Talk:Roundhead

message: I'm about to remove this sentence from the preamble: "The goal of the Roundhead party was to give the Parliament supreme control over executive administration."
That's a massive, misleading oversimplification that, in fact, gives completely the wrong impression. First of all, there wasn't a roundhead "party" as such: the Parliamentary side was made up of a number of different religious and political groupings; second, right up until Pride's Purge in December 1648, there were significant numbers of MPs who were in favour of Monarchy, albeit in a form that afforded Parliament its historical rights and privileges (not "supreme control"). The statement is supported by a refence to Macaulay, whose views of the Civil Wars and Commonwealth haven't really stood the test of time.Bedesboy (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed... 

message: I've rewritten the first paragraph, which included words to the effect that "Oliver Cromwell was leader of the Roundheads". Right up until 1653 there were other men who had as much claim to be the 'leader' of the Parliamentary cause as he did (Bradshaw, for example). My new version is still an oversimplification, but at least it's accurate. I'm also going to add a note to the effect that historians tend not to use the term.Bedesboy (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the subject of oversimplifications 

message: I've made 'civil wars' plural (there were two of them). The original writer also stipulated that they ended in 1651, which is inaccurate: the Worcester campaign was a foreign invasion (Scotland was independent, with Charles II as its king). EDIT: I see the disambig page for the wars is referring to it as the Third Civil War - so I'll leave it be. Bedesboy (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And another thing 

message: I don't think this is the best picture, mainly because it doesn't show why they were called 'Roundheads'. Can anyone else find a better picture? Buddenon (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Has anyone got a WP quality reference for this amusing metaphor in common parlance - should it be mentioned in this article or in Circumcision or neither ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: John Cleese, So, Anyway... (Arrow Books/Penguin, Random House, 2014), p. 2 (Google). Eebahgum (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision and "Roundheads and Cavaliers" 

message: “ however, this party was outmanoeuvred by the more politically-adept Cromwell and his radicals, who had the backing of the New Model Army and took advantage of Charles' perceived betrayal of England by allying with the Scottish against Parliament.[4][5][6]”
Was it Charles or Cromwell who allied with the Scots? Quincefish (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles was allied with the Scots.  Perhaps "in his alliance" might be better than "by allying". Tevildo (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who did it, Charles or Cromwell? Ambiguous section. 

message: The article refers to the "Roundhead party" and the "Royalist party". Are these actual proper noun names of specific political parties, or just common noun descriptions of people who had a certain way of thinking? —BarrelProof (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of a "political party" didn't really exist in England until the Exclusion Crisis of 1679 (see Political party#Emergence in Britain), but "Roundhead" is still a proper noun.  "Cavalier" might be a better example to work with: "cavalier" is a common noun, referring to a particular flamboyant style of dress and conduct (see, for example, The Laughing Cavalier); "Cavalier" is a proper noun, referring to a supporter of Charles I. Tevildo (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the use of the term "Roundhead" to describe the Parliamentary faction during the English Civil War, as the name of the article, feels unsatisfactory. I would feel the same about "Cavaliers" being the formal title of an article about supporters of Charles I. Formal Anglo-English usage should probably be "Royalist" and "Parliamentarian" as proper nouns, capitalized. Wikipedia's determination to have lower case nouns everywhere has muddled the distinction between these and the same terms used as common nouns, uncapitalized, which refer more generally to support of monarchy or parliament. "Roundheads and Cavaliers", referring to the Puritan hairstyles associated with Parliamentarians and the flamboyant costume associated with the Royalists, are informal terms unsuitable for serious political historiography except as illustrating popular terminology. There should, of course, be an article about "Roundheads" and/or "Cavaliers", but it ought to be about the sartorial implications, rather than the title of a principal article describing one of main factions in the English Civil War - But this is merely my humble opinion. Eebahgum (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual political party names