Cavaliers, Roundheads and Democracy

DerekC · 9 Dec 2019

I have noticed in talking to some of my grandchildren (ages 7 to 13) that they have absorbed a simplistic and very one-sided view of the English Civil War. Cavaliers are seen as exciting, brave and fighting for freedom. Roundheads are seen as baddies, trying to stop people doing what they want. This upsets me a bit, because the real story is very important - and not just to democracy in the UK, either. I quote Thomas Rainsborough in 1647:

“I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he, and therefore truly, Sir, I think it’s clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent, to put himself under that government and I do think that the poorest man in England is not bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under”

Has anyone else noticed this - and is it how the subject is taught in schools that's the problem?

RailUK Forums

randyrippley · 10 Dec 2019

The Roundheads were more or less England's equivalent of the Taliban.
Destruction and Purification in the Name of God were their rationale

yorksrob · 10 Dec 2019

DerekC said:
I have noticed in talking to some of my grandchildren (ages 7 to 13) that they have absorbed a simplistic and very one-sided view of the English Civil War. Cavaliers are seen as exciting, brave and fighting for freedom. Roundheads are seen as baddies, trying to stop people doing what they want. This upsets me a bit, because the real story is very important - and not just to democracy in the UK, either. I quote Thomas Rainsborough in 1647:

Has anyone else noticed this - and is it how the subject is taught in schools that's the problem?

It does seem worrying if schoola are reducing theconstitutional foundation of democracy to the content of a disney cartoon.

edwin_m · 10 Dec 2019

randyrippley said:
The Roundheads were more or less England's equivalent of the Taliban.
Destruction and Purification in the Name of God were their rationale

Whereas the Cavaliers believed the King was divinely appointed and could do anything he wanted. I suspect neither side was particularly pleasant, and demonstrate the problems of mixing religion with politics.

PeterC · 10 Dec 2019

Sellars and Yeatman summed it up nicely:
Cavaliers - romantic but wrong
Roundheads - repulsive but right

Bantamzen · 10 Dec 2019

edwin_m said:
Whereas the Cavaliers believed the King was divinely appointed and could do anything he wanted. I suspect neither side was particularly pleasant, and demonstrate the problems of mixing religion with politics.

Is the correct answer.

Our history as a whole is pretty unpleasant, with some real nutters on all sides causing centuries of suffering for most. That's not to say it shouldn't be taught of course, its important to understand where & why we came to be what we are. But there's little point teaching any generation that our pass was anything other than pretty darn nasty, and driven by ever more polarised religious zealots.

DerekC · 10 Dec 2019

Interesting responses - thanks. I agree that it was all very nasty - 200,000 people are thought to have died directly and indirectly as a consequence of the Civil War. And religion certainly made it nastier in some respects, although the toleration of different religious beliefs was a thing that some on the Parliamentary side thought they were fighting for. Seeing it as "Cavaliers" versus "Roundheads" is probably a mistake in itself - there were wide ranging views on both sides and people agonised over whether their duty was to the King whatever he did, or whether they should fight for what they saw as right.

My worry, to express it again, is that the importance of it in terms of the development of democracy is being lost in a kind of "White Hats" versus "Black Hats" view. Older children seem to know more about the American Civil War than they do about the English version.

transmanche · 10 Dec 2019

DerekC said:
Has anyone else noticed this - and is it how the subject is taught in schools that's the problem?

Have they actually studied it as a topic in school, or has everything they know about it been gleaned from Horrible Histories?

The English Civil Wars are not actually a compulsory part of the National Curriculum.

Primary schools are less likely to cover the English Civil Wars, unless a significant event took place in the area. (Schools are encouraged to "study of an aspect of history or a site dating from a period beyond 1066 that is significant in the locality".) So that explains why your younger grandchildren are unfamiliar with the topic.
Secondary school pupils are more likely to study it as part of covering "the development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745". But again, it's listed as an example topic covering this theme and is not compulsory.

SS4 · 10 Dec 2019

It was pretty similar from what I remember from my days in school - or at least what I remember it. It's important to remember that history has always been written by the winners which makes it hard to find anything that goes against the narrative.

I'm loathe to sum up in a pithy answer but there just isn't time to study such a period of complicated English history with the depth it deserves (even if unbaised source material is exists) and, as a result, we are left with a simplistic view of what's left wrapped up in a nice little bow

transmanche · 10 Dec 2019

DerekC said:
200,000 people are thought to have died directly and indirectly as a consequence of the Civil War.

I believe that only includes the deaths in England. Even more people were killed in Scotland and Ireland

I read it's been estimated that about 4% of England's population were killed in the Civil Wars from war, plague and famine - proportionately equivalent to about 2.25million people today. Whereas in Scotland 6% of the population died and in Ireland, a massive 41% of the population perished.

PeterC · 10 Dec 2019

transmanche said:
Have they actually studied it as a topic in school, or has everything they know about it been gleaned from Horrible Histories?
SNIP

I don't know about the current curiculum but we never touched it in the 60s. The O level syllabus back then ran from George 1 to 1914.

The romanticised "Cavaliers and Roundheads" view was something that I absorbed in childhood. It was much later that I discovered that there were separate civil wars in England and Scotland plus Anglo Scottish and an Anglo Irish wars.

DerekC · 10 Dec 2019

transmanche said:
Have they actually studied it as a topic in school, or has everything they know about it been gleaned from Horrible Histories?

The English Civil Wars are not actually a compulsory part of the National Curriculum.

Primary schools are less likely to cover the English Civil Wars, unless a significant event took place in the area. (Schools are encouraged to "study of an aspect of history or a site dating from a period beyond 1066 that is significant in the locality".) So that explains why your younger grandchildren are unfamiliar with the topic.

Secondary school pupils are more likely to study it as part of covering "the development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745". But again, it's listed as an example topic covering this theme and is not compulsory.

Horrible Histories has certainly got something to do with it! You have prompted me to look at what the National Curriculum requires, which I hadn't thought of doing. I take your point, that until Key Stage 3 (11-14) they won't have touched on it - but it's hard to see how you could cover "the development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745" without discussing the subject. I will quiz my 13-year old grandson (who is surprisingly polite) to see what he knows!! I would admit that my views have been largely conditioned by noisy 7- and 10-year olds who think that grandparents don't know anything because they aren't very good at computer games.

Busaholic · 10 Dec 2019

It's a long, long time since I sat Oxford and Cambridge Board 'A' level History, but the English Civil War was our 'special subject' that year, and so for two years we had to become immersed in the subject, as very obtuse questions could be set to test our knowledge. I do know that I came away with the conclusion that, although my head was with the Roundheads, my heart was with the Cavaliers, even though I've always regarded the idea of divine monarchy as being absurd.

transmanche · 10 Dec 2019

DerekC said:
Horrible Histories has certainly got something to do with it! You have prompted me to look at what the National Curriculum requires, which I hadn't thought of doing. I take your point, that until Key Stage 3 (11-14) they won't have touched on it - but it's hard to see how you could cover "the development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745" without discussing the subject.

Well, other example topics include:

Renaissance and Reformation in Europe
the English Reformation and Counter Reformation (Henry VIII to Mary I)
the Elizabethan religious settlement and conflict with Catholics (including Scotland, Spain and Ireland)
the first colony in America and first contact with India
‘Glorious Revolution’ and power of Parliament
the Act of Union of 1707, the Hanoverian succession and the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745
society, economy and culture across the period: for example, work and leisure in town and country, religion and superstition in daily life, theatre, art, music and literature

And they are just suggestions from the DfE for topics on that one theme in Key Stage 3. They're not going to cover all of them and schools are free to set their own topics on that theme anyway. And that's before you consider that Academies and Free Schools don't even have to follow the National Curriculum at all.

History is not a compulsory subject at GCSE, so many pupils will not study any History at all after Key Stage 3 (end of Year 9, age 14).

Butts · 11 Dec 2019

transmanche said:
I believe that only includes the deaths in England. Even more people were killed in Scotland and Ireland

I read it's been estimated that about 4% of England's population were killed in the Civil Wars from war, plague and famine - proportionately equivalent to about 2.25million people today. Whereas in Scotland 6% of the population died and in Ireland, a massive 41% of the population perished.

How many people were killed in Wales ?

Here we see part of the problem conflating England with GB/UK !!

Is it correct to call it The English Civil War when Scotland, Wales and Ireland were also involved ?

Indeed treacherous Scot's handed poor old Charlie over to The Parliamentarians in Newcastle !!

Starmill · 11 Dec 2019

I recall that the English Civil War and the role of Oliver Cromwell caused quite some debate in my Key Stage 3 History lessons.

Initially, there was a great deal of support for the Roundheads, and for Cromwell in particular, as he was shown to resist the unpleasantness of King Charles I. There was perhaps a little bit also of patriotism for the idea that the Roundheads were the 'Parliamentarians'.

Only after the teacher brought us around to the more unpleasant side of Cromwell as a leader did the debate really set in. I can remember the stunned silence when the teacher revealed the source that suggested that Cromwell wanted to ban Christmas.

Eventually we were tasked with choosing a side and designing a campaign poster for whomever we had decided to support. This in itself was a great difficulty, but a little over half of us eventually came down on the side of the Roundheads.

These were then displayed to the class and the teacher went through them summarising how the conflict had affected the country for the following centuries, pointing out all of the terrible things that both sides did and asking us to draw our own conclusions from the grey nature of the sources we'd been given to consider.

All in all, it sounds rather like we had an excellent secondary school History teacher.

This would have been some time around 2008. I finished my study of History at the end of Key Stage 3 in year 9. I've always been slightly sad about that, but I got an A* (as was) in my Geography GCSE, whose lessons took place simultaneously with History's.

Starmill · 11 Dec 2019

transmanche said:
Well, other example topics include:

Renaissance and Reformation in Europe

the English Reformation and Counter Reformation (Henry VIII to Mary I)

the Elizabethan religious settlement and conflict with Catholics (including Scotland, Spain and Ireland)

the first colony in America and first contact with India

‘Glorious Revolution’ and power of Parliament

the Act of Union of 1707, the Hanoverian succession and the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745

society, economy and culture across the period: for example, work and leisure in town and country, religion and superstition in daily life, theatre, art, music and literature

Interestingly, while my memory of the several weeks spent on the English Civil War is quite clear, I don't recall anything at all from any of this list. Some of these items I couldn't even begin to expand on, and others I'm aware of only through other sources e.g. The Bill of Rights Act and then the Acts of Union through Law.

Very simplified studies of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were done during years 4, 5 and 6 though.

I have absolutely no idea how the first colony in America came about or first contact with India, even today.

I stuided Music for GCSE, which bizzarely gave me a slightly better understanding of politics and society after the end of the Renaissance in Europe, in the Baroque, Classical and then Romantic eras. I like to think that I have good grasp of 20th Century history though, as so very much time is dedicated to this, and it's so relevant that I have needed to be much more aware of it from doing my own reading.

Despite this, things like the Bill of Rights are astonishingly relevant to today. The Supreme Court judgement in the recent Miller and Cherry Appeals makes some deal of reference to it.

433N · 11 Dec 2019

DerekC said:
I have noticed in talking to some of my grandchildren (ages 7 to 13) that they have absorbed a simplistic and very one-sided view of the English Civil War. Cavaliers are seen as exciting, brave and fighting for freedom. Roundheads are seen as baddies ...

Has anyone else noticed this - and is it how the subject is taught in schools that's the problem?

You don't say whether your grandchildren are in Ireland, might be pertinent. Just saying.

transmanche · 11 Dec 2019

Starmill said:
Interestingly, while my memory of the several weeks spent on the English Civil War is quite clear, I don't recall anything at all from any of this list.

It's likely that your school chose different topics to study: none of them are compulsory, they're merely suggestions from the DfE.

I should also have mentioned that the current National Curriculum dates from 2014, prior to that a different curriculum was in force.

Starmill said:
I stuided Music for GCSE, which bizzarely gave me a slightly better understanding of politics and society after the end of the Renaissance in Europe, in the Baroque, Classical and then Romantic eras.

That's fascinating. I do think that study of the arts is marginalised in the current curriculum. Yours is a great example of why they have a place in schools.

krus_aragon · 11 Dec 2019

433N said:
You don't say whether your grandchildren are in Ireland, might be pertinent. Just saying.

If they are, there'd be a third side to consider: In Ireland there was a rebellion/coup against the Monarcy, and then later on Cromwell & Co. came in to quash the rebel Catholic state. (The king had funded his war by promising to pay his supporters with land confiscated from the rebels; Cromwell later conquered Ireland in order to get that land.)

I'd guess most in Ireland would view the Confederate rebels as the romantics, rather than the King's Cavaliers. (Cromwell's name is, of course, dirt for most.)

DerekC · 11 Dec 2019

433N said:
You don't say whether your grandchildren are in Ireland, might be pertinent. Just saying.

Good point - they are in England. The perspective in Ireland would very understandably be different as soon as you mention Oliver Cromwell.

SteveP29 · 11 Dec 2019

transmanche said:
Have they actually studied it as a topic in school, or has everything they know about it been gleaned from Horrible Histories?

The English Civil Wars are not actually a compulsory part of the National Curriculum.

Primary schools are less likely to cover the English Civil Wars, unless a significant event took place in the area. (Schools are encouraged to "study of an aspect of history or a site dating from a period beyond 1066 that is significant in the locality".) So that explains why your younger grandchildren are unfamiliar with the topic.

Secondary school pupils are more likely to study it as part of covering "the development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745". But again, it's listed as an example topic covering this theme and is not compulsory.

PeterC said:
I don't know about the current curiculum but we never touched it in the 60s. The O level syllabus back then ran from George 1 to 1914.

The romanticised "Cavaliers and Roundheads" view was something that I absorbed in childhood. It was much later that I discovered that there were separate civil wars in England and Scotland plus Anglo Scottish and an Anglo Irish wars.

2019 is the 30th anniversary of me completing my mandatory education.
My whole school history consisted of:
Primary School: The Stone Age, The New Stone Age, The Bronze Age
Secondary School: 1066, Battle of Stamford Bridge, Battle of Hastings. 1086 The Domesday Book. Battle of Bosworth Field, Henry 7th, Henry 8th and wives, Elizabeth 1st, Queen Mary. 1914-1918, 1933- 1945 and the Korean War.
That's it, Royalty, & war, yes, there was a little political insight into why these wars sprung up.

I suspect my History only went as far as Korea as the 30 year classified documents thing would only take me up to 1959, missing the hippie revolution, Vietnam, Martin Luther King, Kennedy etc (things I would have found far more interesting, even now)
Also, did absolutely nothing happen for 300 years after James 1st took the throne? (I know, English Civil War, American War of Independence, American Civil War, the British Empire)

Butts · 11 Dec 2019

DerekC said:
Good point - they are in England. The perspective in Ireland would very understandably be different as soon as you mention Oliver Cromwell.

He's not that popular in Scotland either.

Every Castle just about was either laid siege to / destroyed by him or Edward I three hundred years before.

If Edward had not died and been replaced by his effette son Edward II, I don't think we would have won in 1314 !!!

Arglwydd Golau · 11 Dec 2019

Busaholic said:
It's a long, long time since I sat Oxford and Cambridge Board 'A' level History, but the English Civil War was our 'special subject' that year, and so for two years we had to become immersed in the subject, as very obtuse questions could be set to test our knowledge. I do know that I came away with the conclusion that, although my head was with the Roundheads, my heart was with the Cavaliers, even though I've always regarded the idea of divine monarchy as being absurd.

I was in a very similar position, also having taken the Ox & Cam Board 'A' level, with the added bonus that Oliver Cromwell was an old boy of my school and the House was steeped in seventeenth century history. Thoroughly enjoyed studying this period (and took an optional course at University on it too). I very much enjoyed the politics of the period, studying the Levellers and Diggers (way before their time)...but the Cavaliers did seem to have more fun! Turned me into a lifelong republican.

krus_aragon · 11 Dec 2019

It's a strange quirk of memory that I can remember a lot more about the periods of history I studied at primary school than at secondary. (I only studied it to KS3, and didn't choose to take it further.)

I do distinctly remember that I learnt more about the era of the Welsh Princes in Welsh lessons than in History: we needed to learn about the historical events that were referenced by the (20th century) poems we were studying!

Busaholic · 11 Dec 2019

Arglwydd Golau said:
I was in a very similar position, also having taken the Ox & Cam Board 'A' level, with the added bonus that Oliver Cromwell was an old boy of my school and the House was steeped in seventeenth century history. Thoroughly enjoyed studying this period (and took an optional course at University on it too). I very much enjoyed the politics of the period, studying the Levellers and Diggers (way before their time)...but the Cavaliers did seem to have more fun! Turned me into a lifelong republican.

I enjoyed it too: our other prolonged study was into the Russian Revolution, which I got really immersed in, and was such a contrast! I don't know whether I'd call myself a republican, though. When you get people like Putin and Trump ruling the roost it just seems no system is anything less than incredibly unfair and undemocratic, and the famed 'Separation of Powers' in the USA a complete fiction when it comes to the crunch, like now.

PeterC · 12 Dec 2019

A film on TV this afternoon reminded me that, for some reason, we covered Mary Queen of Scots but not the English monarchy of the period. IIRC we did this in total isolation and without any background in Scottish history it didn't make a lot of sense.

edwin_m · 12 Dec 2019

Unlike most other subjects where there are key principles that can be applied in a range of situations, history is just too big to cover everything. You either just touch on the main events at a very superficial level or you zero in on certain topics but basically ignore everything else.

Meerkat · 12 Dec 2019

edwin_m said:
Unlike most other subjects where there are key principles that can be applied in a range of situations, history is just too big to cover everything. You either just touch on the main events at a very superficial level or you zero in on certain topics but basically ignore everything else.

Personally I am happy that only certain things are covered in depth, but time should still be spent teaching a timeline. It’s hard to appreciate historical facts when you have no idea in what order the Romans, Vikings, Norman’s, Civil War happened.

krus_aragon · 12 Dec 2019

On the general subject of history, I'd heartily recommend two recent (and ongoing) BBC podcasts: You're Dead To Me and (for the Welsh speakers among you) Dim Rwan Na Nawr. They both take a deep look at a particular subject or era from a non-specialist's starting point, with a comedian, broadcaster and historian on the panel.

Cavaliers, Roundheads and Democracy

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Guest

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member