The Prince of Wales

[miotas]

Are there any Danes here? How are you fellas treating our Mary?

[Fragony]

How about 85%. It's been a constant for decades, maybe a hundred years.

BTW this is why republican movements never succeed in convincing people.



"The royals are outdated."

"Yup!"

"I mean, I know they're symbols..."

"Uh-huh."

"... Even so, it's the symbol of inequality, inherited wealth, everything obsolete."

"Yup!"

"Whatcha mean, 'yup'"?

"That's why we like them."

"But that's not rational!"

"Nope."

"So?"

'So what?"

You can file grumpy under P for pwned.

[Adrian II]

You can file grumpy under P for pwned.

Don't worry, it took this old cripple 25 years to understand that modernity is a dummy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hey frag... a man who can't have a decent ammount honor his own leader, no matter what they did as "wrong things" can't become a good leader themself.... and yet.... ashaming your own royal family is a symbol of disloyalty..... Poor Royal family...

Respect your leaders and honour the Dutch Royals? That wasn't the prevailing opinion in Indonesia back in 1949...

[Andres]

I voted "Off with his head!"

We have our royal clowns in Belgium as well. I admit, they make for a few good laughs every once in a while. I guess we could let them live if they agree to start (continue?) a career as comedians.

Besides, Presidents are funnier

[Beskar]

Me and Fragony completely agree on something... I feel the urge to wash.... (only joking, it is for a good course. Away with the royals!)

[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?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Have you heard about the religious conservative with a taste for disco?

Because he had big ears?


Go on then! Give us the joke, lad!

[InsaneApache]

Because he had big ears?


Go on then! Give us the joke, lad!

Ok I will, later.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now I get it.


Like Baldrick, I should go to Jamaica and become a limbo dancer - everything goes over my head.

[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.

[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.

[Cute Wolf]

Respect your leaders and honour the Dutch Royals? That wasn't the prevailing opinion in Indonesia back in 1949...

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

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