[Cyfer]

Was the Grand Remonstrance key to swaying the public? As it only passed by 159 votes to 148, even with John Pym's lengthy speeches and being acknowledged as the main political opponent to King Charles. Did this sway parliament and eventually the public? or did something else.

I am struggling to find an answer for this, help would be greatly appreciated

[MrJohnDClare]

If anything, it turned people AGAINST the Parliament's cause.
Parliamentarians who had previously been against Charles's 11 Years Tyranny, now considered that Pym and his party had actually now gone too far, and swungover to Charles's side.
It certanly brought war nearer because it created a 'Royalist' cause.
Also it was about this time that Charles, realising that Parliament really intended to reduce his powers significantly and permanently, began to prepare himself mentally for war.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 3 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

If anything, it turned people AGAINST the Parliament's cause.
Parliamentarians who had previously been against Charles's 11 Years Tyranny, now considered that Pym and his party had actually now gone too far, and swungover to Charles's side.
It certanly brought war nearer because it created a 'Royalist' cause.
Also it was about this time that Charles, realising that Parliament really intended to reduce his powers significantly and permanently, began to prepare himself mentally for war.

I will take this into account, quite shocking how fast sides can change, but yet after this Grand Remonstrance people were still mostly in favour of Parliament or they wouldn't have come up with the 19 propositions? Or were the 19 propositions a result of arresting the 5 MPs. By preparing yourself mentally do you mean just toughening yourself up, or actually thinking of battle strategies?

~Cyfer/Cipher

[MrJohnDClare]

Smart answer.

Remember that it wasn't the people who sent the 19 Propositions, but the Parliament.
See this thread.
By the 19 Propositions, I think you will find that many MPs who supproted Charles had withdrawn themselves from Parliament.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

By the 19 Propositions, I think you will find that many MPs who supproted Charles had withdrawn themselves from Parliament.

Wow thank you for that, so many possibilities leading from that.

Did Parliament hire more MP's?

Is this a second reason to half the MP's not showing up at Charles' prosecution (my first reason being fear of what Royalist supporters would do to them)

Thank you for the link

~Cyfer/Cipher

P.S: i hope i am not wasting too much of your time with these questions. Nowadays i am aware that teachers have a life

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

Did Parliament hire more MP's?

No. In fact the number of MPs attending the Long Parliament got fewer and fewer (as more and more died or fell out with what the Parliament was doing) until there was only a 'Rump' of (???)53 left - whereupon Cromwell chucked them out saying: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! "

Quote

Is this a second reason to half the MP's not showing up at Charles' prosecution (my first reason being fear of what Royalist supporters would do to them)

Yes - absolutely.

Quote

P.S: i hope i am not wasting too much of your time with these questions. Nowadays i am aware that teachers have a life

Don't be fooled; actually we're all sad old gits with nothing better to do with our time

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

whereupon Cromwell chucked them out saying: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! "

Sounds just like Cromwell!

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

Sounds just like Cromwell!

Yes!
He was a wonderful man and - when I was younger - my hero!

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

Sounds just like Cromwell!

Yes!
He was a wonderful man and - when I was younger - my hero!

Hero? never heard that before

Excuse me for asking but for what reasons?

For his down-to-earth straightforward talking/speeches or how he destroyed Charles whom you might have viewed as the 'villain' because lots of paintings depict especially Royalists as plundering/pillaging neutrals even though it was both sides?

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

Excuse me for asking but for what reasons?

http://www.schoolhis...u...post&p=4397

Quote

For his down-to-earth straightforward talking/speeches or how he destroyed Charles whom you might have viewed as the 'villain' because lots of paintings depict especially Royalists as plundering/pillaging neutrals even though it was both sides?

Yes ... fairly much everything he was and (almost) everything he did.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:49 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

Excuse me for asking but for what reasons?

http://www.schoolhis...u...post&p=4397

Quote

For his down-to-earth straightforward talking/speeches or how he destroyed Charles whom you might have viewed as the 'villain' because lots of paintings depict especially Royalists as plundering/pillaging neutrals even though it was both sides?

Yes ... fairly much everything he was and (almost) everything he did.

Aha, but viewing Charles as a villain and being happy he is obliterated is an opinion and therefore invalid as people have opinions of either side even though Charles did lose the war and was a rubbish tactician (social, military and political)

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

Aha, but viewing Charles as a villain and being happy he is obliterated is an opinion and therefore invalid as people have opinions of either side ...

Not an 'opinion', but an 'interpretation'.
Can you tell me what is the difference?

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

Aha, but viewing Charles as a villain and being happy he is obliterated is an opinion and therefore invalid as people have opinions of either side ...

Not an 'opinion', but an 'interpretation'.
Can you tell me what is the difference?

Ok i'll have a go.

Opinion: An opinion is how you view someone/ what you think of them
Interpretation: How you view/interpret them due to what they have done

Sorry, not very good with definitions.

~Cyfer/Cipher