Position:Home>History> If you went back to the 1640's....who would you fight/die for ? For King or
Question: If you went back to the 1640's!.!.!.!.who would you fight/die for !? For King or for Parliament !? !?
Royalist or Parliamentarian !?
and what would be your reason(s) for joining your side !?
I'd have not thought twice about fighting for King and country, I'd have fought for King Charles 1!.
Look at how LAME governments are today!. And whats the point of parliaments if they can't sort out asylum seeking, illegal migration, islamic terrorism, knife crime etc in our capital !?
We need a King Charles 1 to return on horseback and only then can we beat up these Grey haired monsters in wearing dark suits at Westminster!. :-|
so moi !? ROYALIST - " raises sword " :-DWww@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Most people who fought did so because they lived in a particular area and were signed up there!.!.
Principles were something for the nobs!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
a lot of towns in the uk ,refused both set of soldiers,i think hull was one of the most famous, fighting both royalist's and Parliament,,,well if it was me i would have gone for parliament ,,,Www@QuestionHome@Com
Screw them both!. I would die for my family and my anarcho-syndicalist collective !. !. !. fighting against both royalty and quasi-royalty (parliament)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
As an ardent Royallist, for my King! Death to the wart-faced revolutionary, Cromwell!. Without him there would have been no Irish problem today
Www@QuestionHome@Com
Charles was a wab i never liked him!.
I'd have fought for Parliament along side Big Cromwell (Big man took **** from no one) lol
If a guy rode into parliament on a horse now he'd get shot lolWww@QuestionHome@Com
Parliament!.
Charles was a disaster only interested in his own comfortWww@QuestionHome@Com
neither!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Parliament!. All the S**t you take for granted - free speech, human rights etc , all stem from the Civil war
Www@QuestionHome@Com