The Prince of Wales

[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.