Thoughts From A Devonshire Farmhouse: MAY 2026

THOUGHTS FROM A DEVONSHIRE FARMHOUSE

Home!

Hello, and welcome to the new people who have recently joined my ‘I’ll
remind you about this post’ e-mail service. Please make sure that you pop my public email address into your 'safe sender' contact list. (authorAT heenhollick DOT net)
If you’ve stumbled on this informal site by accident and would like to be reminded about a new post each month, simply send a ‘please subscribe me to the list’  (and don't forget to add me to your 'safe sender' list!)
Thank you.

May topic... King and Country

I've often wondered which side I'd have been on during the English Civil Wars 1642-1651 (yes, wars plural is correct!)

Here's a brief historical outline (from Wikipedia):

The English Civil War or Great Rebellion was a series of civil wars and political machinations between Royalists and Parliamentarians in the Kingdom of England from 1642 to 1651. Part of the wider 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the struggle consisted of the First English Civil War and the Second English Civil War. The Anglo-Scottish war of 1650 to 1652 is sometimes referred to as the Third English Civil War.

While the conflicts in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland had similarities, each had its own specific issues and objectives. The First English Civil War was fought primarily over the correct balance of power between Parliament and Charles I. It ended in June 1646 with Royalist defeat and the king in custody.

Royalist defeat in the 1648 Second English Civil War resulted in the execution of Charles I in January 1649, and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England.

In 1650, Charles II was crowned King of Scotland, in return for agreeing to create a Presbyterian church in both England and Scotland. The subsequent Anglo-Scottish war ended with Parliamentarian victory at Worcester on 3 September 1651. Both Ireland and Scotland were incorporated into the Commonwealth, and the British Isles became a unitary state. This arrangement ultimately proved both unpopular and unviable in the long term, and was dissolved after Cromwell's death and the Stuart Restoration in 1660.

The Battle of Naseby, 14 June 1645,
a Parliamentarian victory considered to be the
turning point of the English Civil War

I admired our previous queen, Elizabeth II and have always liked Prince Charles, now King Charles III, admiring him as Prince for stating outright what he valued and believed. And this week (last week of April) has undeniably strengthened that through the wonderful speeches he made in the USA.

At a dinner in the White House, Charles III told Donald Trump: “I’ve noticed your changes to the East Wing. I must say, we Brits also, in our own modest way, tried to renovate the White House back in 1814.”

(The British burned the White House.)

And this one:

“You recently remarked, Mr. President, that if it weren’t for the United States, European countries would be speaking German. Allow me to say that if it weren’t for us, you would be speaking French.”

But our king didn’t just joke — he reminded Trump about essential support for Ukraine and the role of NATO. And that we were there after 9/11 fighting in the FRONT line in Afghanistan.

Two men to be proud of and admired.
We need more like them.

Charles I? I'm not sure. He was stubborn and arrogant, would not listen to his advisors (did he have advisors) and clung relentlessly to his Catholic faith. This is where my dilemma arises. He was a 100% ass. BUT the other side were as bad, Puritan radical religious zealots. I loathe Oliver Cromwell.

However, at the start of it all, the vast majority went to war in 1642 to assert Parliament's right of government, not to abolish the monarchy. Charles I's refusal to make concessions led to a stalemate.

Possibly, I would have, initially, joined Fairfax and Cromwell's New Model Army ... but when it became clear that Charles was to be executed Parliament would have lost my vote.

Mind you, I think Charles II made a mess of things, and his brother, James II even more so. Would I have been at Sedgemoor with the Duke of Monmouth. Yes, I expect so.

What makes me wonder, I have no idea who my ancestors supported. Who did my great (x how many?) grandparents support? It's frustrating not knowing!

My dear friend, author Elizabeth St.John has a huge advantage because she knows exactly the history of her family during those times. (Read her novels - they are brilliant.) All I know, my ancestors on my dad's side lived in Bristol during the mid-1600s.

Bristol was a key port on the west coast of England and considered strategically important by both Royalists and Parliamentarians. Initially, the leadership of Bristol wanted to keep the city neutral. In 1642, city officials implored Thomas Essex not to occupy the city with his Parliamentarian forces. The city was weakly defended, and Essex entered without much resistance.

The city failed to play the important role that might have been expected from a large and rich port. However, the populace had no relish for a civil war in which men were fighting for reasons which did not fill most citizens of Bristol with any great enthusiasm. The central event of the war was the Storming of Bristol by Royalist forces in 1643. The Royalist suffered heavy casualties. After the capture, the city became an important Royalist supply base, and centre for communication, administration, and manufacture. The Royalists were dependent on foreign aid and the importation of weaponry. Ships laden with ordnance had to evade Parliamentarian patrols in order to offload their cargo at Bristol. (from Wikipedia)

Which is fascinating history but doesn't give me much hint about my forbears!

But back to our present King. I admit I was against this Royal Visit to the USA - Trump has caused so much damage to countries and people, been so rude and obnoxious, I didn't see why we should pander to his arrogance. But, I did think "well, maybe Charles can put him in his place?"

King Charles devoted his speeches to subtly contradicting Trump — and did so with dignity, humour and grace. A true orator. A superb King.

Having said all that, I'm starting to feel sorry for Mr Trump - we all say he's an idiot, a moron, an imbecile. He IS a misogynistic, racist, arrogant narcissist. A disaster as a president who, sadly, has as many of the same kind as 'advisors' (who totally fail to advise him because they don't want to be sacked and lose their positions of corrupt power. Hmm - isn't that dictatorship?) But the biggest failure of the American people (I guess Congress and the Senate) is the increased very obvious failure to accept and do something about the TRUTH - that Trump most definitely has a form of dementia.

His rambling speeches are not because he's an idiot. All these changing what he's twaddling on about in mid-sentence (sometimes even mid-word).His changing his mind sometimes hour by hour. His delusions of what is truly happening - all those lies that he clearly doesn't see as utter nonsense. Watch him on TV... he frequently wanders off, not knowing where he is. NONE of that is because he's an idiot. The poor old guy very clearly has dementia.

And shame on all those who are turning a blind eye to it. Mind you, all the other things are not because of dementia. His personality is that on a par with any of the evil dictators of the past (and present) who he so clearly admires because he's obsessed with absolute power.

The great shame, is that every single word our King spoke went totally over the poor old chap's head. As with Charles I someone sensible really should take him aside and have a firm, quiet word.

Goodbye until next month

lege feliciter (read happily)