Today was ok...

Woke up early and get an awesome full Irish breakfast at the hotel. I really like this hotel. Got my tickets for the week. Walked around for a while, then went to see the Laughter Loft at 1pm. It was pretty good (I didn't get some of the jokes simply because I'm not from around here, but the comedian did a good job at keeping it universal).

Then I stopped in at the same pub as yesterday and listened to a tenor banjo (only has 4 strings and a much shorter neck) and a wooden flute play some trad (what the Irish call Traditional Music). Then I walked around again for a bit before heading over to Róisín Dubh (Black Rose) for Adrian Crowley.

Oh boy... I left ten minutes early (told the person I was sitting next to I had to go to the bathroom). First thing, they bring out this girl who at first, is really cute and she has a neat style... but all 6 songs she played were THE SAME. Same tone of voice, same tempo, same tonality. It was SO boring... And usually the pre-act is similar in style to the mainstage... so now I'm kinda going "oh crap..." Well I could stand him for a while because he was a bit different from her but EVERY song he sang he like, spoke sung poetry. It got kinda annoying. And the cellist that was playing was doing the same thing... long drawn out notes. Nothing more than a quarter note... and then the girl came up again to play the drum which didn't vary at ALL. I could predict everything he was going to play. Now he's not BAD... it's interesting at first... but then gets very VERY VERY repetitive. So I ended up leaving a bit early because it was late, and the same rhythm to every song was putting me to sleep...


But before that (out of order I know, but I want to end on a good note!), I saw "The Execution of the King" at the King's Head Tavern. A parade of a few men, two kings, mourning and begging women, and an executioner stopped in front of the tavern. It was kinda cheesy but I'll post some of the video anyways. I apologize for shakiness - the crowd was huge and I was on my tip toes and holding the camera as high as I could to get a video. I wanted to see it later too because Lord knows I couldn't see the actual thing while in the crowd!
It got me thinking... hmm... history lesson? Click below to read on!



These are quotes from the webpage: http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/charles1.htm

First off here's the genealogy:  Elizabeth I was succeeded by James I, whose son was Charles I.

"After the assassination of Buckingham [Charles I brother] in 1628, critics in Parliament turned their attention to Charles' religious policy. He angrily dismissed his third Parliament in 1629 [he had done so with two prior], imprisoned several of his leading opponents, and declared his intention of ruling alone. The eleven-year period of the King's Personal Rule was also described as the "Eleven Year Tyranny". It was initially successful — during the turmoil of the civil wars, many people looked back upon it as a golden age of peace and prosperity. Charles had made peace with Spain and France by 1630. Trade and commerce grew; the King's finances were stable by 1635. This enabled him to commission great works of art by Rubens and Van Dyck, and also to build up the Royal Navy for England's defence. But without Parliament to grant legal taxes, Charles was obliged to raise income by obscure and highly unpopular means including forced loans, the sale of commercial monopolies and, most notoriously of all, ship-money. Along with Charles' controversial religious policies, these measures alienated many natural supporters of the Crown, including powerful noblemen like Lord Saye and Sele, and wealthy landowners like John Hampden."


"In November 1641, news of the Irish uprising reached London, provoking a crisis over whether King or Parliament should control the army that was needed to quell the rebellion. Against a background of riots and civil unrest, the King and Royal Family were driven from London in January 1642 following Charles' disastrous attempt to arrest the Five Members regarded as his leading opponents in Parliament. During the spring and summer of 1642, as King and Parliament appealed for the support of the nation and manoeuvred to gain control of the armed forces, a violent confrontation became inevitable. King Charles raised his standard at Nottingham Castle on 22 August 1642, which was his call-to-arms and the beginning of the First Civil War. Ironically, the navy that Charles had built on the proceeds of ship-money declared for Parliament. Having lost London to the Parliamentarians, Charles set up his court and military headquarters at Oxford."

"Refusing to compromise over a settlement with the Army or with Parliament, Charles turned once again to the Scots. Under the terms of the Engagement signed in December 1647, Charles promised to impose Presbyterianism in England in exchange for a Scottish army to fight against Parliament."

"The Scottish invasion and simultaneous Royalist uprisings in England and Wales resulted in the short but bitterly-fought Second Civil War, culminating in Cromwell's victory over the Scots at the battle of Preston in August 1648."


"Army officers were furious that Charles could deliberately provoke a second war when his defeat in the first had been so clear an indication of God's favour to the Parliamentarian cause. Tired of his deceptions and intrigues, the Army denounced King Charles as the "Man of Blood". Parliament was purged of Presbyterian sympathisers and moderates in December 1648 and left with a small "Rump" of MPs that was totally dependent on the Army. Parliament appointed a High Court of Justice in January 1649 and Charles was charged with high treason against the people of England. The King's trial opened on 20 January. He refused to answer the charges, saying that he did not recognise the authority of the High Court, but he was found guilty of the charges against him and sentenced to death on 27 January 1649. The King was beheaded on a scaffold outside the Banqueting House at Whitehall on 30 January."


But how does this relate to the pub, you ask?


"In 1640 the main property at 15 High Street [now The King's Head tavern] was owned by Thomas Lynch Fitz-Ambrose. By 1654 Lynch Fitz-Ambrose had become Mayor of Galway and was to be the last of 84 successive Lynch Mayors. Following the execution of Charles I on 3rd Jan 1649, Cromwell’s army came to Ireland to assert their authority. One of Cromwell’s most loyal and trusted henchmen, Col. Peter Stubbers, was amongst the commanders who had laid siege to Galway. Following the town’s surrender in April 1653, he became its military Governor. When the Mayor and Corporation of Galway objected to the outrages being perpetrated on the citizens of Galway they were forcibly removed from office by Stubbers in 1654. Stubbers not only removed and replaced Lynch Fitz-Ambrose as Mayor, he seized his splendid house in High Street to boot."

"While Col. Peter Stubbers lived at 15 High Street, his neighbour to the rear was the executioner "prime suspect", Richard Gunning. The belief at the time was that Gunning was given the property as payment for his part in the execution of King Charles I - the "Price of Royal Blood". He was also making a very successful living by exporting white slaves from Galway to work on his plantation in the West Indies. Gunning was facilitated in this operation by his neighbour Col. Stubbers. This arrangement continued very profitably for both parties until, in 1655, Col. Stubbers, having made himself extremely unpopular, was removed as Governor."

"As legend has it Gunning was heard to boast in the Taverns of Galway that his arm "had felt the muscles on the neck of the King of England". It is more likely however that on that fateful day, 3rd Jan 1649, the man who executed Charles I was in fact Col. Peter Stubbers. Research by Galway historian Jackie Uí Chionna directly links Stubbers to the execution of the King. Following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, Charles II introduced the Act of Indemnity which pardoned those who conspired against his father. However he specifically exempted Stubbers from this "pardon". This along with the subsequent "disappearance" of Stubbers makes it extremely likely that he did indeed have a real case to answer. It was a case, then, of "right legend, wrong man!""

I know that was a bit long, but honestly I'm way too tired to go and paraphrase it right now. Anyways, there's your history lesson for the day!

Hoping to go the Aran Islands, but as I forgot to stop in the office today we'll have to see...