Favourite Famous Quotes I: Facebook ones...

I take life with a pinch of salt, a wedge of lime, and a shot of tequila.

(Now this is from a magnet I got after my first year of Uni and it really applied to how I take things in life! I really do take a shot and hope for the best in the end... alcoholics anonymous here I come!! I am sure I will be in Rehab with Amy Winehouse anyday soon!! LOL)

All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in simple words: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope. (Winston Churchill)
(Great man! And a very true quote. What would happen if every single one of us did this? If we were all merciful, hopeful and fair where would the world be? And if we all promoted honour and duty, would there be any yobbos on the street? I dunno, sometimes I wonder what Winston would have made of this world... and btw, I dont think he is by any means totally innocent. He could have been reminded of this speech at the Nuremburg trials... Why did the English, American, Russian and French never go on trial themselves?)

Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed. (Winston Churchill)
(This quote made me LMAO (laugh my arse off!!) I would like t be remembered for something good, but you know... not RIGHT now!!)

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it (Winston Churchill)
(Oh so true!! I am gonna be there writing it... go me, wee historian!! Go, Gal!! Go!!)

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination. (Oscar Wilde)
(This just makes me wonder... I live within my means... and i am seeking inspiration to spend it!! haha!! I like the idea, that if you can't take this money with you then you might as well do something exciting with it!!)

Mortality, like art, means drawing a line someplace (OW)

Oscar Wilde was a very wise man. This quote almost makes dying art in itself. Death is afterall just drawing a line underneath line. Hopefully there will be more afterwards!

Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much (OW)
(Btw this works, I have done it... they never live it down, even after you are friends years afterwards. They never understand why and it gives you a good feeling!)

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes (Ghandi)
(I have made many mistakes, and I have learnt a lot from them. It also means we can come to see other's errors and realise they are no less or more than us. It is equalising!)


An eye for an eye makes the world blind (gandhi)
(Heard this in a film before I realised this was said by Ghandi... Revenge really doesnt solve anything... see above!!)

"I'm just a fucked up girl looking for my own piece of mind" Clementine Kruczynski (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind)

(I am a fucked up girl and I am looking for my own piece of mind... solved? oh God no... see my blog!!)

How happy is the blameless Vestal's lot! / The world forgetting, by the world forgot / Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! / Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd.

(see my first ever blog...)

You find a glimmer of happiness in this world, theres always someone who wants to destroy it. (Finding Netherland)
(I love Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet in this movie, but this quote is so right. I work at a place where relationships with children are confiner by what we can and cannot do. We can't even hold thier hands if they are lost. What the world has come to, I do not know, but it is true... you do something pure, honest and good, and there will be one person to think it is wrong!)

I am a nice shark. Not a mindless eating machine. If i am to change this image, i must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food!
- Bruce (Finding Nemo)
GREAT QUOTE!!!

"You seen my girlfriend, tall, thin, legs for days?"
"Yeah. I pitched her overboard." (Center Stage)
*AGAIN HUMOROUS WITHIN THE CONTENT!! DAMN BALLET DANCERS!!)

The next man that laughs is gonna get his head ventilated.
- Bill Hickok (Calamity Jane)

When a man gets tired of London, he is tired of life (Dr. Johnson)

Thought the harder, heart the keener (ESEEX UNIVERSITY MOTTO)

"If his unpleasant wounding has in some way enlightened the rest of you as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life and inspired you to change your ways, then his injuries carry with it an inherent nobility and supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You say poor Toby; I say poor us." Sphinx
"He spoke." Tumbler
"Hey man, I thought you were from Long Beach." Memphis (Gone in 60 seconds)

"Nobody is as mysterious as they think they are" Claire Colburn (Elizabethtown)

"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends" Dumbledore (VERY TRUE! :s)

"Thoughts could leave deeper scarring than almost anything else" madam pomfrey

How much easier it is to be critical than correct. -Disraeli (REMEMBER THIS WHEN CRITICISING OTHERS....)

We make a living my what we get, we make a life by what we give. (Churchill) A MOTTO TO LIVE LIFE BY I THINK. IF WE ALL LIVED BY WHAT WE GAVE, WE WOULD ALL BE IN POVERTY...

Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. (Mao Tse Tung) TO BE HONEST THOUGH I CONCEDE BOTH ARE SOMETIMES NECESSARY, I DON'T LIKE EITHER.

"In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you." Mr Darcy (BEST NOVEL EVER- JOINT WITH PERSUASION- ROCK ON JANE AUSTEN!!)

"Can't you tell me off the record?"
"Off the record, I like to be kissed before I am fucked." (Blood Diamond)
GREAT QUOTE. THIS FILM IS ACE!! SEE IT!! SOUTH AFRICA/GREED/MONEY/CORRUPT/HOT LEONARDO DICAPRIO WHAT ELSE CAN YOU ASK FOR... ALSO- SEE THE DEPARTED!! WITH MATT DAMON IN WITH LEO!!

MUSE (favourite band of all time!), HYSTERIA!

HERE is one of my all time favourite songs by one of my all time favourite bands! Got me through some tricky times, but Oh God! Can they play their instruments! And Matt Bellamy was self-taught (vocalist, pianist and guitarist!) so woohoo! Go him, and went to school not too far from where my Grandparents now live! They were in the local paper when I was last down there and I was very excited, and so was my Grandad who was surprised to find a band I liked were in actual fact famous and were also from Devonshire!! Like the two couldn't be mutually exclusive!! haha!! Anyways, good song...

I really need to find out how you pop the youtube window in the blog....

***ROCK OUT LIL SOLDIERS!!***

Country House Rescue

Howdy folks!!

I was just having a quiet evening before the week of traditional Christmas overindulgence, and I was watching this programme on Channel 4 'Country House Rescue'. Now then, I love this lady who goes in here and pulls these little posh oiks, who have the self-discipline, common sense (ok granted I am not well-endowed in this myself!) and hedonistic attitude. Now this guy who has recently inherited Elmore Court in the Cotswolds, one Anselm Guise, with a family tree as long and as old as the establishment of England itself! Ruth Watson, this posh but rather surprisingly profanity-issuer, advises this 30-year-old-something DJ how to "diversify and raise revenue to secure his future". I got the impression that his parents had left him to sort it out himself in the hope it might make him grow up and take on some serious responsibility! I guess it worked, he set up a cookery school within his house complete with accommodation in the grand Tudor rooms. He pulled his socks up and made it a success.

It just made me glad to see these half-aristicratic heirs to historical heirlooms can a) take over the history and commitment the house needed and b) also showed the upper class brats being pulled up by their boot straps rather than just working class/middle class kids with programmes such as Lad's Army etc, etc, etc!

Very good programme though- plus some seriously nice old stuff!! haha technical term that for us historians! Gawd if only I could get my hands on that house! The wonder it could become.... but to be fair, there was no money to do anything. A sad state of English culture and heritage eh?

(btw- the photo on the left- this sewing box was sold for £4000!! It was lovely! I wouldn't have sold it!! It was far too nice!! The middle photo is of Elmore Court itself and the last photo is the state the kitchen was in!! Eeeep!!)

The Economic Contributions of Women in the Industrial Revolution: A Changing Role, or A Static Subordinance?

The increase of population in the late 1700s was an important cause in the change in the economy in that it stimulated demand, but it also affected society, because industrialisation caused economic slumps. This increased the strain on Poor Relief as more and more workers were laid off. The rate of growth of the British economy was particularly marked between 1770 and 1850, and this encouraged the search for methods that were more time and cost efficient.

The development of proto-industry and economy evolved into an 'Industiral Revolution', which expanded prospects for female employment. Women, who were considered “unskilled”, entered the workforce as cheap and flexible labour that provided the foundations for the textile industry.

It is perilous to assume that women’s work was transformed in a radical and uniformed way by the Industrial Revolution. Some historians argue that change was equally balanced with continuity, so even the term “revolution” is queried. Some believe the Industrial Revolution caused the demise of the “golden age” of women’s work. Yet few believe that the pre-capitalist economy was ideal for women, but they feel too that the late eighteenth century to 1850 saw a narrowing in opportunities for women to work. Women were economically marginalised by the Industrial Revolution, because they had jobs that required a low level of skill and were low in productivity. This seems to continue what had characterised women’s work for centuries. Indeed, other historians argue that there was no “golden age” for women in the pre-industrial past, but the same restrictions were still enforced. The pre-existence of female subordination was the cause of capitalist advancement, and in fact the oppression of women was necessary for the industrial capitalism to keep on working and evolve. There seems little change from the early modern period. Capitalism, key to the Industrial Revolution, was a long established system in the economy. The only variant in the British economy was that it became industrialist. However, in certain industries and at specific times, there was an increase in women’s opportunities in the workplace. There was seemingly a balance of change and continuity.


Long standing ideas of women as inferior shows little change in social constructions of females from the early modern period. So why were they employed? It seemed these exact ideas of women’s inferiority, which provide the answer. (By the way, these notions of female inferiority in this period masked male anxiety of being pushed out of their spheres of employment by women workers.) The fact that women were cheaper and more flexible meant that they were employed because they could be dropped easily in times of recession or a settling down of the economy. Unlike men, they weren’t considered the provider for the family and wouldn’t need to depend on charities to support them when out of work. Wage rates of women varied nationally, but were generally one-third to one-half of the wage of men. In the North and the Midlands, women earned higher wages because of the rapidly expanding industries of textiles, metal wares and pottery. The wages remained cheap even when there was pressure on labour supplies as in cotton and wool spinning because women’s work was seen as low status and supplemental to the household income. Women workers were also likely to be agreeable to the discipline of the factory and less able to oppose the autonomous work practice that they had enjoyed under the proto-industrialised system. An important factor in the demand for female labour was organisational and technological innovation. The use of female labour with these innovations was to yield higher profits that were impossible to reach before.

Despite female labour being termed as “unskilled”, women were important and technological change during industrialisation could provide the conditions for the breakdown of sexual division of labour. Unfortunately though, there was a redefinition of gender notions at the same time, which resulted in the reassertion of male superior status in the economy. Assumptions of being women physically weaker and intelligently inferior have dated back hundreds of years. Combined with this, there were social issues that had an effect such as the declining age in marriage and the rising rate of marriage, which endorsed dependency of women on men. They were no longer individual economic agents contributing to the economy. It was in this time that the Victorian ideal of domesticity of women was supported by legislation and male campaigns for the ‘breadwinner wage’. The principle of patriarchy remained a constant shaping factor in nineteenth century British society, partly in response to economic developments, which threatened the system.

The demographic effects of the agricultural revolution were important. It released peasants from their work as fewer men were needed to do the work because of mechanisation and new innovations. They drew on these people to produce in greater volumes of goods and at a lower wage. This work supplemented the income of the household economy. Family units were needed to work together, rather than individuals alone, so peasants married younger because they needed to. They couldn’t afford to do otherwise. Women still had the same duty to bare children, but now it was for the added reason of producing workers. This shows that the whole idea of the family changed to accommodate the new economy made by the Industrial Revolution.

On the other hand, the textile industry saw a dramatic contribution from women as a workforce. In the 1790s, there were over 900 spinning cotton mills. This jumped up to over 1000 in 1800, and the majority of the workforce was, indeed, women. They were the spinners. They had spun back when proto-industry was in full swing and had taken six people to supply yarn to a weaver, but technological advancement meant that spinning became more efficient, which increased production in the long term. But when Spinning Jennies developed and got larger, men took over. Hand loom weaving had always been considered males’ work but women did work more often as weavers in the West Riding and the West Country. Silk spinning remained a women’s monopoly and the ratio of women to men was significantly higher than in the wool or cotton industries.

The long wars with France also provided an opportunity for women to fill the labour gap left by men, but in times of employment crisis, women were excluded by male weavers. Stitching, glove making and lace making expanded rapidly on the basis of cheap female labour. Journeymen in the industry of Calico printing demanded higher wages, but in 1790 employers introduced new machines, which dislodged the journeyman’s hold and brought in cheaper female labour to do the work. Wedgwood also employed female labour for printing and decorating, although the idea of it being “skilled” labour was never applied to it. It was still a male dominated word for their work. Women began to infiltrate the working world despite staunch patriarchal ideologies.

Mining was an industry that varied in female labour employment. There was little national conformity. Few women actually worked below ground and was on the decline anyway in the late 1700s as well as the 1842 Mines Act that banned women from working underground. This legislation hardly affected English mining as only 5% of the miners were female, but it was universally condemned in Scotland where 35% of the miners were female. The increasing options in other field of work would also draw women away from mining with the 14 hour days and the danger it involved. Still, women were involved on the surface and their prime task was drawing, but iron tracks brought this job within the capability of a child, and so they were gradually replaced by even cheaper children. Generally women weren’t involved in heavy industry, but they could be found in light metal ware industries in Birmingham because of their deft agility.

Mainly married women withdrew from industry, which decreased economic contributions to society because they could rely on their husband to be the breadwinner and contemporary ideology of a woman’s role was to be a good housewife. Unlike married women, single or widowed women had only themselves to rely on, and in the case of a lot of widows, children to support. The combined earnings of women and children were able to double the family income, which therefore increased home demands in the late eighteenth century. Many widows carried on their husband’s trade, which had departed from what had gone before. However, women were gradually being excluded as capitalist advance took more work from the home, and as population growth accelerated, people flooded the market.

Despite all of this, one factor of the Industrial Revolution must be remembered. It was not nationally uniformed and varied regionally, so women received higher earnings and increased opportunities for earning were more characteristic of some areas. Neither did the increase in wages mean that they increased consumption. There was also some in society, who believed that factory employment of women was ‘unnatural’ as it had ‘ruinous consequences’ on the social order and children grew up wild like weeds’. Complaints were not just from fellow male workers either; it was people like the Utilitarians and Evangelicals, which included some women too. Society was divided over the matter of female labour, and to some extent female workers were considered by some male weavers to be as much the symptom as the cause of their problems. In short, the blame came to fall on the laps of the government and capitalist employers.

Women got involved in the rebellious movement, Chartism, as they were dissatisfied with their inferior status as “unskilled”, the appalling conditions in the factories and the low wages. The fact that these economic problems were not sorted out by either the employer or the government meant that they evolved into political problems, which resulted in riots and protests. The National Female Charter Association was set up and a vast amount of women were involved. Although many historians debate the effectiveness of Chartism, it is clear that the new roles of women in the factories allowed them to step out of their ‘inferior’ role and campaign for economic rights that extended past the economy and demanded a change in their social perception.

There was a slump at the end of the 1830s, which coincided with the organisation against factory girls by male workers. They became a target by the male workers as the cause for all their problems. The government realised something had to be done. The Factory Act of 1833 was hailed by its critics as being just a cosmetic exercise, as it did very little so as not to affect the employers or the economy. It however encouraged more females to work for the labour lost out on by barring young children from the factories. This did not abate the raucous protest of the male workers. In continued into the 1840s when people called for legislative controls over women’s work altogether. The male workers had a priority over female workers. This right was reinforced by the fact male workers had higher wages because they had the sole responsibility for the economic welfare of their families. In this respect women’s roles had become more restricted. It seems as they got more of a chance to make economic contributions, they were increasingly restricted because the male workers saw them as a threat. However other groups like the aristocracy and Evangelicals felt it was “unnatural” and went against a woman’s domestic role.

The Industrial Revolution changed the social structure dramatically. It was highly profitable for some and these formed a solid middle class. Also, a proletariat was formed because of the industrialisation which women were a part of. This period generally saw an increase in women being employed and the possibilities for greater female status and power were within sight. The economic changes had an adverse effect on society as gender division was created and held women back. The industrialisation of Britain, which gave women jobs, helped shake the foundations of the patriarchal society and from here onwards there is a gradual erosion of patriarchy in society (albeit there have also been some steps back since too!). Female labour was crucial to the economy as a whole and their earnings were a large part of the household income. They were also vital to the expanding out-put system for basic processes like spinning and knitting: “never before did such a large percentage of women participate in productive labour”. It became usual for women to be full time workers and they remained a strong presence in the textile trades. However, for all their economic contributions, they remained subordinate members of society dominated by males. It is surprising to see how little things had changed between1770-1850 considering it was supposed to be a “revolution”. Females rarely displaced male workers and sometimes were pushed out of the workforce. They were still poorly paid for all their labours and were not emancipated despite their contributions. This period seemed to be a sliding scale, in which events and issues in England affected which gender was employed more. For example, there were times like in the Napoleonic wars when men were in short supply, and then women were marginalised when there were slumps. In the end there was a change and it did increase women’s independence, but it wasn’t without problems. Their role remained fundamentally the same but it was slowly trying to evolve in the chances given to them by the Industrial Revolution. The structure of society was changed by the Industrial Revolution but some sections of society tried to keep the patriarchal sentiment present in it, but in the modernisation of industry and the need of workers to fill the demand, it was unlikely that women were going to be oppressed for long.

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound

I have had this tune going around my head! haha, it has been going round and round and round, and I always end up singing the songs that I have rattling around in my head and I REALLY can't sing plus I have a cold, so if I couldn't sing before I sure as hell can't now!! As an aside, I have a Ray Charles version of this song, which I love (see his version here on youtube.com) and you should check out! I love Ray Charles...

Anyways, why this song is in my head is interesting, or at least as interesting as things go in my life at the moment (that is a self-pitying moment there!! Forgive me!)

I had a day off on Monday and I sat down on the sofa with breakfast (my usual bran flakes and cuppa), put on the TV and scanned through the channels. (By the way, this is not the interesting bit!!) Now I tend to try and avoid getting to the film channel section because I know I will find something I will want to watch and then will indeed proceed to watch for the next two hours prompting me to do nothing but sit back and not move. However, there was a film on I wanted to see when it was on at the cinema when it was out and had failed to get around to see... as with so many things at the cinema!!

I ended up watching AMAZING GRACE with Ioan Gruffudd as William Wilberforce. Now I love Ioan from his days as Hornblower (AMAZING!- what can I say? I like naval history!- also, i am very sorry for the half pun thing there... amazing... amazing grace.... get it? nah, never mind...) but I also am quite interested in the history of Civil Rights and I did kinda study this chappy (William Wilberforce, not Hornblower or Ioan Gruffudd!) in my history AS-Level. It was a great film needless to say and it was this song that made me shed a little tear twice during the film. The first time was when he got married and his bride was the one bolstering him to keep going despite so many rebuffs in Parliament for abolishing slavery! It made me cry that his bride had chosen this song without him knowing to begin the wedding ceremony with. It was sweet. They clasped hands and looked directly at the altar/camera and sung with all their might and their 'damn anyone standing in our way' faces on. It was heart lifting!

The second time I did part with a tear or two was the closing scenes when bagpipes were heartily pumping out the tune of Amazing Grace again, this time for his funeral and the rolling credits reveal how much William Wilberforce did. My dad walked in at this point, clucked his tongue and shook his head with amusement at my tears. (He finds it funny that I have an attraction to anything on TV with fashion over a hundred years old!! I am still trying to get him to appreciate Hornblower- I half succeeded and got him to watch Master and Commander with Russell Crowe in. Half way I guess...)

Now apart from this being rather historically accurate, something I value in historical dramas (and believe me, despite the label 'historical dramas' there is often very little historical basis, facts or details), it was just a good watch and didn't batter you over the head with how bad slavery is... well it did, obviously, but not in a "It is all your fault" kind of way. It made you angry at the government and rich fat cats profiting from it. I did actually feel anger at them, and the frustration which Wilberforce must have felt at being completely ignored, ridiculed and never getting very far for his pains. This is a mark of a good film. If you can empathise with the characters and feel what they feel without you knowing you had felt it, then still have a lasting memory of it four/five days later, stands up for itself hailing it as a great film.

I think it was rather undervalued when it was in the cinema, and I suppose it is little well-known. I wouldn't know. But I do know it is immense and of epic proportions in the emotional sense. Summary: 'Tis great!!

As another aside, after researching what the lyrics are because I shamefully don't know them all I found out a bit about the guy behind the lyrics.

The author of the lyrics to “Amazing Grace” was John Newton, who was a slave trade after a stint in the Royal Navy. He wrote this hymn around Christmas time in 1772. Now , Newton was not initially a very religious man and according to Wikipedia, “the turning point in Newton's spiritual life was a violent storm that occurred one night while at sea. Moments after he left the deck, the crewman who had taken his place was swept overboard. Although he manned the vessel for the remainder of the tempest, he later commented that, throughout the tumult, he realized his helplessness and concluded that only the grace of God could save him.” Newton encouraged his sailors to pray and ensured that every member of his crew treated their human cargo with kindness, but it was 40 years later when Newton openly challenged the trafficking of slaves.

“Amazing Grace” summarises the doctrine of divine grace and the lyrics are based on reflections Newton had on his slave ship, the Greyhound, in 1748. His reflections were centred around 1 Chronicles 17:16-17, a prayer of King David in which he marvels at God's choosing him and his house.

The song is a known favourite with human rights supporters, partly because many believe it to be a testimony about the slave trading past of Newton. What I like about this song most is how it has become representative for me of the history of slavery and human rights. "Amazing Grace" chosen for the namesake of the film I watched on Monday about the English trying to abolish slavery was poignant and well chosen. I am not sure how relevant the song was to Wilberforce's life, but it was contemporaneous with him and it was popular at the time, so it is possible, and I like to think he perhaps hummed it under his breath in times of trouble!

But what a great tune to have stuck in your head all week!!

Favourite Music 1: Ghost of the Robot- Good Night Sweet Girl

Ace song! Great lyrics and instrumental melody. And of course, I do not like for the Spike factor much :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P_FIuNjyZWw

By the way, if anyone can let me know how you bring up the mini screen from youtube I would be very grateful :)

By the way, I am alive!

Heehee I am alive! I would say I have been busy, but I don't know where time has gone. I do not think I have been busy...

Charles I: The Ignition for the English Civil War?

I was sorting through some of my paperwork from university, clearly very well organised in a huge box *please hence the sarcasm on that one*. I always seem to be immaculately tidy right up till revision time and then everything becomes tangled and messy, mainly because I could never face the prospect of flicking back through all the paperwork again after the exam just in case I realised I made a devastating mistake!

Anyway, I am deviating again... I came across my last essay for a course in the first year where I got a first. It was broadly named "Society, Culture and Politics in Early Modern Europe" or some such... it was an ace course where we covered everything. It included the English Civil War and working at the castle now, people, who want to know how we came to have a Civil War. It is hard to explain in a sort span of time, without seemingly either lecturing or shortening it to the point of historical criminality where I miss out key bits. Anyway, I often remark that Charles I was his own undoing in some ways... and here my conclusion of my essay I found in my pile of notes explains... Perhaps I could be accused of historical criminality as I am missing out quite a chunk of what happened... but go along with it for me, please??

Unfortunately for Charles I, his reign was based on 'personal monarchy', where his personality determined the style, efficiency and effectiveness of his rule. It was apparent that Charles lacked a strong personality. His readiness to defer duties to others was a dangerous weakness and the flaw that should never be present in a monarch was inconsistency and a bad judge of character. When his main advisor and friend, Duke of Buckingham was assassinated, Charles was left to his own devices. However, instead of getting back onto his feet, he turned to his wife, who he came to rely heavily on. She was all too eager to fill the vacant position of political favourite despite her lack of knowledge of the country she resided in and the fear she invoked in the nation (she was a French Catholic in an unstable Protestant country who also had uneasy relations with the French).

Although Charles was under no obligation to call parliament and they were often only called when the monarch needed them, usually for money. However, Charles pushed his authority too far. He did not call parliament for eleven years and had 'illegally' used Ship Money (which was to be used only for when the Navy needed to be equipped due to a national emergency) to supplement his income, which caused many people to think he was determined to subvert the laws and customs of England, especially when he proclaimed that he had forbidden any one to talk of calling another government. The historian Margaret James argues that the Reformation and the evolution of more democratic political thought have a link. Luther had proclaimed that no Christian should be ruled except by his own consent, a potentially destabilising idea for a monarch who believed in the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Religion had provided a political basis for opposing Charles' rule.

Charles also added to this link between religion and politics. Although he did not think politically, he did think that “kingship was a sacramental concept” and that if he traded parts of it away, like he thought the first parliament he called was asking him to do, he was committing the act of sacrilege. His rule and how he ruled was directly linked to God and religion. He was actually politicising religion further and the saying "If you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself..." the same could almost be said for Charles and his dogmatic insistence that he was handpicked by God to rule.

This ties back into the idea of a 'personal monarchy'. Charles refused to budge on how he ruled and he upheld backward and frail institutions in a religiously divided nation with social and economic problems. The majority of the nation hated the outdated feudal system he insisted on keeping and he was lengthening his own rope. The historian, John Morrill, agrees: “the personal weakness of the monarch could in themselves cause the collapse of order” and it did. Indeed Charles was so inapt in his role as monarch that he agitated matters.

Of course, there were inherent problems in English society which long preceeded Charles I. Henry VIII and the Reformation had unbalanced society long established on the Catholic faith. This religious issue had not been helped by Henry's son and two daughters, who first killed Catholics, then Protestants and then Catholics again for heresy. Social and economic problems had been a long time grievance of the peasantry. The history of religious and social issues with additional current social problems were a key issue and provided a strong base for discontent in society, but I genuinely doubt whether it would generate enough fervour to drive the nation to decapitate their monarch. However, the ministers that helped dispose the King- what was their motivation? They did not share the same despair at failing crops as the peasantry did. They would not starve, just see a dent in their profits. It was political. And Charles. They really had a grievance with Parliament not being called for 11 years. They no longer welded political influence and this is what irked them! Charles failed at keeping the masses happy (there was no rise in real wages, a rise in rent and in food costs and the Poor Law wasn't coping) and also at keeping his ministers happy with regular meetings and any attempt at showing a caring, listening ear.

The revisionist historians, such as Morrill, believe that the ‘revolution’ was caused by the monarchy, not the people, (and also by the Scottish and Irish, not the English, which I will delve into later perhaps). I believe that the offensive prayer book of 1637 forced upon the Three Kingdoms in an attempt to try an unite them is an example of how Charles was politically ignorant and exacerbated already highly strung tensions in his country. Three very different countries with very different religious beliefs. Elizabeth I and James I had never tried to unite them.

Religion and politics were so interwoven that religious reforms have a political context, which Charles did not recognise and this blunder cost him dearly. If Charles had been politically more astute, the social, religious and political problems would have been kept suppressed, as previous monarchs had done. However, Charles’ tactless handling of both social and political problems with the addition of exacerbating religious division created the Civil War. And he lost his head for it.