This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / Early Modern C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm about to remove this sentence from the preamble: "The goal of the Roundhead party was to give the Parliament supreme control over executive administration."

That's a massive, misleading oversimplification that, in fact, gives completely the wrong impression. First of all, there wasn't a roundhead "party" as such: the Parliamentary side was made up of a number of different religious and political groupings; second, right up until Pride's Purge in December 1648, there were significant numbers of MPs who were in favour of Monarchy, albeit in a form that afforded Parliament its historical rights and privileges (not "supreme control"). The statement is supported by a refence to Macaulay, whose views of the Civil Wars and Commonwealth haven't really stood the test of time.Bedesboy (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the first paragraph, which included words to the effect that "Oliver Cromwell was leader of the Roundheads". Right up until 1653 there were other men who had as much claim to be the 'leader' of the Parliamentary cause as he did (Bradshaw, for example). My new version is still an oversimplification, but at least it's accurate. I'm also going to add a note to the effect that historians tend not to use the term.Bedesboy (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made 'civil wars' plural (there were two of them). The original writer also stipulated that they ended in 1651, which is inaccurate: the Worcester campaign was a foreign invasion (Scotland was independent, with Charles II as its king). EDIT: I see the disambig page for the wars is referring to it as the Third Civil War - so I'll leave it be. Bedesboy (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the best picture, mainly because it doesn't show why they were called 'Roundheads'. Can anyone else find a better picture? Buddenon (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone got a WP quality reference for this amusing metaphor in common parlance - should it be mentioned in this article or in Circumcision or neither ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Cleese, So, Anyway... (Arrow Books/Penguin, Random House, 2014), p. 2 (Google). Eebahgum (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“ however, this party was outmanoeuvred by the more politically-adept Cromwell and his radicals, who had the backing of the New Model Army and took advantage of Charles' perceived betrayal of England by allying with the Scottish against Parliament.[4][5][6]”

Was it Charles or Cromwell who allied with the Scots? Quincefish (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles was allied with the Scots. Perhaps "in his alliance" might be better than "by allying". Tevildo (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to the "Roundhead party" and the "Royalist party". Are these actual proper noun names of specific political parties, or just common noun descriptions of people who had a certain way of thinking? —BarrelProof (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a "political party" didn't really exist in England until the Exclusion Crisis of 1679 (see Political party#Emergence in Britain), but "Roundhead" is still a proper noun. "Cavalier" might be a better example to work with: "cavalier" is a common noun, referring to a particular flamboyant style of dress and conduct (see, for example, The Laughing Cavalier); "Cavalier" is a proper noun, referring to a supporter of Charles I. Tevildo (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the use of the term "Roundhead" to describe the Parliamentary faction during the English Civil War, as the name of the article, feels unsatisfactory. I would feel the same about "Cavaliers" being the formal title of an article about supporters of Charles I. Formal Anglo-English usage should probably be "Royalist" and "Parliamentarian" as proper nouns, capitalized. Wikipedia's determination to have lower case nouns everywhere has muddled the distinction between these and the same terms used as common nouns, uncapitalized, which refer more generally to support of monarchy or parliament. "Roundheads and Cavaliers", referring to the Puritan hairstyles associated with Parliamentarians and the flamboyant costume associated with the Royalists, are informal terms unsuitable for serious political historiography except as illustrating popular terminology. There should, of course, be an article about "Roundheads" and/or "Cavaliers", but it ought to be about the sartorial implications, rather than the title of a principal article describing one of main factions in the English Civil War - But this is merely my humble opinion. Eebahgum (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]