The Prince of Wales

[HoreTore]

Any kind of government is originally intended for the good on its own people... even those "undemocratic monarch" that you've seen is actually someone who his ancestors were "elected" to made his lineage leaders for (hopefully) countless generations. At least, they should have some sense of duty, and your "real decision - maker" is the Prime Minister, who was elected, right? so denying monarchy rights of their title and institution, is basically the same thing when you rob a rich, but innocent man, all his riches, and then let him die nude in cold slums... If they still stand, it was because God still wants them to a good efffects... And to say they are useless, you just prove of your "disloyalty"...

If only the Kings were innocent.... They have gained their power through murder, oppression, assassinations and a few genocides. If I am to remember their bloodline when thinking of them, I respect them, if possible, even less.

A man who is not elected by the people should not have the right to rule this country.

And all this talk about "disloyalty".... Yes, I'm disloyal as all hell, what about it? Why should I pledge my loyalty to someone just because they're inbred?

[Pannonian]

If only the Kings were innocent.... They have gained their power through murder, oppression, assassinations and a few genocides. If I am to remember their bloodline when thinking of them, I respect them, if possible, even less.

A man who is not elected by the people should not have the right to rule this country.

And all this talk about "disloyalty".... Yes, I'm disloyal as all hell, what about it? Why should I pledge my loyalty to someone just because they're inbred?

In this particular case, you'll have to remember that the current line of British monarchs gained their throne because the alternatives were worse. We tried republicanism, and ended up inviting back the son of the chap whose head we'd lopped off. Then we tired of his line, and invited a foreigner in, who was more to our liking. And when his line ended, we invited another foreigner in, this time to be a nice and harmlessly ineffective head of state, while the vizier held all the power. And from this last arrangement, English democracy was born. It might not be what we'd have chosen if we'd planned it from the beginning, but it's worked well enough for 300 years, so we're comfortable with this status quo.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Charles I blah Cromwell blah Charles II blah Cloggies blah Act of Union blah Krauts blahblah

No mention of the religious conservative with a taste for disco.

[Pannonian]

No mention of the religious conservative with a taste for disco.

You've already heard the punchline.

[HoreTore]

In this particular case, you'll have to remember that the current line of British monarchs gained their throne because the alternatives were worse. We tried republicanism, and ended up inviting back the son of the chap whose head we'd lopped off. Then we tired of his line, and invited a foreigner in, who was more to our liking. And when his line ended, we invited another foreigner in, this time to be a nice and harmlessly ineffective head of state, while the vizier held all the power. And from this last arrangement, English democracy was born. It might not be what we'd have chosen if we'd planned it from the beginning, but it's worked well enough for 300 years, so we're comfortable with this status quo.

Why should I have any respect for people who ruled during britains darkest days of oppression, ie. the colonial days?

Why should I have any respect whatsoever for people who don't think of africans and asians as human beings just like the rest of us?

[Beskar]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

Do the United States exist, or are they mere colonies, currently ruled de facto by usurpers?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

That's not a very fair version of events. Now, I must restrain myself before I derail another thread on probably one of the shortest-lived religious/political movements in history...

[InsaneApache]

Cromwell was like our Great Leader. Unelected and a nutter.

[Beskar]

Making Britain his puritan paradise.

Also, bad Louis. I am not even going to respond seriously to that as it would have to start from the beginning.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

In the short period when parliament actually ruled the country, before the Cromwellian dynasty.

FYI: As I recall, the army offered Cromwell the crown, but he refused, probably because he knew he couldn't get away with it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I recently watched Simon Schama's episode on the Revolutionary years in his program series 'A History of Britain'.

I am also the kind of weak minded person who tends to agree with the last person I spoke to, so Schama is my point of reference on Cromwell. From memory, Cromwell's very puritanism prevented him from becoming a fully fledged dictator. He always shied away from the final step. He thought himself unworthy of being King.

As for being a usurper, well, the British nations have been led by numerous usurpers. If we add 'descendants of usurpers', it includes everybody who's ever sat on the throne of England.



Is Cromwell a figure of any heated popular debate in Britain, or only amongst historians? He's an interesting man, a central person during turbulent times.

[Beskar]

Basically no one knows of him other than being Puritan and winning the Civil War. Then again, no one even knows who William the Orange is at all, so Cromwell got it lucky.

History books are pretty much the Tutors and World Wars.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I recently watched Simon Schama's episode on the Revolutionary years in his program series 'A History of Britain'.

I am also the kind of weak minded person who tends to agree with the last person I spoke to, so Schama is my point of reference on Cromwell. From memory, Cromwell's very puritanism prevented him from becoming a fully fledged dictator. He always shied away from the final step. He thought himself unworthy of being King.

As for being a usurper, well, the British nations have been led by numerous usurpers. If we add 'descendants of usurpers', it includes everybody who's ever sat on the throne of England.



Is Cromwell a figure of any heated popular debate in Britain, or only amongst historians? He's an interesting man, a central person during turbulent times.

Cromwell is either loved or hated, depending on your political, religious, national and regional leanings.

As an Englishman from the South, an Anglican and a Royalist he ticks all my negative boxes.