Who Would You Support In the English Civil War

Who would you support in the English Civil War between King Charles I and his Royalists and the Parliamentarians?

I would support the Roundheads as I agree with them both politically and theologically.

My King.



Because I don’t believe in the divine right of kings, support parliamentary rule, and am a Reformed Protestant.

Roundheads hated Catholics so GO CAVS!

Do you believe in butchering the Irish?

No. Look, just because I support one side doesn’t mean I approve of everything they did. Because Parliamentary power was secured in England, absolutism as in most of Europe was avoided.

The Roundheads were responsible for that rat bastard, Cromwell. Fuckers. (I’m part Irish) :wink:

If you believe that the Commonwealth was parliamentary rule, you’ve got another think coming.

Wrong but Wromantic all the way. I like going to the theater too much to be a Puritan, and besides, the Cavaliers had all the best poets.

Ah, the old, “the ends justify the means”, eh?

And is the end of a corrupt, absolutist monarchy any better? So don’t be too surprised if in a Cavalier-victory world you end up being a poor illiterate peasent, who works from five am to six pm and who has six or seven crying children along with three or four who’ve died in infancy.

Such as…? :confused:

Plus “Cavalier” is a way cooler name than “Roundhead”

I don’t really see the necessity of expanding, since argument is basically pointless self-gratification and no victory is possible by converting someone unworthy to be a royalist, or unworthy to be a cat lover, or unworthy to appreciate [ ‘insert name of favourite author’ ] etc.: it’s just caviare to the general and can harm one’s own side to have people joining it who have not arrived through their own inner journey*.

Which is not a hit at you: there is a necessity for all types of belief and every possible vision to be held, however abhorrent, in order a/ that man might be free, and b/ to have something to fight against. If there were no spiritual evil to combat we would be far less than animals.
However, in this case it is because I believe in Divine Right, and legitimate monarchy by hereditary primogeniture; because I loathe puritans and hate republicanism; because I revere the Stuarts and in particular think Charles I to be one of the greatest men in history; and because the extraordinary groups ranged against him ( which were incompatible with each other ) were both separately and combined, scum.

I am a royalist because I don’t really care for being told what to do, or what to think, or having people in charge: since having someone in charge is needed ( and even anarchist communes default to having someone in charge ), I would rather have one man with a damn good reason, such as that he was born to it, rather than a chosen dictator, or a faction, or the rich, or the poor, or a group of quite awful people each selected by the votes of people whom I don’t care for very much and who in no way are likely to be right because they are in the majority.

  • Although obviously during actual conflict it is needed to conscript as many people temporarily to one’s will in order to win. They can be discarded afterwards.

All you really need to know about the sides in the English Civil War is that by the time Cromwell died, the people were so fed up with the Roundheads that they welcomed Charles II back almost to a man.

It was like getting rid of Nicholas II and going directly to Stalin.

You just described my great-grandfather’s life right here in Western Pennsylvania in the early 1900s. He came over from Hungary, worked in a coal mine (extremely dangerous work, I might add – ever heard the song “Sixteen Tons?”), he and my great-grandmother had eleven kids, and I believe she had several miscarriages.

Or my mother’s other grandfather, who came over from Poland. HE worked in the coke ovens, my great-grandmother was illiterate AND she never learned to speak English. They had about eight kids. All of this was during the Great Depression.
Back on topic – yeah, my ancestors were poor. But that was life back then. All they knew was that Charles wasn’t out to wipe them off the face of the earth. (I exaggerate, but that’s probably how it seemed to them)
Hunger and hard labor were pretty much standard back then. Child mortality? My DAD’S grandmother had numerous miscarriages, and a few stillborns. She had five children – and only three made it to adulthood. And this was in the 1920s.
Hell, ROYALTY didn’t expect all of their children to survive. The fact that all of Queen Victoria’s children all survived to adulthood was quite a feat. (And one of THEM was a hemophilliac!)

Which is so different from the outcome in the totally incorruptible, aristocratic English parliamentary triumph of the whig 18th century, and the incorruptible libertarian gilded age of late 19th century America, each where the poor were so cherished and unexploited…

Herrick, Lovelace, Jonson, Herbert, Crashaw, Donne etc…

The puritans had Milton and Wither as good poets, but both were peevish little men.

The theory of divine right largely comes from Christianity and you said to the effect you weren’t a Christian-are you a Deist divine righter or a Muslim divine righter or something?

Only after Charles II agreed to several demands and reforms and James II got chased out when he defied it.