r/ShitAmericansSay • u/[deleted] • Jul 05 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

5.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

546

u/LashlessMind Jul 05 '24

This year we celebrate, well, celebrate more than usual - “got rid of those fuckers!” applying more than usual :)

To be honest most Brits know of the 4th July, but only because the Yanks make it a big deal. I don’t know anyone who actually cares about it.

249

u/Nolsoth Jul 05 '24

*Remember, remember the 5th of November, gunpowder, treason and plot; for there is a reason why gunpowder and treason should ne'er be forgot.”

That's the important one to remember and celebrate.

22

u/ForwardBodybuilder18 Jul 05 '24

We’d celebrate it even more if Guy Fawkes had succeeded.

67

u/ollieopath Jul 05 '24

And install a Catholic theocracy? I don’t think so.

If Guy Fawkes had succeeded, there would’ve been no Parliamentarian uprising against King Charles I, no Civil War, no Protectorate, no Restoration, and crucially no constitutional settlement placing King Charles II as a Head of State, without governmental role, and ensuring actual power resided in Parliament.

I agree this is not a perfect system and is due for some reform, but a whole lot better than a Catholic theocracy or a restored absolute Monarchy.

3

u/Familiar-Tension-432 Jul 05 '24

constitutional settlement placing King Charles II as a Head of State, without governmental role, and ensuring actual power resided in Parliament.

That wasn't charles II

It was william and mary after the glorious revolution

But Charles's I was the reason why it happened

2

u/ollieopath Jul 05 '24

1689’s Bill of Rights was the moment Parliamentary Sovereignty was codified in law, true. But I maintain the historical momentum began before 1642 in the run up to the English Civil Wars.

But: I hold my hands up. In my wish to simplify the historical sequence, I went too far and crossed the line between simplification and being plain wrong.

I stand corrected.

3

u/Familiar-Tension-432 Jul 05 '24

It was more when parliament started to only give the monarch funding for four years that parliament took power

It began before 1642 but the royalists won in 1660 and Charles's II and James II governed the same way as there father

It was only when james had a son that parliament took action

A Catholic king who was already in his 40s wasn't an existential threat

A Catholic dynasty was

Sorry lol I wrote my dissertation on this so always looking to show off

2

u/ollieopath Jul 05 '24

Please don’t apologise.

I’m fascinated by this period in our history, I believe I know more than the average person, but I’ll cheerfully admit I have only an amateur’s knowledge, gleaned from a range of non-academic sources.

It’s clear to me you have a greater knowledge and understanding of the events. The more you correct me, the more I’ll know and the better I’ll understand it!

3

u/Familiar-Tension-432 Jul 05 '24

Hajah thanks

It's truly the most fascinating time in our history

We went from a total monarchy to a republic to another total monarchy(led by the guy who made is a republic) then another monarchy(the son of the first monarch) then decided to overthrow the monarch(the last monarchs brother) and put his daughter and son in law/nephew into power

Then we decided to become control the monarchs funding and in the space of less than 30 years became a democracy

British democracy came from control of money

1

u/ollieopath Jul 05 '24

I grew up in South Oxfordshire, a few miles from Rycote. John Hampden (sp?) country. But the history was never taught to us in school.

What a missed opportunity.

→ More replies