In light of our paper due tomorrow, I thought I would write a short piece on the English Civil Wars, a very complicated topic. In his first chapter “Origins,” when describing the difference of political participation between the 1640s and previous centuries, Worden states, “Political alertness was not confined to the owners of estates.” This got me thinking about political alertness today, and throughout the course of our class. Today, being politically alert is fairly easy, especially with the internet. Turn on any news channel and you’re likely to see the most recent blunders and successes (though those are far between) of politicians and political candidates. In the early 16th Century, this was likely very different. The only way one would know about the dirty underbelly of their politicians is if it was passed down through royal decree or if gossip (or war) happened to reach their village. In all likelihood, the average village peasant probably did not know all of the intricacies of court life or political maneuvers. This begs the question, is this good or bad for the peasant? One could argue that it is for the best of the peasant, that they aren’t becoming bogged down in the unimportant drama of politics. But in reality, it also doesn’t give them much of a chance to voice their own opinions about the choices of their King or local county officials. But would this voice truly matter? Until ‘Parliament’ lops off King Charles I’s head in 1649, there was very little that the average peasant (or county official for that matter!) could do to change the direction of policy of the monarchy. It makes me wonder that if more people knew history and realized how recent our concept /version of democracy is, that maybe more people would vote, and take advantage of their rights as citizens? After all, it wasn’t too long ago that we were fighting the concept of “taxation without representation,” let alone an almost total monarchy.