Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The most interesting thing about King Charles I...
- Thread starter Biscuit
- Start date
ben andrews' girlfriend
Nurse Laura
they cut his head off
top prize to bag.ben andrews' girlfriend
Nurse Laura
i thank you!! 
see i knew my fountain of useless knowledge would come in handy at some point!!
see i knew my fountain of useless knowledge would come in handy at some point!!fatbadger
New member
ben andrews girlfriend said:
January 30th, 1649/50 ... the greatest day in English history.
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
he had a big head
fatbadger
New member
Biscuit said:
No - because a republic was declared. For a few brief years, England entered a period of political maturity only to revert, in 1660, to an adolescent state.
- Thread starter
- #10
tommy boy 86 said:
I think alot of his neck was included in the figures.
|BODY|--|HEAD|
See the '--' as the adjustable variable when beheading someone. You can go from the top, or bottom of the neck. Thus adding a vital few inches into the equasion.
fatbadger your a historian are you?
fatbadger
New member
Biscuit said:
Yep.
And the execution of Charles I is a particular interest of mine - I've written on contemporary and historians' accounts of the day's events.
fatbadger said:
Hmm... a republic where democracy was suspended, where all forms of religious and political dissent outlawed, where all forms of entertainment (including football) were banned and even Christmas was cancelled.
It was a republic run by religious maniacs, somewhat akin to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. That might be your sort of government FB, but I think you're the only person on NSC who'd support it.
- Thread starter
- #13
fatbadger said:
Can't say I know much about it. Nazi Germany and the Weimar republic is probably the field of history which intrests me the most.
Isn't he the king that wore two shirts on the day of his excution because it was cold and he didnt wanted people to think he was shivering? Sounds like an interesting topic.
fatbadger
New member
Gwylan said:
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.
Last edited:
dougdeep
New member
They named a runt of a dog after him.
fatbadger
New member
dougdeep said:
Nope - the runt of a dog you are thinking of was named after Charles II.
dougdeep
New member
Sorry, History was optional at my comprehensive.
Strike
Sussex Border Front
fatbadger said:
The year was 1649.
fatbadger
New member
Strike said:
Oh shit. Sorry (how embarrassing) I meant to have put "1648/49" - the "1649/50" I put was because I am, today, writing on something that happened in February 1649/50, and the date was in my mind. Thanks for drawing that to my attention!
Strictly speaking, the execution took place in 1648. This is because, in those days, the first day of the year was the 25th of March (Lady Day). So, transposing to a modern calendar, the execution took place on the 30th of January 1649; however, contemporary accounts would have it as the 30th of January 1648. As a result (most) historians use the form 1648/49 for the year for anything which happened between the 1st of January and the 24th of March.
Albion Rob
New member
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. 