Why did the British Parliament kill Charles I and ask Charles II back?

First of all, England had a long tradition of restricting royal power, the feudal power was not as strong as in France, and many of the bourgeoisie were converted from the new aristocracy, so it was easy to reach compromises, so the English revolution was not as complete as in France. The Diet killed Charles I mainly because he preached the divine right of kings and tried to establish a rule like Louis XIV, which was spurned by the people; And the parliament was mainly controlled by the Puritans who fought against the king. Please return to Charles II because after Cromwell's death, there was turmoil in the country, the people were tired of the almost ascetic rule of the Puritans, and the big bourgeoisie and the new aristocracy invited Charles II back in order to protect their own interests, which led to the restoration of the Stuart dynasty, but even so, it was the bourgeoisie that came to power, not a regression into feudal society.

Killing Charles I was subjectively because of Charles I, unleashing a civil war to the detriment of the bourgeoisie and the new aristocracy. Objectively, because of the development of the productive forces in Britain, the feudal system restricted the development of the economy.

Please go back to Charles II because after Cromwell's death there was no one to control the overall situation, the chaotic situation system harmed the interests of the bourgeoisie, and it can also be said that capitalism was not perfectly developed and compromised with the feudal forces.

It was a compromise, a concession by the bourgeoisie to the feudal powers, a constitutional monarchy to preserve the victorious fruits of the bourgeois revolution.

In order to preserve the gains of the revolution, the bourgeoisie temporarily compromised with the feudal class.

Where a monarch ascends the throne with a name that has not been used by previous monarchs, it is the first generation, and so on.

In Western countries.

Giving a child the same name as his ancestors is a kind of respect for his ancestors, which is different from China, where filial piety is a taboo for Chinese kings, and repetition for foreigners. So in some families, there may be a situation where three generations of a family are called Charlie, and the same is true for the royal family, in order to distinguish the various monarchs. The first monarch named Charles was called Charles I.

The second monarch named Charles was called Charles II.

And so on. <>

For example, Elizabeth I.

was born on September 7, 1533, and Elizabeth II was born on April 21, 1926, but because Elizabeth II was the second queen to be called Elizabeth, she was called Elizabeth II.

In 1685, at the age of 54, Charles II suffered a mild stroke, and 12 doctors immediately inflicted a terrible death on the king

First, the royal physicians cut the king's veins, released a pint and a half of blood, and then gave the king an emetic that caused him to vomit.

In contrast, a potion made with fennel, cinnamon, cardamom, violets, beetroot, salt, etc. (sure this isn't a kitchen seasoning?). Give His Majesty an enema.

One was enough, but the royal physicians had to give the king an enema every two hours, and it lasted five days.

Seeing that the king's condition did not improve (how could there be an improvement in such treatment?) The royal physicians, in a noble work ethic, shaved the king's hair, and then the doctors burned Charles II's scalp with a red-hot soldering iron. In order to burn the king's scalp out of the bubble.

Scalding the blood blisters in order to squeeze out the blood blisters again (don't ask why, who knows)...As the saying goes, there is a head and a tail, and the king smears pigeon droppings on the soles of his feet. Then the king stuffed sneeze powder into his nostrils and covered his whole body with a hot plaster.

It wasn't an emetic for the king before, but this time it was ground into powder from the severed skull from the corpse, mixed with laxatives, and given to the king to drink. Thanks to the efforts of the royal doctors, on February 6, Charles II finally died.

And Charles II's ** team included members of the Royal Society. How can a developed country, a wise monarch, a state-of-the-art medical team, their medical practices be foolish and ridiculous? We cannot laugh at the ancients with the eyes of modern people, and in the circumstances of the time, they did nothing wrong.

Are we looking back on this incident today just to show the psychological superiority of our modern people? Of course not. From this, we can understand a simple and unfamiliar truth that many people ignore, that science and technology - especially medicine - is constantly developing.

For the things of the past, it is necessary to constantly verify them with science and constantly update and iterate on medical knowledge in order to make continuous progress. Ancient medicine in Britain has been abandoned, does our ancient medicine need to be updated and iterated? Do we still have to follow the "Yellow Emperor's Neijing", "Treatise on Typhoid Fever and Miscellaneous Diseases" 2,000 years ago, and the "Compendium of Materia Medica" 500 years ago?

I think that today's traditional Chinese medicine doctors should be far more than Li Shizhen 500 years ago and Zhang Zhongjing 2000 years ago, after all, they grew up on the shoulders of giants. Therefore, when discussing medical views with me, you don't use the theories of the ancients to support yourself, I would rather hear what theories the current president of the Chinese Medicine Association has. The ancient sages of medicine need your admiration, don't use their names to say things at will.

There are many rumors about Charles II on the Internet, from his information, I can know that he is a special king, in such a bad environment at that time, he was sick and could not accept today's superior medical equipment and doctors, in the environment at that time, I can only rely on those superstitious sayings There are many rumors about Charles II on the Internet, from his information, I can know that he is a special king, in such a bad environment at that time, he was sick and could not accept today's superior medical equipment and doctors, In the circumstances, we had to rely on superstitious statements.

King Charles II of England died of illness because of his own illness, and then the level of medical care at that time was worrying.

At that time, the medical conditions were relatively backward, and the doctors used bloodletting and vomiting** to cause the king to die.

Charles II fell ill at first, but his own medical team did not provide timely medical treatment, resulting in his death.

Because of backward medicine and feudal thinking, he died of bloodletting and vomiting many times.

Stroke (cerebral infarction or cerebral hemorrhage), mercury poisoning is now more accepted in the academic community. He often conducts mercury-related experiments in unventilated laboratories.

He died at 11:45 a.m. on February 2, 1685, at the age of 54, as a result of a sudden stroke, and the final symptom was uremia.

12 doctors performed a terrible ** on the king, the royal doctors cut the king's blood vessels, and so on.