King Charles I and II



"Forced once again to surrender, Charles I was put on trial, found guilty of high treason, and removed from the throne.

On January 30, 1649, he was beheaded in front of a large crowd in London."

A lot to live up to.

Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee:
Charles II was something of a political realist (at least initially), as would be necessary by that point in time after the restoration. His biggest mistake was the gravitation of the Stuart dynasty back towards Catholicism under him and his brother and we know what that led to. In spite of this, Charles kept his head until his death by natural causes and was able to pass the throne onto his brother successfully, the fact that he than lost it is more on him than Charles II.

I think the article is bit unfair to Charles II in the attempt to paint both as terrible and imply that Charles III will likewise be a disaster. Charles II was not an Elizabeth (I or II) or a Victoria, but he also wasn't King John or his father either. The plague and the fire were not something he could control, Monarchical womanizing was rather common, especially prior to the image established by Queen Victoria.

Mr.Barkari Sellers:
Oliver Cromwell was a reformationist like Martin Luther that established the Commonwealth of England that gave Parliament executive and legislative power

The Crown is already reformed they are slowly giving way to independence of other nations like Jamaica, Canada and Australia and just keeping the Monarchy as Head of State, we still are allies with with UK, they aren't our head of state but they are part of our military, every war we have fought in, we go to war with UK


[0] Message Index