Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Good Afternoon

It's half term here. We have a week off school and college. Usually it includes the Bank Holiday on the Monday. It sort of used to be WhitMonday but Whitsun is a bit of a moveable feast so it's the last Monday in May. But this year it isn't. The Thursday and Friday are public holidays. One is the Bank Holiday and the other is to celebrate the Queen being our queen for 70 years. I have no idea which day is which!
I am Welsh and we value our independence but I do love our Queen. She is so solid. I see William being a good king for the future but I am not so sure about living under King Charles III.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
firefall · 61-69, M
Charles have traditionally been pretty bad kings .... but tbh from what I've heard, the current 'Prince of Wales' (ouch) is probably not going to be mentally fit enough to take the throne, so you may go straight to William V ?
Blodyn · 22-25, F
@firefall I hope so. Yet in church Charles 1 is regarded as a martyr. Was Oliver Cromwell completely right?
firefall · 61-69, M
@Blodyn By no means completely. But he was definitely right about getting rid of Charles I, who is hands down the single worst monarch England ever had.
Blodyn · 22-25, F
@firefall I don't know why he was bad. They don't teach us these things. I know Oliver Cromwell got rid of Christmas.
firefall · 61-69, M
@Blodyn Yeah the whole Puritan thing was pretty wrongheaded in many ways ( and dont even get me started on how Cromwell treated Ireland)>

But Charles I, well , where to start? He tried to institute the Divine Right of Kings, to rule however they want without restriction - he ruled without any Parliament at all for most of his reign, imposing taxes at a whim, arresting & occasionally executing political opponents without any legit trial (the whole Star Chamber secret trials thing), and a lot of other terrible political ideas, which is why the people revolted against him

The worst thing tho, was after he comprehensively lost the first English Civil War, he signed agreements for a more limited form of rule in conjunction with Parliament, then kept breaking his word on the agreements, and inciting fresh rebellions & civil wars, til he drove Parliament to realise that he would never stick to any agreement at all, and was completely untrustworthy. They couldnt even exile him, because the French & Spaniards would keep funding attempts to insert him back on the throne. He really was incredibly foolish and vain, and brought his disasters upon his own head. If he'd had any spirit of compromise or willingness to negotiate rather than asserting his right, like any 4 year old, to do anything he wanted, then he would never have been executed.

The idea that he died a martyr for his faith is a sad lie pushed by his son & supporters after the son ascended the throne as Charles II. Which, fair do's, any son would try to find some way of framing it as noble, but that doesnt mean we should agree with it out of filial piety.

Oops, end of rant. Sorry.
Blodyn · 22-25, F
@firefall I am more confused than ever!
firefall · 61-69, M
@Blodyn LOL sorry. It was a pretty confusing era, really. I find it fascinating, but then I'm a history nut generally
Blodyn · 22-25, F
@firefall I know in church one Sunday we remembered Charles the martyr.