The most interesting thing about King Charles I...

[crasher]

3. All forms of entertainment were not banned - this is a myth.

Didn't they shut all the theatres?

 

[Beach Hut]

The problem with history, as I see it, is that there is so much of it and it's growing by the day I tell you.

Classic

 

[fatbadger]

Didn't they shut all the theatres?

The key word in my sentence (and the original) is 'all'.

 

[Gwylan]

You missed my point.

A republic which replaced the monarchy that went before it was, indeed, better. That's not to say it was good, just better.

On some of your specific points:

1. There was no democracy to suspend.
2. Religious and political liberty was much greater under the Commonwealth and Protectorate than it had been under the Stuarts. Roman Catholicism was, effectively, banned (although not really greatly harrassed - as long as you kept it private, you were generally left alone); the majority of Protestant forms which had been harrassed, banned and oppressed under the monarchy were allowed to be practised; and the Jews were finally (formally) allowed back into England for the first time since their expulsion in the 14th century.
3. All forms of entertainment were not banned - this is a myth.
4. Christmas is a fairly complex theological issue - I don't take the position that was held, but I do think it was understandable. But please note Christmas was not 'banned' - the festivities (in the form they had taken) were.
5. 'religious maniacs' is stretching the case rather too far - indeed, it just isn't true. Again, this is a bit of a myth, created in the 19th century. Since then, the importance of secularism and non-theological politics to the make-up, laws and behaviour of both the Commonwealth and the Protectorate have been well-studied and are now accepted by all but the most blinkered of old-style liberals.

1. It was true that there was no democracy as we'd understand it (ha, ha) but there was a parliament, which was more than there was under the Protectorate, once the Rump had been abolished.
2. I'm sure that Catholics who were massacred at Wexford and Drogheda, and the Catholics who had their land confiscated and given to English Protestants, were grateful for the 'tolerance' shown to them. As for political dissent being tolerated, the Leveller and Digger movements were brutally suppressed.
3. Theatres and inns were closed. Football (and most other sports were banned). And such was their hatred of music, that the puritans removed organs from churches. The only good thing that could be said about them was that they banned bear-baiting. Just what entertainment was allowed?
4. Obviously I didn't mean Christmas was banned, that was just journalistic hyperbole. But, as you confirm, the festivities were.
5.I don't think religious maniacs is too strong a description. I agree that it's subjective but it strikes me that it's not too strong a term. Parliament was replaced by group of men known for their religious devotions and for all the laws that were passed allowing freedom of religion, the abiding memory is of a gang of nutters.

If the government was as forward-thinking and as enlightened and tolerant as you make it out to be, why was their widespread relief and joy at the return of Charles II?

Don't get me wrong, FB. I'm no monarchist and happily look forward to the day when a British republic (or even better, English, Scottish and Welsh republics) is proclaimed. My argument is that the Commonwealth was a disaster for the republican movement in this country and set back republican ideals several hundred years. It seems astonishing to me that the British public could have welcomed back Charles II when he had all the faults of his father and some more of his own, but that's a measure of how much damage the extremes of Cromwell and his Taliban had done.

I'm no fan of the monarchy and think that Charles I deserved all he got, but (at the risk of sounding like Orson Welles in The Third Man) the 40 years of the Stuarts, prior to the start of the civil war was probably the richest flowering of literature in our history. In a short space of time, we saw the finest works by Shakespeare, Jonson, Webster and the other Jacobeans, the poetry of Donne, Herbert and (to a certain extent) Vaughan. That period also saw the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible, English literature's finest moment. It seems almost worthwhile tolerating a couple of arrogant wastrels such as James and Charles for such riches.

This is a good argument to continue down the pub though.

 

[perseus]

Dates and calendar:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/GregorianCalendar.html

Transport was not so good then Charlie the younger (later Charles II) took until 1851 to get to Brighton, dodging Cromwell's secret agents.

 

[Yorkie]

That period also saw the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible, English literature's finest moment.

It was just a direct translation of the original Greek & Hebrew into the language of the day.

Admittedly the language of the day was a lot richer than it is now with all the Americanisms creeping in, but that is an entirely different discussion altogether.

 

[perseus]

Samuel Johnson's English dictionary was a landmark book. Left out a few words though like space ship, aeroplane, and sausage (Black Adder sketch).

 

[fatbadger]

It was just a direct translation of the original Greek & Hebrew into the language of the day.

You are on very, very dodgy ground there, Yorkie!

 

[Yorkie]

You are on very, very dodgy ground there, Yorkie!

Most likely. There are always some clever people who know the facts ready to shoot it down.

 

[fatbadger]

Gwylan - whatever the details, you should also recognise that my original comments supported the formation of a republic. I did not say I necessarily supported the governments which acted under it, just as I would celebrate the creation of a republic now, even though I know I would disagree with many of the people who would come to power within it.

It has become, for example, to talk of the 1649-1660 government as being one entity - which it wasn't - and also to claim its continuance from the revolutionaries of 1642-1649, which is complete nonsense. At the very least, there was a Presbyterian counter-revolution against the Independents.

And, although I would dispute all of your points you make on issues of detail (really, you shouldn't believe the propaganda about Ireland), I cannot keep quiet on the point of democracy. Just think why it was the war broke out - because Charles attempted to take control of Parliament, or shut it down (as it had been for most of his reign). Indeed, Parliament spent more years sitting under Cromwell that it did under Charles, despite the fact that Cromwell was effective ruler for only 9 years, to Charles's 17 years.

 

[Biscuit]

Yorkie -

the origional prints of the Bible in English were made illegally and were very hot property.

"Tyndale New Testament was the first ever printed in the English language. Its first printing occurred in 1525/6, but only two complete copies of that first printing are known to have survived. Any Edition printed before 1570 is very rare and valuable, particularly pre-1540 editions and fragments. Tyndale's flight was an inspiration to freedom loving Englishmen who drew courage from the 11 years that he was hunted. Books and Bibles flowed into England in bales of cotton and sacks of wheat. In the end, Tyndale was caught: betrayed by an Englishman that he had befriended. Tyndale was incarcerated for 500 days before he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the eyes of the King of England"."

Interesting read. To think I started it as a joke!

 

[fatbadger]

And the very best bits of the KJV are the bits they directly cribbed from Tyndale! And, where they differ, the Tyndale version is invariably better. However, Tyndale never completed the translation, so there is not truly a 'Tyndale Bible' - only parts of one. And if you are happy to go for partial versions (and depending on what you consider 'English' to be), then Tyndale wasn't first, anyway - there were all manner of Lollard versions being copied and transmitted around Britain many years before Tyndale started working.

Interestingly, some of the differences between the Tyndale Bible and the KJV are good pointers to the different political uses to which the Bible and its versions have been put over the years. For instance, the Greek word which is translated in the KJV as 'King' is, in Tyndale (and the Lollard versions) translated as 'Elder'. This is what I meant when I said Yorkie was on very dodgy ground - there is no such thing as a direct translation, as the act of translation necessarily requires the selection of words from a number of possibilities. Tyndale, being opposed to the Epicopacy and the idea of the National Church, used 'Elder' (the term still used in the Presbyterian Churches today to denote the governing members of the Church), whereas the King's appointed committee, producing a version on the King's behalf intended to promote his role in society and the Church, used 'King'.

 

[Biscuit]

And the very best bits of the KJV are the bits they directly cribbed from Tyndale! And, where they differ, the Tyndale version is invariably better. However, Tyndale never completed the translation, so there is not truly a 'Tyndale Bible' - only parts of one. And if you are happy to go for partial versions (and depending on what you consider 'English' to be), then Tyndale wasn't first, anyway - there were all manner of Lollard versions being copied and transmitted around Britain many years before Tyndale started working.

Yeah, but its incrediable difficult to find an english version of 'the bible' before 1530's isnt it? Vary hard (at that time) to find a decent copy of the bible, and if he did - and got caught - you were gunna be killed...makes you wonder why bother with christianity!

joking of course.