Yeah... soccer fans from Germany and the Netherlands are the best friends.

_________________
SaintK: I'm completely lost

Check the defination again it says "esp. one made suddenly", being sudden is not a mandatory part.

And no radical change in government structure? Don't make me laugh.
We went from a monarchy that still had enough power to dissolve parliment to a commenwealth with a monarch who ruled with parliment permanently. Parliment went from a group of people the monarch called for help and advice (and ask for money) to the people running the country.
If that isn't a radical change I don't know what is.
Having checked the English Revolution thing a bit more, yeah, good point.
But trying to narrow down the causes of the civil war to one reason is an excuse in futility. Charle's covert catholism, his catholic wife and his changes to the CoE no doubt played a part, but it was hardly the only one. His abuse of power, excessive financial borrowing to finance foriegn wars and contravening the Petition of Right he signed with Parliment all played just as big if not bigger parts.
And while it didn't start as a class struggle there's little doubt that the upper class suffered while the lower class got some benefits, so there's a grain of truth among the revisionist historians bull.
Abdication? He fled the country and later tried to take it back by force. Abdication is a formal act of renouncing ones office, James II did no such thing. Parliment might have later declared it an abdication (and on a side note the Scottish parliment didn't agree that it was an abdication), which James protested against, but throwing the royal seal in the Thames is stretching the defination of "renouncing and resigning from a formal office."
The monarchy also lost all of the little power it still held and was left as a monarchy in name only, bringing about the final change the Civil War started. It might not be massively radical change but it is an otherthrow of one govenerment and replacing it with another, it can certainly be called a revolution.
And now my clouds of counter argument spoil your day.

I'm also all in for EU principles and ideas, but seeing how it works today, I'm kind of glad that me and moPP isn't a member of it yet

_________________
[SpA]Revenge "Wheres the element of surpise :/"

[SpA]Mint "IN.... MY....PANTS"

[SpA]Minimoose "Revenge is going to jump out of your pants?"

U guys did a good going over with that "small island".

_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most.

You make very good points, but I would say that the actual effect on the monarchy's power was more of a phsycological change than a legal one until the changes from the glorious revolution, in fact most legislation passed by parliament in the interim was repealed by charles II. Scotland was always a supporter of James/Charles and the Stuart line, as seen in Bonnie prince charles attempt to retake the throne from Georgie porgie with his highland army. The monarchy still held great power, only limited by the fear of having their head chopped off.

What I would say is that I would interpret the reigning monarch throwing his royal seal in the Thames an abdication of the throne, as he threw away his royalty as it were. I wouldn't call a general election landslide a revolution, therefore I wouldn't call the changing of one king - to a dictator - to another family king - to another family king - to another king and queen related by marraige a massive revolution, just a shift of power.

There is no doubt that the events caused the constitutional monarchy we have today, but it was just a shiift in direction, not a complete turning point in history.

Obviously theres different ways to see the effects of the civil war, the interim, the glorious revolution and how they affected powersharing in the country but what I don't except is the accusation that we got invaded by a bunch of potheads and that we had a revolution. It wasn't a revolution in the slightest as nothing changed for anyone in the country -.- except suddenly charles I got 8 inches shorter and we don't like catholic dictators.

hmmm... i think the truth stung u didnt it?

BTW, always wanted 2 say it... I LOVE UR AVATAR!

_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most.

There are lots of things that the Brits just want to forget.

During the Revolutionary wars in France, Britain remained superiority over the waters. However, they were afraid that a neutral Denmark would team up with France and obliterate the English fleet (The Dano-Norwegian fleet was thought to be superiour to the english Fleet. Admiral Sir Hyde Parker along with Lord Nelson was commanded to sink the Dano-Norwegian fleet, whilst most of it was anchored in Copenhagen. The English fleet was spotted however, and the Danish king commanded "All able men" on this ships (The fleet anchored in Copenhagen had more cannons that it had men, so all citizens in Copenhagen had to arm the cannons. Ships that were not fit to sail were towed outside the port, the forts of copenhagen were armed and naval batteries were placed at key points. When the English fleet arrived, the fiercest Naval Battle ever seen at that time commenced. The Dano-Norwegian navy remained superiour for the duration of the fight. Seeing his fleet sinking, Admiral Sir Hyde Parket commanded Lord Nelson to retreat, but Lord Nelson put his binocular over his blind eye and said the words "I really cannot see the flag". The british hereafter started bombarding the city of copenhagen, initiating the first recorded act of terrorism.

Seeing his city being bombarded, civilians dying the King of Denmark-Norway was worried about the outcome of the battle. From hsi position at Kronborg, Elsinore, he could not see the British ships that sunk. The britsh sent a messenger to the king, demanding his surrender, syaing that his fleet was almost ennihilated. Believing this, the Danish fleet was told to surrender.

The british attempted to destroy the seaforts of Copenhagen, unsuccessfully. All ships in Copenhagen were either sunk or taken by the British. Believing that the Dano-Norwegian fleet was annihilated, Lord Nelson left.

Not only did the british commence the first recorded act of terrorism, they also forced a neutral Denmark-Norway to ally up with France, as an attempt to keep the British out next time.

The british hereafter decided to bomb the civilian population of Copenhagen one more time, while the Dano-Norwegian naval was occupied with fighting elsewhere.

When Napoleon lost the war to the British, Denmark lost it's territory of Norway, national provinces of Skåne, Halland and Blekinge to Sweden.

Funny thing is that Denmark-Norway had no intention to ally up with neither France nor Britain. Alongside Sweden and Russia, Denmark-Norway had signed an alliance of "Armed Neutrality" which meant that the coutnries would protect it's shipping, but would not engage in hostilities against anyone. The Netherlands, Preussia, The Ottoman Empire and The Holy Roman Empires soon after joined the alliance of Neutral countries.

After the British attack on Denmark-Norway, Denmark-Norway left the alliance. The alliance collapsed with the death of Paul I of Russia. Sweden then joined the British side, becuase it feared that if Napoleon won the war, Denmark-Norway would invade Sweden (Which would have been very likely).

_________________
<@Howard_s> usa just has a made up economy - they can't really go broke

JuncoPartner: I could barely hold it up for long.

Sounds like a grudge

_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most.