Are there English Civil War re-enactments?

[-]

drw2919@reddit

There is a march of supporters of King Charles I that happens annually around Horse Guards (ending at Banqueting House where he lost his head). They are all dressed in period costume but no battles with the Round heads far as I could see.

[-]

judgyqueen@reddit

Heavens sakes, no! What are you talking about?

[-]

the3daves@reddit

Sealed knot. I was a member for a couple of years. Absolutely great fun.

[-]

Icy_Knowledge5004@reddit

Me too. Some of the best memories.

[-]

the3daves@reddit

Ooh what regiment?

[-]

Icy_Knowledge5004@reddit

Glemhams - Royalists. How about yourself?

[-]

the3daves@reddit

Hortons regiment of Foote! Also Royalists 😜

[-]

Icy_Knowledge5004@reddit

Cool! When were you a member? I think the last time I went was about 2012 but my uncle is still a huge part of it

[-]

the3daves@reddit

I think between 2004 to 2009.

[-]

Bizzboz@reddit

Yes, The Sealed Knot is one of the biggest.

[-]

Icy_Knowledge5004@reddit

My Uncle is the head of a regiment in The Sealed Knot. I used to go when I was a child. Some of my fondest memories.

[-]

Vyvyansmum@reddit

I always fancied joining in.

[-]

Mootpoint_691@reddit

Also the ECWS ( English Civil War Society ). Bit smaller than the Sealed Knot, but same 17th Century re-enactment….

[-]

furrycroissant@reddit

I'd say the one in Worcester is?

[-]

SlightlyMithed123@reddit

My Stepfathers dad was involved in that, he had so many cool weapons and stuff from around that time it was always fun visiting his house, the man had a full on armoury full of pikes, swords and other related stuff.

[-]

furrycroissant@reddit

There's celebrations and reenactments in Worcester every year. We actually had 3 civil wars, the last one started and finished in Worcester.

[-]

No_Election_1123@reddit

Pop down to Tewkesbury and you get a “War of the Roses” reenactment 😀

[-]

Haikucle_Poirot@reddit (OP)

Thank you all for your enthusiastic information!

1) I meant the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, specifically, and Oliver Cromwell, My apologies.

2) Some asked why I hoped the answer was no.

Well, what I have observed-- let me put it politely-- regarding Civil War historical re-enactments is that they can border on the obsessive about where everybody (and their horse if they had one) stood, died, and other details. Maps, photographs, letters, and all that stuff piles up the details to an excruciatingly dull degree.

I suppose I should have explained that I strictly hope your re-enactments are not so focused on exactitude as to where so-and-so's mule was looking at when the cannons got going. (I exaggerate only slightly.) and that the learning is lost in the dullness of watching people re-enact an all-day battle in much slower time than the original probably occurred.

I have been impressed the UK has digitalized a lot of historical records to the point I could find my own ancestors on the muster rolls for Agincourt. That's some fine record-keeping. So I can imagine if people want to be highly obsessed with historical exactitude for re-enacting battles, they would have the resources to do so, even for the mid 1600s

On the other hand, people accidentally found the bones of Richard III under a parking lot a bit more 500 years after he died in battle. He was rather a unpopular king or so I understand from Shakespeare, but still, that's cold.

On the less historical end in America, we have Renaissance Faires here which are just a fun thing to eat turkey legs and have vaguely medieveal and fantasy costumes, rather than any effort to actually portray a specific point in history. I really wouldn't call these re-enactments.

There's a wide range in between. Somewhere nearer the historical middle, there are historical characters interpreters like at Colonial Williamsburg where people will dress up in period and show the trades and activities of that period. Colonial Alexandria and such. That's a lot more interesting and interactive for onlookers.

So for me, if they're just having fun in lobster pot and roughly explaining how things went down, and illuminating a bit about the life of the period, I want to see that. I'm just not so much for serious History Re-Enactment which observers won't enjoy without already having a history degree and a high tolerance for sunstroke.

[-]

jonewer@reddit

Re-enactment covers a very wide range of activities with a wide range of seriousness. Honestly, while it's not for me at all, I'd value the people who are being really very serious about it indeed, and trying to recreate the living history of their chosen era, rather than people larping about as confederates or SS troops, who lets be honest, have some rather worrying problems (apart from being far too old and far too obese).

I guess it depends on how effectively they engage with the public. Granted, the exact location where someone's mule was shot is of less interest than how did they live and sleep and eat, how comfortable was their kit, and how did they operate in the field.

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

Richard III was simply lost it wasn't personal lol

[-]

Striking_Potential65@reddit

There are Civil War reenactors in the UK, the biggest group of which is called the Sealed Knot

[-]

DattoDoggo@reddit

I don’t think it’s as big of a deal in the UK as it is in the states since the attire (armour and chainmail etc) is a lot less commonplace than the more modern garments worn in the states civil war. That and it’s not as recent to us so we don’t have people who generally care about who won anymore unlike the North/South divide that is extremely prevalent in modern day US.

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

Its definitely not ideological more a lets-dress-up-and-have-a-fun-weekend kind of thing

[-]

DattoDoggo@reddit

I mean… tell that to the kind of people who wave confederate flags, claim to be very Christian and vote Trump… Maybe they don’t get involved with the re-enactments though?

[-]

pcor@reddit

the attire (armour and chainmail etc) is a lot less commonplace than the more modern garments worn in the states civil war.

Chainmail coifs were knocking about, but plate was far more common and effective. The longbow dramatically reduced mail’s effectiveness on the battlefield after the early Middle Ages, and by the 17th century and the advent of early firearms, it became actively dangerous to wear in many cases: instead of a bullet going in or through you, you ended up with a slightly slower shredded bullet and twisted mail links embedded in your flesh.

[-]

DattoDoggo@reddit

Sounds like a nasty way to go.

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

I remember seeing an armour cuirass piece in a stately home on display with a musket ball hole right in the belly area dating from the civil war era

[-]

Mammyjam@reddit

Which Civil war? We’ve had dozens, most notably The Anarchy, The War of the Roses and the first, second and third English Civil War

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

The civil war. Most of the rest are just conflicts between noble families for control of the Crown etc

[-]

cheerforbubbly@reddit

Very much depends on what you mean when saying a 'Civil War re-enactment'. We had an English Civil War in the 1600s (Roundheads vs Cavaliers aka Parliamentarians vs Royalists), of which there are definitely plenty of re-enactments. As for the American civil war, I can't say I've ever seen one in the UK, but I know a couple of particularly enthusiastic historical re-enactors who have travelled to the USA to take part in them.

It would be unusual to have an American war be of interest to most British re-enactment troupes, given that we've got plenty of our own battles to be recreating first!

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

I'm not sure most people here are that aware of US history tbh

[-]

ValidGarry@reddit

Given the time since, it's far more about history and historical interest than anything else. The English Civil War ended 200+ yrs before the American one, and was also not followed up by lost cause mythology and the raft. Of intertwined baggage and shit America has. Yes, they were both civil wars, but other than that, completely different in time, space, reason etc.

[-]

ironvultures@reddit

In fairness it’s hard to develop a ‘lost cause’ mentality over the English civil war. Even the most ardent royalist thinks Charles 1 had it coming and we ended up getting the monarchy back anyway after Cromwell died.

[-]

TheDark-Sceptre@reddit

Just to add, I think there was still definitely a sense of shock when charles I was executed though. He had the war coming, but execution was quite a big step against the king, even if people were angry with him.

[-]

ironvultures@reddit

True I suppose when I said Charles got what was coming I mean in terms of starting the war and then losing it.

His execution was controversial even among parliament, at his trial the king had rightfully pointed out that no court in the land had authority over him which had presented a legal and constitutional problem to parliament. Many at the trial also lobbied for exile, imprisonment or even just forcing the king to legally agree to more restrictions on his powers.

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

Well you could argue he was pushed into it but he was a weak king someone with more uh diplomatic skills could have worked out a solution but Charles was a royalist supremacist something he got from his father the last scottish king coupled with being a stubborn dunderhead pushed things over the edge. But the conflict had been coming for a long time even Elizabeth had her arguments with parliaments but managed to keep a lid on it. Most monarchs did not like summoning parliament because of conflict with it but as parliament alone had the right to raise taxes when monarchs needed money they had no option and thats when the trouble usually started.

[-]

herefromthere@reddit

Out of curiosity, why do you hope we don't? Our historical internal conflict doesn't have anything to do with slavery and racism.

[-]

folklovermore_@reddit

Yeah, ours is more "King good" vs "King bad" which I feel would appeal to quite a lot of Americans...

[-]

Middle-Hour-2364@reddit

Umm, it was also protestants republicans against catholic royalists

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

Em not quite as simple as that catholics were very much a minority mostly parliamentarians vs royalty/aristocracy. And Parliament won and the king lost his head even though his son was restored to the throne mostly because of the huge power vacuum that resulted, the republican govt basically turned into a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell which people were happy to see the back off. The king returned but he was no longer an absolute monarch he had to bow to parliament. As the present still king still does he has to knock to be allowed into the Commons chamber on the State Opening of Parliament. But this is getting far too much history.

[-]

anonbush234@reddit

A lot more complicated than that. There was religious elements and constitutional ones.

[-]

walterfalls@reddit

Ah yes, the glorious fight to determine which half of the English population would be the bigger of the knobs. Round Heads were the Band of Brothers on the winning side, right?

[-]

KindAwareness3073@reddit

Yes, so much better that they hated and killed people just like themselves for overlords who didn't care if they lived or died.

[-]

herefromthere@reddit

I'm sure there was strong feeling on both sides.

Do you not have curiosity about what it was like to be those people? Should we all just not have curiosity about history because it had nasty brutal bits?

[-]

KindAwareness3073@reddit

"Strong feeling".

What in my comment lead you to mistakenly assume a lack of curiosity?

[-]

herefromthere@reddit

Yes, so much better that they hated and killed people just like themselves for overlords who didn't care if they lived or died.

The Civil War in the UK wasn't just about who your Lord was and what his feelings were. It split families. That doesn't happen when which side you fight on is entirely dependent on an accident of birth.

[-]

KindAwareness3073@reddit

"...It split families. That doesn't happen when which side you fight on is entirely dependent on an accident of birth."

That is precisely why it's labeled a "Civil War".

[-]

LevelsBest@reddit

But in the English civil war that was not necessarily the case and it was absolutely not about who your Lord was. At the start of the wars of the three kingdoms. almost nobody had the idea of getting rid of the monarchy and this was not a revolution against the aristocracy. It was the result of complex religious and political tensions that arguably had been playing out for most of the preceding century. It was also about money and power, about whether parliament or the King had the right to raise taxes and make laws.

This was not a "class war" and whilst you may regard the gods as "made up", to 1th century people, almost without exception, your God and how you worshipped him were as fundamental to life as the food you ate.

[-]

Judge_Dreddful@reddit

I'm very much looking forward to his r/IAmVerySmart reply to your informed and very well worded answer...

[-]

KindAwareness3073@reddit

So what's your point?

"Lord" has many definitions, and all wars, especially civil wars, are fought for multiple, often contradictory, reasons. Don't be so sure everyone was a "true believer". As Henry VIII showed, for those in power, religion is often just a means to an end.

[-]

LevelsBest@reddit

Henry's split with Rome was certainly motivated by the question of supremacy over the church in England but that doesn't mean he was not a true believer. He didn't accept the pope's supremacy but in terms of doctrine, he was a practising catholic. The break with Rome chimed with the Reformation which was gathering pace in Europe and eventually led to England becoming protestant and the equation that catholic= treasonous. Remember this was only about 30 years after the Gunpowder Plot.

My point is that unlike the French Revolution, the English civil war was not a class war, nor a rebellion against the upper classes. It was not even King good/King Bad at least at the start. But the Reformation and the removal of papal supremacy made people also question the divine right of kings and assert the rights of the people to have a greater say in government and the conduct of religion.

I recommend for reading "The World Turned Upside Down" by Christopher Hill which explains many of these points.

[-]

KindAwareness3073@reddit

Did Henry tell you he was a "true believer"? For a "true believer" Henry certainly had an odd way of displaying it. Seizing "gods" wealth and lands to fight wars, enrich his cronies, and murder his enemies. Kinda seems at odds with the New Testament.

An opportunist using religion as a tool to gull the populace and retain their support as he did what he wished.

[-]

LevelsBest@reddit

Yep. Just checked back with him and he confirmed. Did he tell you different?

[-]

KindAwareness3073@reddit

Showed me. I believe actions, not words.

[-]

Judge_Dreddful@reddit

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

[-]

KindAwareness3073@reddit

You're right. It's so much better to kill people over disagreements about made up gods and religions.

[-]

Blackjack_Davy@reddit

Yes very much so The Sealed Knot society is the major re-enacter they dress up in appropriate costume and everything

[-]

Any_Weird_8686@reddit

I believe there's one in the Cropredy area, though I've not actually seen it in person.

[-]

SevereGrocery1829@reddit

Yeah The Sealed Knot do loads.

[-]

NotABrummie@reddit

Absolutely, there's a huge interest in it. It's about the historical interest, rather than any political or even cultural ties to it. It was a despotic monarch versus and religious fundamentalist military dictatorship, so most people don't have much investment in either side. It doesn't have the same connotations as the US civil war, so the people involved are just seen as a bit nerdy and boring.

[-]

generalscruff@reddit

I think most politically/historically aware people have an opinion about which side they'd have picked if they were transplanted in the 1640s, but yes essentially nobody gets particularly invested in it

[-]

NotABrummie@reddit

Tbh, most people who are so inclined would like to think Parliament over Monarchy.

[-]

morefetus@reddit

I really could get on the side of some Protestant Republicans (if you leave out the genocide and regicide).

[-]

herefromthere@reddit

And how they were really no fun.

[-]

josh5676543@reddit

Yes and lots from other wars and conflict I saw a viking one in Whitby

[-]

Level_Ingenuity_1971@reddit

Yeah, there are quite a few all focusing on different periods in history. Great to get a free history lesson from people who truly are obsessed by the period to such an extent that they are willing to come outside in the British weather to some quite god awful places (always has to be the authentic battlefield). So yes, there are reenactments all year round, ranging from 11th century to the final Scottish defeat.

[-]

Saxon2060@reddit

Popular reenactment eras are:

Romans

Anglo-Saxons/Vikings

English Civil War

Napoleonic Wars

Second World War (not really "reenactment" more like cosplay at airshows or military shows etc.)

None of them are remotely politically problematic. The first two are so long in the past so as to be irrelevant. The third one has no overhanging political baggage because we're now a constitutional monarchy, Catholics are emancipated and don't suffer discrimination (in England). The last two weren't civil wars.

[-]

iamthefirebird@reddit

Which civil war?

Regardless, the answer is yes. I see them whenever I make it to TORM. I'm pretty sure there are at least two societies that cover the War of the Roses, and I know Historia Normannis technically covers both the 19 year civil war when Matilda and Stephen were fighting over the throne and the one with the Henrys (mainly the latter). The civil war commonly referred to as the Civil War, with Cromwell and King Charles, is definitely not an exception. I can't say that time period particularly interests me, but there will be a society for it.

[-]

Westsidepipeway@reddit

I like the random stuff they do at Battle! Not civil war but still cool.

[-]

Dogsafe@reddit

Yeees, but don't forget that we've got a 2,000 year history of invasion and civil war to pick over so you can find re-enactment groups for Iron Age, Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Medieval, Civil War(s), Napoleonic, World Wars etc.

[-]

mackieknives@reddit

Yeah reenactment is massive in the UK. I'm loosely involved with a local iron age fort museum and know people who do everything from the iron age to the Romans and that's just at one small museum.

[-]

No-Decision1581@reddit

Jungle is more massivest though

[-]

Smabacon@reddit

Wicked-uuh-wicked.

[-]

mackieknives@reddit

Yeah but it's ruff in the jungle in the jungle in the in the jungle

[-]

Vyvyansmum@reddit

Yes on an annual basis here at Basing House. I think it’s Sealed Knot who do the displays. Specifically Civil War.

[-]

mac2o2o@reddit

12th July . But I think they pretend to be Dutch

[-]

abfgern_@reddit

English Civil war yes. US civil war, no.

[-]

cheeza89@reddit

There are US civil war groups in the uk, just not as large as the English Civil War groups.

[-]

The_Local_Rapier@reddit

Yeah I went to one last summer

[-]

vmilner@reddit

https://www.thesealedknot.org.uk/event/the-battle-of-cheriton-history-through-the-ages/

[-]

DKerriganuk@reddit

Why would an Americsn not celebrate the overthrow of a King?

[-]

VerityPee@reddit

Do you mean specifically of the same Civil War? Then no, not that I’ve ever heard of.

If you mean re-enactment in general, then yes but we have thousands of years of history so they’re all different.

[-]

LionLucy@reddit

Yes, definitely. There are also medieval reenactors, reenactors of the Wars of the Roses, WW2.... Why not?