Will you support the Royalists or the Parliamentarians?

[History Alive]

The year is 1643. England has been engulfed by a civil war between supporters of the King, Royalists, and supporters of the Parliament, Parliamentarians. It started when the King tried to capture five members of the House of Commons but failed and escaped. When negotiations broke down, various cities declared their support for one side or the other. Now the entire county has erupted into civil war as the two sides started fighting.

Which side will you choose. Will you fight for the monarchy or the democratic parliament?

Credit to this idea goes to Ikania. Remember that if you have any suggestions for these threads you can submit them to me. Remember to keep things civil and in period.

OP Notes:

Remember that Cromwell has no authority at this time. His views on religion are irrelevant to the Parliamentarians.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'll take up arms for King and Country, of course. Parliament has overstepped its bounds in taking up arms against the Sovereign.

Cavaliers, with me! To victory!

[Distruzio]

I'll take up arms for King and Country, of course. Parliament has overstepped its bounds in taking up arms against the Sovereign.

Cavaliers, with me! To victory!

Amen.

[The Archregimancy]

Why are we even debating this issue?

Clearly it falls upon every loyal subject of His Majesty's kingdoms to support our monarch.

Truly the king desires that the people enjoy liberty and freedom as much as any body whomsoever, but I must tell you, that their liberty and their freedom consists in having of Government; those laws, by which their life and their goods may be most of their own.

It is not for having share in government that is nothing pertaining to them; a subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until you put the people in that liberty as the king enjoins, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.

And besides, I have it on good authority that Pureheart Heretic-Chaser Jones - or whatever the name of the ever-changing leader of the Parliamentarian rabble is called this week - would ban both bishops and Christmas should his iconoclast mob ever achieve power; and while that prospect might be a laughably distant one, it pays not to be complacent about these things.

[Murkwood]

In good heart, I cannot support the Roundheads. Instead of "In the name of the Crown", do we want it to be "In the name of the Parliament"? We've had a long history with our kings, and they are the reason England is as good as it it today. And it's not that the King does not desire freedom. Rather, we must approach it slowler than what some radicals may like. They should be killed, the lot of them.

[Dalcaria]

I believe I would be on the same page as Archregimancy and say that so long as the king supports the freedoms and liberties of the people, I see no reason to support parliament. What difference does it make to elect 300 people to have the same amount of power as the monarch, and then have them do a poorer job wielding that power? As I said, I support freedom and liberty for all people, but I believe the monarchy can accomplish that and maintain the state better than the parliamentarians.

(Edit: Opps, missed that you wanted this in period. )

[The Sotoan Union]

Do any of you realize just how ineffective the current King is? Don't look at this as the King vs the Parliament. Look at this as the Parliament vs King Charles, and everything he stands for as an individual.

Ever since the Magna Carta, it has been established that England is not an absolute monarchy in any sense of the term. Our King is the leader of our country. But he is not our country. Our King shares his power with the Parliament, representing the people of this country. Our Parliament has long served as an advisory body to His Majesty. Our Parliament has raised tax revenues for the King in a far more effective manner than the King could alone. The Parliament can also submit bills to the King. This allows the will of the people to have influence over the King's decisions.

But King Charles would have us return to the dark ages. King Charles ruled for eleven years as a tyrant. He abused his power. When he sent English troops to France to die, he dissolved Parliament when they expressed their right to criticize them. During his eleven year tyranny he raised several illegal taxes, long banned by English law. He married a catholic, and when accused of trying to bring back Catholicism he had dissidents arrested. When he finally reformed Parliament, it was only because he needed money to invade Scotland. When the Parliament dared to negotiate with him, he disbanded them and invaded Scotland himself. Then he recalled Parliament, but only because he needed money again. Never mind the fact that the King started this war. Never mind the fact that he tried to have five members of the House of Commons arrested.

Our King is not only a tyrant, but an ineffective leader. Some of you have said that it is your duty to support the King. That the Parliament is extremist. Don't be fooled. King Charles is the radical who would defy centuries of English government. The Parliament simply asks that we return to the system established by the Magna Carta. The same system that has produced some of the greatest leaders in English history. We are not some band of barbarians lead by a mouth breathing chieftain. We are civilized and enlightened. We cast aside the idea of absolute monarchy ages ago. To preserve our religion, our way of life, and our civility, we must support Parliament. They are the conservatives here. King Charles is trying to change centuries of English government. The Parliament is not trying to destroy the monarchy. It is simply trying to oust a tyrant and an extremist.

[CTALNH]

The king must die so that the country can live. *Jacobin whispering from the corner.

[Camelza]

Ol' England and King Charles forever!

[Dalcaria]

*snip*

Give that man a slice of Plymouth Rock!

[Republic of Hasgriu]

Parliament, more people to be assassinated before panic rises.

[Avaerilon]

I say!

*rides up on a horse, dressed in exquisite clothes, dismounts, and takes his stylish large feathered hat off*

These bloody Roundheads simply have no style! Those joyless puritanicals would ban Christmas celebrations and spark strife betwixt us the like of which thou hast not seen before, and I for one will simply not tolerate that, old boy. Furthermore, with this romantic garb and my manners most becoming, I shall win the hearts of many a fair lass, whilst the ungainly and sober Roundheads shall turn many away with their sour, sulking faces and poxy clothes. Mayhap that they have a more efficient company of men, but nobody likes a robot, I say!

I hereby pledge my sword to Charles, my king, though p'raps when the time doth come that we are supping in the halls of victory anew, I boldly ask of him "so what's with all this divine rights of kings nonsense, Charlie?"

*bows elegantly and winks at nearby sultry maidens, causing them to swoon*

[Right-Wing Anarchy of Egoism]

Whoever leaves me alone more, that I'd support.

[The Sotoan Union]

*snip*

Give that man a slice of Plymouth Rock!

King Charles is a disgrace to the monarchy. This is the government he would destroy.

[Arztoztka]

Honestly I would had saw that as pretty stupid, that war.

I wouldn't have supported the king because even if he had won and be as innocent as a blind priest, other kings would follow and become tyrants.

And I wouldn't have supported the Roundheads because I detest Puritanism, but I would had believed more power to the parliament is better, however, then corrupt individuals would had risen to prominence and commit atrocities as well.

[Eaglleia]

Normally I'd say monarchy...but Cromwell and Parliament over Charles any day.

[Camelza]

Normally I'd say monarchy...but Cromwell and Parliament over Charles any day.

"Chritsmas? Bah! Humbug!"
Ban fun!

[Dalcaria]

Normally I'd say monarchy...but Cromwell and Parliament over Charles any day.

From what I can tell, Cromwell wasn't much better than Charles. I'm of the mind to support the crown, but not necessarily the one who wears it. However, the topic is more "do you support A or B?" and they don't really give you the "actually, I'm going to make an option C" option, because that's the one I'd go with. Depose Charles, bring in a decent king, and ensure the powers of the monarch and the parliament are balanced in such a way that will be most beneficial to the people... And the Puritans can have Plymouth rock.

[Eaglleia]

Normally I'd say monarchy...but Cromwell and Parliament over Charles any day.

"Chritsmas? Bah! Humbug!"
Ban fun!

What are you, some kind of Catholic or something? England needs no Christmas!

Disclaimer: This in period talk does not necessarily reflect my views on matters kthxbai.

[The Sotoan Union]

Normally I'd say monarchy...but Cromwell and Parliament over Charles any day.

"Chritsmas? Bah! Humbug!"

Where does this anti-religion sentiment come from? Charles is the one who has made some unpopular religious choices. The Parliament just wants to keep the conventional church of England.

[Chelta]

I should support Parliament. Not to depose the King, but to remind him of his place. The defence of the liberties of England require that Parliament's prerogatives be vindicated.

Basically, what Sotoan said.

[The Sotoan Union]

Normally I'd say monarchy...but Cromwell and Parliament over Charles any day.

From what I can tell, Cromwell wasn't much better than Charles. I'm of the mind to support the crown, but not necessarily the one who wears it. However, the topic is more "do you support A or B?" and they don't really give you the "actually, I'm going to make an option C" option, because that's the one I'd go with. Depose Charles, bring in a decent king, and ensure the powers of the monarch and the parliament are balanced in such a way that will be most beneficial to the people... And the Puritans can have Plymouth rock.

2014: Did Cromwell establish himself as the leader of the Parliamentarians in 1643? At this point I don't think it's a question between Cromwell and Charles. The Parliamentarians still wanted Charles as King. They just didn't want him to have so much power.

[Avaerilon]

Where does this anti-religion sentiment come from? Charles is the one who has made some unpopular religious choices. The Parliament just wants to keep the conventional church of England.

In fact, squire, Mr. Cromwell believed the celebration of Christmas to be immoral- with all the garish clothes and feasting and merriment so acidic to the soul in his puritanical eyes, and henceforth upon his victory did ban its celebration, the wretched swine!

[Distruzio]

Do any of you realize just how ineffective the current King is? Don't look at this as the King vs the Parliament. Look at this as the Parliament vs King Charles, and everything he stands for as an individual.

Ever since the Magna Carta, it has been established that England is not an absolute monarchy in any sense of the term. Our King is the leader of our country. But he is not our country. Our King shares his power with the Parliament, representing the people of this country. Our Parliament has long served as an advisory body to His Majesty. Our Parliament has raised tax revenues for the King in a far more effective manner than the King could alone. The Parliament can also submit bills to the King. This allows the will of the people to have influence over the King's decisions.

But King Charles would have us return to the dark ages. King Charles ruled for eleven years as a tyrant. He abused his power. When he sent English troops to France to die, he dissolved Parliament when they expressed their right to criticize them. During his eleven year tyranny he raised several illegal taxes, long banned by English law. He married a catholic, and when accused of trying to bring back Catholicism he had dissidents arrested. When he finally reformed Parliament, it was only because he needed money to invade Scotland. When the Parliament dared to negotiate with him, he disbanded them and invaded Scotland himself. Then he recalled Parliament, but only because he needed money again. Never mind the fact that the King started this war. Never mind the fact that he tried to have five members of the House of Commons arrested.

Our King is not only a tyrant, but an ineffective leader. Some of you have said that it is your duty to support the King. That the Parliament is extremist. Don't be fooled. King Charles is the radical who would defy centuries of English government. The Parliament simply asks that we return to the system established by the Magna Carta. The same system that has produced some of the greatest leaders in English history. We are not some band of barbarians lead by a mouth breathing chieftain. We are civilized and enlightened. We cast aside the idea of absolute monarchy ages ago. To preserve our religion, our way of life, and our civility, we must support Parliament. They are the conservatives here. King Charles is trying to change centuries of English government. The Parliament is not trying to destroy the monarchy. It is simply trying to oust a tyrant and an extremist.

Is King Charles not a product of that pinnacle of Parliamentarian achievement? Shall we throw out all that makes England good and proper because of a single less than savory apple? You would proclaim justice to be your champion but what is justice without law and order? The law, dear sir, elevates Charles as our King. For better or worse. His is the only rightful claim to the throne.

Parliament would have us cast down the just and proper ruler of all England because he had the temerity to reject their usurpation of authority. Parliament would have us cast down a tyrant by means of authoritarianism. For what is revolution but the authoritarian battle of wills between one faction and another. You say parliament opposes a tyrant. I ask what is parliament but a group of tyrants insisting their tyranny is preferable?

Nay, sir. Charles is King by right. His frailties as King are only a product of his station of a Man instead of a god. Those who would challenge him by plunging this country into civil strife deserve the block. They see themselves as too tall a manner of man to bend the knee. I wonder if they would be better served having some height removed that they and their fellows might learn some humility in death.

[The Sotoan Union]

Where does this anti-religion sentiment come from? Charles is the one who has made some unpopular religious choices. The Parliament just wants to keep the conventional church of England.

In fact, squire, Mr. Cromwell believed the celebration of Christmas to be immoral- with all the garish clothes and feasting and merriment so acidic to the soul in his puritanical eyes, and henceforth upon his victory did ban its celebration, the wretched swine!

Cromwell is the leader of a single cavalry troop. His opinions in Christmas are no more important than anyone else's.