 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / January 2006Cavalier or Roundhead, who's for the King?
Gentlemen, The English Civil War (1625-49) was a true class war, a precursor to later European class struggles, or an entirely religious war between rural, gay and frivolous, wealthy, upper-class Roman Catholic degenerates and urban, dour, puritanical, tea-totaling, middle class, God-fearing Calvinists. The Parliamentary forces won because the King was a weak dissolute, and Cromwell an early day Trotsky, idealistic, selfless, driven, pure, and a true reformer........or not. These are but a few of the clichés currently floating around about the ECW on this side of the pond which need mending by folks who are better informed. What are the real reasons for the war and what were the real demographics on each side (remembering to cut off all outside groups which crop up during the discussion)? Who rallied to the King and why? -the Troll > What are the real reasons for the war Money. and what were the real demographics on > each side (remembering to cut off all outside groups which crop up during > the discussion)? Roundheads: Urban, moneyed, educated (70% of the ordinary soldiers were literate by the standards of the time) ruthless, good at politics (invented political parties, military dictatorship and coups) enjoyed parties Cavaliers: Rural, un educated, sentimental, loyal (to absurd lengths), only wanted rich fashionable people to have parties. Both lots: Disorganised, badly led at first, inexperienced at war with a nasty tendency to trust generals who didn't deserve that trust. In twenty years England went from being a backwater to the first military power (in modern terms) with the beginnings of an empire and the first stirrings of The Enlightenment began. >Who rallied to the King and why? Well, 'who didn't and why?' is a more interesting question. The king shouldn't have had a problem crushing a few dozen rebellious politicians with no money, no army and no organisation. If Charles and his councillors had actually had anything about them they'd have crushed the rebellion in a few weeks without even a single battle. But why invite a battle, fight it to a draw and then wander off and do nothing? They should have marched into London rather than bottle out at Finsbury Fields. After Finsbury Fields it didn't matter who won. The days of 'Divine Right' were over in England.  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> What are the real reasons for the war > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Right' > were over in England. Re:- >>>Who rallied to the King and why? > > Well, 'who didn't and why?' is a more interesting question In the one case I studied, those who occupied the ruling council, which decided who traded, rallied for the King. eg. the Mayor and his bunch of armed thugs attacked and chased the survivors out of the town. Those who could not get permission to establish themselves probably had different views on religion, or wished for other changes which the embedded, established party was afraid of. Of course, the more remote the town, or even those remote from town life completely, would be less likely to like change, (King for Parliament) so differences between areas and towns arose. Also, those who carried weight by their spending power or their ability to promote their friends into power (at local level) were also capable in some circumstances to affect the outcome. Some of these people sat in Parliament - when it sat. Since they had less financial pressures, they favoured King or Parliament in a more random pattern. SignatureThur "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> What are the real reasons for the war > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Right' > were over in England. Kings had been beaten in war before without loosing the aura of divine right, there were nobles, city folk, rural folk, rich and poor, literate and illiterate, on both sides and how can you have a party with some long nosed Calvinist preacher watching your elbow? Something isn't right about your appraisement. How save exactly was London for the King? Could he have gotten together enough force to crush the rebellion? -the Troll > Kings had been beaten in war before without loosing the aura of divine > right, there were nobles, city folk, rural folk, rich and poor, literate and > illiterate, on both sides and how can you have a party with some long nosed > Calvinist preacher watching your elbow? Cromwell danced until dawn at his daughter's wedding. Some of those 'Calvinist preachers' were from a group called 'The Family of Man' who believed in free love and women preachers. Others were 'Anabaptists' who were too radical for even the Calvinists. 'Fifth Monarchy Men' were people, often soldiers, some of high rank, who believed that if England could become a 'land of saints' (meaning a land of Godly Protestants) then Jesus would return. Try and get hold of a book called 'The World Turned Upside-down by the late Christopher Hill. It has more seventeenth century radicals and religious nutters (of various types) than you can imagine. Something isn't right about your > appraisement. How save exactly was London for the King? Could he have gotten > together enough force to crush the rebellion? He did. He marched to London after Edgehill, and then marched away again, as far as anyone can tell because he didn't want to fight a battle... While second guessing history isn't my hobby many people have speculated that if he'd have fought he'd have won and without London the parliamentarians would have folded, London was where the money and the arms were... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> Kings had been beaten in war before without loosing the aura of divine >> right, there were nobles, city folk, rural folk, rich and poor, literate [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It has more seventeenth century radicals and religious nutters (of various > types) than you can imagine. Then it couldn't very well have been a religious war in the strictest sense with such differing beliefs on both sides. It is something I have always wondered about. How did the political Monarchists CofE folks get on with the Roman Catholics they were obliged to rub elbows with and how did Cromwell get on with the real puritanical Protestants scowling from the dark corners? > Something isn't right about your >> appraisement. How save exactly was London for the King? Could he have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > arms > were... I suspect that the King had no confidence in his ability to win over the London crowd. Taking a place isn't the same as holding it and governing from there once you have. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > Then it couldn't very well have been a religious war in the strictest sense > with such differing beliefs on both sides. It wasn't. It is something I have always > wondered about. How did the political Monarchists CofE folks get on with the > Roman Catholics they were obliged to rub elbows with Well it caused a lot of problems, remember officers could resign at any time, and many did when stuff like this happened. Although there weren't that many Catholics involved. and how did Cromwell > get on with the real puritanical Protestants scowling from the dark corners? He seems to have fallen out with them when they formed a government. that's who his coup was against... > I suspect that the King had no confidence in his ability to win over the > London crowd. You're in good company there. That's the usual recieved opinion. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> Then it couldn't very well have been a religious war in the strictest > sense [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Although there weren't that many Catholics involved. Until Ireland you mean. > and how did Cromwell >> get on with the real puritanical Protestants scowling from the dark [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's the usual recieved opinion. So not entering London may have been wise. Did he have any support in the Parliament or was their opposition uniform? -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > > Although there weren't that many Catholics involved. > > Until Ireland you mean. How many Catholics were actually involved in the fighting is a matter of some discussion as well. Most of the fighting seems to have been between Irish Protestant lords loyal to the king and Parliamentary soldiers. > So not entering London may have been wise. Did he have any support in the > Parliament or was their opposition uniform? The king called his own parliament which had a number of members from the original one. The personalities and numbers involved is a field of study in its own right and a number of books have been written about this. Get a hold of a Caliver Books or Stuart Press catalogue, or see: http://www.caliverbooks.com/ And you'll see that there's a huge literature on the politics of the period. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> > Although there weren't that many Catholics involved. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > loyal > to the king and Parliamentary soldiers. That would have made a pot of strange bedfellows and an interesting course of study in iteslf. >> So not entering London may have been wise. Did he have any support in the >> Parliament or was their opposition uniform? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And you'll see that there's a huge literature on the politics of the > period. Jeez, what a trove! There are no fewer than 3 books on Bristol alone, one even period. I'll get right on it, thanks. :^) -the Troll >Jeez, what a trove! Erm... Trove is an adjective... SignatureIan >>Jeez, what a trove! > > Erm... Trove is an adjective... Strictly according to its original meaning, yes, but here's what the OED says now: Short for TREASURE-TROVE (q.v.), in sense 'a valuable find'. Hence, a source of treasure, a reserve or repository of valuable things. 1888 KIPLING Plain Tales from Hills xiii. 94 The value of her trove struck her, and she cast about for the best method of using it. 1901 Kim i. 11 Delighted as a child at each new trove. 1909 G. W. YOUNG Wind & Hill Ded., A kingdom..More rich than childhood's fairy trove. 1976 Publishers Weekly 13 Sept. 97/1 Reaching back to the fifth century and up to today, the authors find a trove of artists whose work merits acknowledgment. 1982 Sci. Amer. Aug. 30A/1 Kingdon has himself visited 105 of those areas. He returns with his trove of image and understanding. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) "Ian Dalziel" wrote in message >>Jeez, what a trove! > > Erm... Trove is an adjective... trove n. A collection of valuable items discovered or found; a treasure-trove -the Troll >"Ian Dalziel" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A collection of valuable items discovered or found; a treasure-trove > -the Troll Yes, I give in. It's still an error, but it's an old enough error that it's acceptable usage. Doesn't mean I have to like it. :-) SignatureIan > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That would have made a pot of strange bedfellows and an interesting course > of study in iteslf. The Battle of the Boyne is even better. The Catholic soldiers were fighting for Dutch William and the Protestant acendancy, the Protestant Irish soldiers were fighting for Catholic James. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> > How many Catholics were actually involved in the fighting is a matter >> > of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > acendancy, the Protestant Irish soldiers were fighting for Catholic > James. I thought William brought his army over from England. -the Troll >"William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >I thought William brought his army over from England. -the Troll Immediately, yes. Much of it was made up of Dutch and allied troops, though. SignatureIan "Ian Dalziel" wrote in message >>>> > How many Catholics were actually involved in the fighting is a matter >>>> > of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Immediately, yes. Much of it was made up of Dutch and allied troops, > though. That's what I thought, which doesn't support Sir William's idea they were Catholic. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I thought William brought his army over from England. Nope, he hired most of them from Europe. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > and what were the real demographics on > > each side (remembering to cut off all outside groups which crop up during [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cavaliers: Rural, un educated, sentimental, loyal (to absurd lengths), > only wanted rich fashionable people to have parties. The demographics of the leadership seem more relevant than those of the rank-and-file. Both sides in the English Civil War were gentlemen; many Parliamentarian leaders were hereditary aristocrats; some individuals changed sides more than once. All suggest the complexity of the situation and how much loyalty was influenced by taxation and other financial measures. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) "Don Phillipson" wrote in message > The demographics of the leadership seem more relevant > than those of the rank-and-file. Both sides in the English [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > situation and how much loyalty was influenced by taxation > and other financial measures. Yup, and some were clearly family or personal alliances established long before the war.-the Troll > The demographics of the leadership seem more relevant > than those of the rank-and-file. Both sides in the English > Civil War were gentlemen; many Parliamentarian leaders > were hereditary aristocrats; some individuals changed > sides more than once. Many weren't. Both Lilbourn brothers, Harrison and many other Roundhead senior officers had humble origins. Ferdinando Fairfax was a Yorkshire wool merchant who had bought his (Irish) peerage and was horribly sensitive about things like 'hat courtesy', as was his son. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > Gentlemen, > The English Civil War (1625-49) was a true class war, a precursor to later > European class struggles, or an entirely religious war between rural, gay [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an early day Trotsky, idealistic, selfless, driven, pure, and a true > reformer........or not. > These are but a few of the clichés currently floating around about the ECW > on this side of the pond which need mending by folks who are better > informed. > What are the real reasons for the war and what were the real demographics on > each side (remembering to cut off all outside groups which crop up during > the discussion)? Who rallied to the King and why? It was certainly a religious war - not because it was about religion but because sides were taken and amiantained with religious fervour and with similar lack of reason. Each person would have had their own justification for their choice, which may have included elements from your list, but what do you want to know about the war (wars)? Presumably you are after causes (which needs people to organise armies) - that's not the same as reasons (which vary between individuals) for people to join one army rather than another. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing I'm very interested in the ECW but still learning about it. From what I understand, it represents the birth of modern democracy, which differed from classical democracy in that it was universalist in scope and had a strong religious component. Democracy was seen as a path to spiritual salvation and tied in heavily with apocalyptic thinking. Some believe it emerged as a response to class oppression or corruption of the nobility etc. Maybe religious justification was used to augment their point about oppression. It all happened at a time when information started to spread much more rapidly due to more newspapers or something like that. Odd how there was apparently a struggle between the divine right of kings and sort of a divine right of the people. Nobody put it like that, but there was a strong messianic aspect to it. The people's victory didn't last long but their example inspired the American founders and probably Marx. Liberals in America are constantly harping on how the American framers didn't have strong religious beliefs and left God out of the constitution. But what they don't care to remember is that the ECW was all about religion and that's how modern democracy came about. Americans just wanted religion left out of government, not abandoned altogether. So the ECW ranks right up there with Magan Carta as great English contributions to the world. England had a monarchy but it was a constitutional monarchy, unlike most if not all other monarchies of the day. That left the door open for things like the ECW. But something about raw, pure democracy doesn't last long, it seems to wilt quickly in the heat of the noonday sun. Greek history is probably what I know best. JB "JB" wrote in message > I'm very interested in the ECW but still learning about it. From what I > understand, it represents the birth of modern democracy, which differed [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > raw, pure democracy doesn't last long, it seems to wilt quickly in the > heat of the noonday sun. Greek history is probably what I know best. It couldn't be and wasn't all about religion. Sir William has a natural tendency to exaggerate by blunt force, hence his answer "Money". He is very fond of terse prose for dramatic effect and it is difficult to be complete when your writing style is limited to simple or one word answers in very brief paragraphs. Trust me, he can do better if he tries. You're looking down the road to the effects of the war. Just now we need to set up whodunnit and why. I happen to agree with much of what you say, btw, and Greek history has fascinated me since I was probably 10. Part of the fun of these groups is watching folks sort out in the objectivity column. I guess you can tell Sir William and John are rabid Monarchists who have pictures of the Queen on their monitors and have been working for years at getting knighthoods just to get admitted to the Royal presence (just kidding). Spenser's folks and mine came from South Wales and fought for the King, so it's fun to watch side taking going on with all of this in mind, remembering that real history is supposed to be purely objective. -the Troll > Part of the fun of these groups is watching folks sort out in the > objectivity column. I guess you can tell Sir William and John are rabid > Monarchists who have pictures of the Queen on their monitors and have been > working for years at getting knighthoods just to get admitted to the Royal > presence (just kidding). Well I'm a monarchist to the extent that I can't honestly think of an alternative that excludes a certain retired Tory politician (indeed any retired Tory politician) Having run into royalty a few times over the years I have no complaints. As a rule when they're around the food is good, the booze is free and everyone is polite, even the security people... Spenser's folks and mine came from South Wales and > fought for the King, so it's fun to watch side taking going on with all of > this in mind, remembering that real history is supposed to be purely > objective. Here we go again. Real history isn't meant to be objective. Everyone has a point of view Even historians. Bad history is people collecting 'facts' which get blown away two years down stream. Good history is when you acknowledge you have a point of view and you make the 'facts' fit that 'world view'. For example, from your (US conservative) point of view Cromwell could be seen as a small businessman who made himself ruler and so, not by accident, made life easier for businessmen by eliminating the crown monopolies that were strangling trade. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> Part of the fun of these groups is watching folks sort out in the >> objectivity column. I guess you can tell Sir William and John are rabid [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As a rule when they're around the food is good, the booze is free and > everyone is polite, even the security people... You are going to Marxist Hell for that one, Sir William. I can just see you explaining that to Comrade Friederich, the Red Engel (aw Jeez) guardian of the portal to the Worker's Paradise. You are going to be on the chute in a flash and have to spend eternity taking tea with St. Margaret, Franco, and all the other enemies of Socialism. > Spenser's folks and mine came from South Wales and >> fought for the King, so it's fun to watch side taking going on with all [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > made life easier for businessmen by eliminating the crown monopolies that > were strangling trade. You are right, which doesn't mean the goal shouldn't be objectivity even when it is almost impossible for humans to get there. Somewhere the historian is going to favor a personality or idea from the period, however long ago, and write the opposition down. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You are going to Marxist Hell for that one, I don't think they have one. But you'll have to ask Jack Love about it. he seems to be the expert on Marxists... > > For example, from your (US conservative) point of view Cromwell could be > > seen as a small businessman who made himself ruler and so, not by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > historian is going to favor a personality or idea from the period, however > long ago, and write the opposition down. And we're back, as always, to historical philosophy again. You view of history is coloured by you view of what shapes history. Unfortunately in this case the ECW is usually used by Marxist Historical Philosophers as their favourite case study. When you read about what happened you find that the people change but history keeps rolling along as if nothing happened... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> > Well I'm a monarchist to the extent that I can't honestly think of an >> > alternative that excludes a certain retired Tory politician (indeed any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But you'll have to ask Jack Love about it. he seems to be the expert on > Marxists... Who is Jack Love? >> > For example, from your (US conservative) point of view Cromwell could > be [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > When you read about what happened you find that the people change but > history keeps rolling along as if nothing happened... You've already brought me around to accepting a wider of view of history in the sense of it not being a set of still photographs and that leaders and events are reflective of the current of history without being determinative if that makes you feel better. I'm not going to call it Marxist historical perspective because it is distasteful like admitting an ancestor made the family fortune by running a whore house. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > > You view of history is coloured by you view of what shapes history. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > perspective because it is distasteful like admitting an ancestor made the > family fortune by running a whore house. Well a pure Marxist interpretation of history is a little old fashioned these days. Many historians take what's known as a 'Post Marxist' view where history is still considered to be mainly economic but that is driven by technological change. So economic systems change as technology forces them to change. The important examples usually quoted as the medieval economic system (feudalism is considered a very poor way of describing it) being a system designed to finance large numbers of horsed and armoured cavalry and the rise of Capitalism (via Mercantilism) was to finance the gunpowder revolution that was 'cash intensive' warfare. Again the ECW is a good example of this with the emergence of the first modern regular army being a product of a Capitalist approach to fighting a war. "Post Marxist" theories of history were developed by Thatcherite academics in the UK who liked Marxist theories about as much as you do... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> > You view of history is coloured by you view of what shapes history. >> > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > "Post Marxist" theories of history were developed by Thatcherite academics > in the UK who liked Marxist theories about as much as you do... I have always thought history was immensely complicated and didn't care much even when young for simplistic answers and limiting conclusions which I used to think were artificially concocted to teach the subject in grammar and primary schools. I have since learned it is more comforting and infinitely easier for human beings to think in simplistic terms even though they are almost always wrong or incomplete. The kids don't ask me questions on history because I will go on for hours even with the simplest question. There really is no easy or painless way. In the end history isn't about economics, or security, or leaders, or events, or ideas, or climate, or geography, or outside influences, or disease, or technology, but all of them together and at the same time if in varying values. Early history was discovering *what* happened in the past, a process still incomplete. Only after we could answer that question with reasonable assurance could we then ask how and why. It's a perfectly natural and logical progression. Economic determinism isn't exclusively owned by Marxist thinkers. Macaulay, Gibbon and even Tacitus, Livy, and Herodotus mention economic factors as contributory to events. Marxism is a dirty word over here. It is because it never had the adherents this side of the pond because the socio-economic conditions never met Marxist descriptions of early industrial societies for the vast bulk of the American population. Americans assumed it was a European situation/problem, which didn't include us. The Revolution in Russia, excesses of Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, and Stalinist and Maoist repression, and the Cold War didn't do much to help their image as useful social philosophers. What has penetrated is ideas from far less radical, mostly British, post-war Socialist thinkers who have had the wisdom to separate themselves from any connection to Marxist ideology. -the Troll . Early history was discovering *what* happened in the past, a > process still incomplete. Only after we could answer that question with > reasonable assurance could we then ask how and why. It's a perfectly natural > and logical progression. Except nobody wants 'just facts'. That's boring and open to contradiction every time someone at the Public Records Office opens a file drawer. Since the ULTRA relavations in about 1973 the whole 'factual' history of WWII has had to be rewritten. But the works on the possible motivations on the great leaders of WWII are as valid as ever... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message > . Early history was discovering *what* happened in the past, a >> process still incomplete. Only after we could answer that question with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are > as valid as ever... You need 'just facts' like a contextual road map to hang everything else on but you're right they are boring and don't tell you much. -the Troll ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Is there a good book or two on the effect of the ECW in the American colonies ? Cheers, David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "John Cartmell" wrote in message > In article hippo wrote: >> What are the real reasons for the war and what were the real demographics >> on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > vary > between individuals) for people to join one army rather than another. Good points, how about the facts there were widely differing ideas about religion on both sides, then. The King's forces had Roman Catholics and CofE and the Parliamentarians were from CofE through some pretty radical Calvinists. How did they get on or did they? If it had been a purely religious war, how could the diverse sides have stayed together long enough to win? -the Troll > Who rallied to the King and why? -the Troll I may be a cynic but it seems to me that the more prominent the family the more likely it was to have members on both sides. Ken Young <kenney@cix. wrote in message > In article (hippo) wrote: > >> Who rallied to the King and why? -the Troll > > I may be a cynic but it seems to me that the more prominent the > family the more likely it was to have members on both sides. It may be the more prominent the family the easier it is to trace the family connection. It's a good point, though, and worth thinking about. -the Troll |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.