm fairly convinced that at the time religion was taken far more seriously than it is today and that calling the pope "the antichrist" was more than just political rhetoric. The King's perceived attempts to return to a catholic church by the back door were not some minor quibble or esoteric theological point : for a good part of the population, convinced that the millenium was just around the corner, being in "the correct" church, and following "the correct" form of worship was far more than a social/political activity.

The religious feeling of the time were similar to the McCarthy era in the US, the enemy within taking orders from a distant and hostile power.

The martyrs on both sides reminded everyone of the fate of those who stuck to their faith when there was a change of religion

Church an state were inter twined and refusal to worship in the prescribed faith was suspect

It makes Nero wanting just a token offering look like a reasonable chap!