The Prince of Wales

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

Cromwell can be hated for numerous reasons. Does he tick any positive boxes for you too?

I like to think of Cromwell as sone sort of Napoleon. I hate the little dictator, declaring himself Emperor. Yet, I would've followed Napoleon to the ends of the earth and into the depths of hell.

Schama gave a nice example about Cromwell. Him being an atheist Jewish Englishman, he sat himself in a synagoge and related how Cromwell lifted the ban on Jews in Britian. For all the bad, obviously Schama found something good too. With the possible exception of Catholics and Irish, surely every person in the British Isles can find something of his liking in Cromwell?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cromwell can be hated for numerous reasons. Does he tick any positive boxes for you too?

I like to think of Cromwell as sone sort of Napoleon. I hate the little dictator, declaring himself Emperor. Yet, I would've followed Napoleon to the ends of the earth and into the depths of hell.

Schama gave a nice example about Cromwell. Him being an atheist Jewish Englishman, he sat himself in a synagoge and related how Cromwell lifted the ban on Jews in Britian. For all the bad, obviously Schama found something good too. With the possible exception of Catholics and Irish, surely every person in the British Isles can find something of his liking in Cromwell?

Well, consider the oppression which non-Reformed Protestants were placed under, from a religious perspective I think Cromwell was trying to create New Jerusalem, which would have necessitated the Jews. One must consider what would have happened had the plans to enforce religious conformity were more successful; would the Puritan army and Cromwell have cowed and tried to convert the Jews as well?

A modern example is George Bush, not an evil man, but driven by a theology he had little understanding of which led his country down an arguably evil path. The major difference between the two seems to be that Cromwell was much smarter.

[InsaneApache]

Although I find Cromwells views distastful he did set the corner stone for our parlimentary democracy. He did more than anyone to enshrine the principle that parliament, not the crown, is sovereign.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that he was a fully fledged democrat though. Like all revolutionaries, when he got hold of the levers of power he wasn't that different to the old regime. As Daltry put it, "Meet the new boss, same a the old boss".

There was a movement in the army called the levellers who wanted one man one vote, he crushed it mercilessly. Far too radical for the time. He did ban christmas though, so he wasn't all bad.

[Pannonian]

Although I find Cromwells views distastful he did set the corner stone for our parlimentary democracy. He did more than anyone to enshrine the principle that parliament, not the crown, is sovereign.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that he was a fully fledged democrat though. Like all revolutionaries, when he got hold of the levers of power he wasn't that different to the old regime. As Daltry put it, "Meet the new boss, same a the old boss".

There was a movement in the army called the levellers who wanted one man one vote, he crushed it mercilessly. Far too radical for the time. He did ban christmas though, so he wasn't all bad.

He wasn't fully taken in by the conceits of power though. The phrase "warts and all" was his reply when asked what his official portrait should be like. He was given absolute power as a monarch to reform the country, and threw himself into it, and unlike most rulers, actually had the energy and dedication to materially make a difference. However, AFAICS he always regarded himself as the servant of that cause, rather than its embodiment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Although I find Cromwells views distastful he did set the corner stone for our parlimentary democracy. He did more than anyone to enshrine the principle that parliament, not the crown, is sovereign.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that he was a fully fledged democrat though. Like all revolutionaries, when he got hold of the levers of power he wasn't that different to the old regime. As Daltry put it, "Meet the new boss, same a the old boss".

There was a movement in the army called the levellers who wanted one man one vote, he crushed it mercilessly. Far too radical for the time. He did ban christmas though, so he wasn't all bad.

I'm not sure about Parliament being made soverign by Cromwell. I think it much more came out of his rule as a reaction against the Lord Protector, the Bill of Rights etc. are all later. The fact is, Cromwell had the same impatience with Parliament as the King had, he only kept it around as long as he liked what it did.

When he dismissed the Rump, he could have called an election and banned any Rumper from standing; instead he just became a dictator.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Cromwell and the Commonwealth is not discussed much here. You mostly hear about him in Ireland, where obviously he is hated. On the other hand, there aren't really many English nationalists to defend him, since Puritanism and the associated political movements imploded in such a short space of time... they aren't part of the English national identity, unlike in Scotland where it is important, at least to some people. They don't really teach you about that period of history much, I hadn't even heard of the Covenanters until a couple of years ago, which on reflection beggars belief since they play such a pivotal role in so many aspects of the nations history... I think they don't teach us about it because it could worsen sectarianism etc, its easier to pretend it didn't exist and that Scotland has no history after William Wallace.

But back to Cromwell... I like to defend him because few other people do, even when some do they are modern English folk who focus purely on the political side of things.

Oh, and the thing with the Jews was due to end time prophecies, nobody would have suggested that England would be the New Jerusalem after the whole Anabaptist episode with that, but Cromwell did believe in starting to bring ethnic Israel together again.

[Adrian II]

I think they don't teach us about it because it could worsen sectarianism etc, its easier to pretend it didn't exist and that Scotland has no history after William Wallace.

I do hope they pick up five centuries later and teach you about the Scottish Enlightenment though. I mean, there was no English Enlightenment, it was almost purely Scottish, wasn't it? And there must be a connection with Puritanism...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do hope they pick up five centuries later and teach you about the Scottish Enlightenment though. I mean, there was no English Enlightenment, it was almost purely Scottish, wasn't it? And there must be a connection with Puritanism...

I see you've still been following stuff here in your absence, its a while since I commented on that.

Look, I do not have a nationalist bone in my body, but... the fact is that there was an Enlightenment which was based heavily in Scotland, and one which bore a lot of fruit in proportion to other states at the time. Why it should happen in a poor backward country is hard to tell, but it did.

And yes, I think there is going to be a connection with religion, just as all the other factors working in society at the time will have played a role in shaping the nature and success of the Enlightenment.

[Adrian II]

I like to think of Cromwell as sone sort of Napoleon. I hate the little dictator, declaring himself Emperor. Yet, I would've followed Napoleon to the ends of the earth and into the depths of hell.

The power of persuasion, eh?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Charles:
Hhmm. He didn't raise much of a discusion in this thread. At any rate, I myself do not have anything to add to what I argued in the first post: Charles, I think, is underrated and doesn't comply to the prevailing caricature of him.

Then again - such is the tragedy of the dehumanizing institute of monarchy - for a sixty-odd year old to be considered not devoid of talent solely by virtue of a few keen insights into architecture, heritage and conservation is simply tragic.
People his age are retiring. What has Charles got to show for his talents? Nothing of noteworthiness. A man with little future ahead of him and no past behind him.
Dehumanising.


Monarchy / Republicanism:
See above. I struggle to take monarchy seriously. How grown-ups want to be subjects is utterly beyond me. I'll never understand.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

BAH! It wasn't that...!!!

I just mean the Bible says honour your leader, no matter who they are...

Which is why I wouldn't even use the bible for erm...you know, when a man has done what a man sometimes does.

My point was, and this is what all tangents in this thread have in common for me (Republicanism, Indonesia, Puritanism, Cromwell, Scotland): never take your leaders for granted. Yes, respect the democratic, at least: non-tyrannical, institutes of your society, but never pay unduly honour to the persons wielding power. Authority must be laughed in its face. Revolution must always loom, so that you don't need it.

Inonesia lacks more of the spirit it showed in 1945-1949. As it stands, one foreign set of self-interested rulers were replaced by another set of self-interested rulers, this time domestic.

(Also, without it being relevant, I presumed you were Muslim).

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

The power of persuasion, eh?

Be quiet, Adrian, the adults are talking.

[Adrian II]

Be quiet, Adrian, the adults are talking.

Adults schmadults.

I'll see your Cromwell and raise you a William of Orange. Now there's a glorious revolution if ever there was one. After centuries of British infighting, the Wars of the Woses, all the useless squabbling about popery and anti-popery and other nonsense, a Dutchman sorted out those isles and whipped them into shape.

Barely one hundred years later they would beat your Nappie into a pulp. Ha!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Adults schmadults.

I'll see your Cromwell and raise you a William of Orange. Now there's a glorious revolution if ever there was one. After centuries of British infighting, the Wars of the Woses, all the useless squabbling about popery and anti-popery and other nonsense, a Dutchman sorted out those isles and whipped them into shape.

Barely one hundred years later they would beat your Nappie into a pulp. Ha!

Bah, and it takes a Dutchman to point it out.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which remind me, I must make a 12th of July celebration thread!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OK, I won't actually do that

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'll see your Cromwell and raise you a William of Orange. Now there's a glorious revolution if ever there was one. After centuries of British infighting, the Wars of the Woses, all the useless squabbling about popery and anti-popery and other nonsense, a Dutchman sorted out those isles and whipped them into shape.

Yes, the Dutch invasion of the British Isles was instrumental in sorting that tumultous backwater out. (The English - a people easily swayed to revolution and upheaval. )

Thankfully, the Dutch conquest (which it was just as much as an invitation) succeeded. Owing of course to the two northern trade statelets of the Netherlands and Britain being so desperate to stop Louis XIV's adventures. Alas, what were mere frivolous foreign divertissements to the Sun King, to while away lazy summer afternoons, had the rest of Europe quaking in its boots.

For which I apologize.

We should not have used Europe as a forest, its statelets mere game to the frivolous hunting parties of our nobles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, the Dutch invasion of the British Isles was instrumental in sorting that tumultous backwater out. (The English - a people easily swayed to revolution and upheaval. )

That's so self-depreciatingly ironic I'd almost think you English.

Thankfully, the Dutch conquest (which it was just as much as an invitation) succeeded. Owing of course to the two northern trade statelets of the Netherlands and Britain being so desperate to stop Louis XIV's adventures. Alas, what were mere frivolous foreign divertissements to the Sun King, to while away lazy summer afternoons, had the rest of Europe quaking in its boots.

For which I apologize.

We should not have used Europe as a forest, its statelets mere game to the frivolous hunting parties of our nobles.

Ah, the Sun King, shame you couldn't produce more successful autocrats from the same gene-pool.