It is quite good overall so far IMO. Simple enough to appeal to beginners, but with enough nuance that it stays reasonably faithful to a complex picture of events.
Quote:
Sort of feeling sorry for Charles so far, sounds like a bunch of Tea Party style nullificationist parliamentarians didn't want to fund the government without extorting concessions.
Heh, perhaps, but it's worth remembering that the Stuart kings had also attempted to create a formula for the creation of absolute monarchy (or something close to it) in England, which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. It's also worth noting in this case, and in the case of most revolutions, that in part the political struggle was catching up to a shift in economic power. In the English, American, and French Revolutions, a growing professional class of merchants, lawyers, and various petty gentry had seen their economic fortunes increase significantly without a corresponding rise in political power, which was generally held by a small inner circle of well-connected aristocrats or royal agents. That's usually a recipe for disaster, especially because these
nouveau riche could actually claim to represent the great mass of the population without the irony we would view it with today, since commoners were commoners and thus all closed off from the privileged world of aristocracy.
This also explains why Charles did so poorly in the cities and ports, where the levers of finance were already beginning to operate and undercut the system of aristocratic privilege that had defined European life for centuries.
In general, I try not to draw too many modern analogies on such things. The Parliamentarians were a complex bunch that included some genuine democratic reformers, a good number of genuine religious fanatics, and lots of combinations in between.