What Are You Reading? Part Deux

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Spideyman

Uber Member
Jul 10, 2006
46,336
195,472
76
Just north of Duma Key
Good point, although, maybe others are interested? :) Plus, we'll probably still use the same thread on Playground.

Edward John There is a specific thread What are you reading? found in Chattery Teeth - at the Playground

May I suggest you start a new thread within CHattery Teeth to discuss historical questions/information.
 

Edward John

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
4,004
18,785
20
Edward John There is a specific thread What are you reading? found in Chattery Teeth - at the Playground

May I suggest you start a new thread within CHattery Teeth to discuss historical questions/information.
Will do.
 

fljoe0

Cantre Member
Apr 5, 2008
15,859
71,642
59
120 miles S of the Pancake/Waffle line
Fair Warning - Michael Connelly


This is not a Bosch book, it's a Jack McEvoy book (the reporter from The Poet and The Scarecrow). The reporter is investigating a murder and finds links to a DNA company. It's an interesting look at these DNA companies as they are largely self regulated and this story shows what can go wrong in that scenario. I'm about 60 percent through it and am liking it.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
55
sweden
History question for Kurben.
Have you ever researched/studied Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War, and if so, do you believe that Cromwell's rebellion was justified?
I have read Antonia Frasers book on Cromwell and Trevor Royles Book on the civil war and also a couple of biographies on Charles the first and Charles the II. I feel that Charles I was a king that never really understood how england was governed, the role that parlament played and that he just couldn't decide for himself. In that he was like his father, James I, but he lacked james ability to get along with people. He rubbed everyone the wrong way and so started a civil war that noone really wanted in the beginning. Cromwell did not start it IMO, he just capitalized of it. Cromwell was the military leader of the rebellion but never in the beginning the one with the voice people listened to. When his ironsides won the war he did not want to replace the monarchy with democracy or rebublic or ruling by parlament or anything like it. He wanted a dictatorship disguised as something more respectable. So he called himself Protector and ruled by himself in what was, really a military dictatorship. So no i dont feel it was justified. You might say the beginning of the rebellion was justified because Charles I was an incompetent King. But the rest was just a waste of men property and money with the result of replacing a king with a Protector. No big difference really. Charles II understood how ro manipulate the parlament to do his bidding often. If you're looking for justified rebellion/revolutions then when they kicked out James II, brother of Charles II, and replaced with first William and Mary II and later Anne I , both of whom were daughters to James, that can be said to be OK. James II was also not a very capable king.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
55
sweden
Just a quick thought, have you ever thought of PMing Kurben with your historical questions? It's getting too late now on SKMB time, but maybe you could start up a new thread on the Playground? Kurben is such a well of knowledge, he might be happy to share. :smile:
Sorry, flake, i answered Edwards question before i saw your suggestion. Hope you dont mind.
 

Edward John

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
4,004
18,785
20
I have read Antonia Frasers book on Cromwell and Trevor Royles Book on the civil war and also a couple of biographies on Charles the first and Charles the II. I feel that Charles I was a king that never really understood how england was governed, the role that parlament played and that he just couldn't decide for himself. In that he was like his father, James I, but he lacked james ability to get along with people. He rubbed everyone the wrong way and so started a civil war that noone really wanted in the beginning. Cromwell did not start it IMO, he just capitalized of it. Cromwell was the military leader of the rebellion but never in the beginning the one with the voice people listened to. When his ironsides won the war he did not want to replace the monarchy with democracy or rebublic or ruling by parlament or anything like it. He wanted a dictatorship disguised as something more respectable. So he called himself Protector and ruled by himself in what was, really a military dictatorship. So no i dont feel it was justified. You might say the beginning of the rebellion was justified because Charles I was an incompetent King. But the rest was just a waste of men property and money with the result of replacing a king with a Protector. No big difference really. Charles II understood how ro manipulate the parlament to do his bidding often. If you're looking for justified rebellion/revolutions then when they kicked out James II, brother of Charles II, and replaced with first William and Mary II and later Anne I , both of whom were daughters to James, that can be said to be OK. James II was also not a very capable king.
Agreed, great analysis. Thanks. :)