How is Cromwell regarded in Britain today?
-
dsbhill — 19 years ago(December 23, 2006 12:20 AM)
People, I am really enjoying your comments as I am rewatching Cromwell tonight
And I must say my knowledge of him is limited but I have read and heard that he did some fairly rotten things in Ireland .by the same token though, did not the Irish before that do some horrible things to Cromwell's people or something to that effect?
He really is a fascinating man and I think really the English should be proud of him..warts and all..
Of course, I am a Western Canadian and the only heroes we have around here are Hockey playersha ha ha -
Jonathan Dore — 19 years ago(December 30, 2006 10:18 AM)
Yes, dsbhill, the immediate background to Cromwell's invasion of Ireland was James I's "plantation" of protestant settlers in Ulster in 1607 (which is the reason protestants form the majority in that corner of the island today), confiscating land from the Irish inhabitants to do so. The inevitable discontent boiled over in 1641 in a rising in which about 4,000 protestant settlers were massacred. Feelings of English-nationalist anti-Catholicism, inflamed by this episode, were further stoked four years later by letters from Charles I, captured after the Battle of Naseby, which showed he had been planning to bring over an Irish army to fight for him in England. The fusion of a defensive nationalism, anti-Catholicism, and a belief that they were exacting retribution for the 1641 massacres makes up the essential background to understanding the mindset of the English army at Drogheda and Wexford.
-
grant_sheehan100 — 19 years ago(February 17, 2007 06:46 AM)
Cromwell was a criminal, he committed regicide which in my view is the greatest crime a man can committ. Charles showed he could be a good political leader and his eleven year rule was very harmonious. By 1630 he had made peace with both Spain and France. Charles was ahead of his time when it came to religion. He took the advice of his father James and tried to steer a middle course between protestantism and catholicism whichalienated both groups and bigoted individuals such as Cromwell could not compromise on issues such as religion. Parliament was just as much to blame for the civil war as Charles. When it came to foreign policy they were happy to support the war between Charles and Spain but were not prepared to pay for it and givehim the subsidies that were his by right. In my view Cromwell executed an able king who could have been counselled to make better decisions by his more moderate ministers such as Edward Hyde. During Charles' personal rule he increased poor relief tremendously and sought to reduce unemployment. Parliament were stubbornly arrogant and too hasty to act on an irish rebellion that falsely claimed to be acting in the name of the king.
-
youngian67 — 19 years ago(March 11, 2007 08:36 AM)
However you judge Cromwell, the English civil war (a British isles civil war in reality) gave rise to some remarkable political thinking (as already mentioned the Levellers and the Putney debates) for the time.
It was the first time in a modrn Europe that ideas of equality and universal democracy began to gain currency.
Those ideas would live on in the French and American revolutions in the next century and beyond. -
lmcvo — 19 years ago(March 30, 2007 07:41 AM)
A lot of interesting discussion on this thread. Thanks to everyone for expressing their views and helping me to learn more about a fascinating period in English history, but frankly also in Western Civilization.
I teach Christian Church History in a Christian school in the States. I love to use movies (I don't have time to show the whole things, but use clips) in class especially with the current generation of students. I use A Man for All Seasons and Cromwell. I always give the caveat: "Remember this is Hollywood, so take the glittering generalities with a grain of salt."
One unfortunate part of this thread is the branding of Cromwell as a religious bigot, while ignoring the fact that the Stuarts weren't just governmental tyrants, they were also religious "bigots," so to speak Roman Catholic ones. Actually, I wouldn't call them bigots, myself, but if you label Cromwell a bigot on one side, you must be fair and recognize the other side. Unfortuantely, since the Reformation, we've seen atrocities aplenty on both sides of the Catholic-Protestant divide. There is guilt aplenty to go around. The Stuarts and the Puritans were products of their times. Cromwell was reacting and he overreacted, yes, to the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Stuarts. Unfortunately, as almost always happens in such cases, he ended up committing atrocities of his own.
The goal of all this shouldn't ever be to dig up corpses and whip them. What good does that do? The goal of historical education should be to learn from the past, avoid the mistakes of that past, and to do better in the future. Calling Cromwell a "prick" isn't productive toward any of that.
By the way, while I love Christmas, myself, and wouldn't want it to ever be canceled, it's good to remember why the Puritans overreacted and canceled Christmas it had become almost a drunken orgy reminiscent of the old Saturnalia that Christmas was supposed to replace at that time of year. Again these people were a product of their times! It's like Pope's warning: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." If we study history, we must do a complete job of it incomplete learning leads to inaccurate bias.
By the way, I also use excerpts from El Cid. Yes, I'm aware of the Christian bias and the glossing-over of anti-Muslim atrocities in that film. I also point that out. Again product of the time. There have been a few Muslim atrocites, too, as we all know.
When I first started using some of these older movies in class, I was afraid the students would be bored. Nope. While I only showed excerpts from El Cid, a group of boys were so caught up in the battle scenes, they asked to borrow the DVD for a Friday night video party and I obliged them. -
obiewanshinobi — 19 years ago(April 02, 2007 04:35 PM)
Funny you should talk, lmvcvo, I attended a Bob Jones School for one year in High School and they educated me about the Christian Church plenty. How it was God's will that the Spanish be defeated with their invasion attempt and about how Cromwell truly was a good man. While you hasteningly defend Cromwell by reverse action (Catholics were bad too!) you feed your students crap that shines nothing but a kind light (the film: Cromwell) and pretend that what Cromwell did was some extraordinary thing. You are exactly like Bob Jones in this respect, and you should be ashamed of your destruction of history.
The fact of the matter is that England transplanted Irish lands for their own benefit. Ireland got whipped into a revolt and slaughtered English landowners. England then blew it out of proportion and claimed it as a religious genocide. It was England who started things by transplanting their people to Irish Lands, and it was England who made Ireland's embarrassing small scale revolution into a mass religious genocide. There isn't 50/50 blame on every issue, the English government was clearly the most in the wrong. Do you forget about this to appease your ideals and say, "it happened both ways" without actually considering the facts?
To evaluate what happened in the 1600s in Irish-British relations and to say it happened on a fair basis is completely wrong. The English government took steps to make sure that religion and war be intertwined for the rest of the millenium, and the chaos spawned from England's decisions caused suffering on an enormous level. -
lmcvo — 18 years ago(April 11, 2007 02:35 PM)
First of all, our school is very different than a Bob Jones school. We have a strong intellectual tradition as well as a faith tradition. The perspective that I teach from is far different than the perspective found in a Bob Jones textbook.
Second, how dare you presume to know what I feed my students? You've never been in my classroom. How do you know how I use the clips from Cromwell? How do you know the commentary that I provide all along as I use the clips?
Third, where in my posting did I say that what happened in Irish-British relations in the 1600s happened on a fair basis? I didn't even mention Irish-British relations. I said that there was also guilt on the part of the Stuarts leading up to the English Civil War.
Fourth, one thing you're obviously not aware of is that I spend two days toward the end of the semester focusing on Catholic-Protestant relations in Northern Ireland. You're also not aware that in my World History class, I spend a couple of days severely critiquing English treatment of the Scottish, Welsh, Irish, the Boers, and other peoples.
Maybe you should consider thinking first before you begin to tear people apart on these boards. I dare say that I teach on this subject from a far more balanced point of view than your obviously one-sided view. -
Koncorde — 18 years ago(May 01, 2007 03:09 PM)
Regarding the British "transplanting" people to Ireland. The fact is some people believe Ireland (and we're talking since the Roman era) to be no more a seperate nation from the rest of Britain than you would consider Sicily less part of Italy.
The true trouble between the "nations" pre-dates anything to do with transplanting settlers, stretching back to the ages when Irish chieftans, in exchange for gold and weapons, would happily supply troops to any rebellion or uprising on the mainland (much the same way as the Scots routinely offered their help to any Frenchman with a claim to the English throne).
The true origin of the hostility is probably lost in time - but suffice to say that if the roles were reversed, there's no doubt the Irish would have done the same, and the Scots, and the Welsh.
The fact is we're all of the same race and stock, no matter how the Irish/Scots try to claim 'Celtic' roots we're all Britons who have since been muddied by invasion and inbreeding. -
aulfla76 — 17 years ago(July 17, 2008 10:39 PM)
"Koncorde on Tue May 1 2007 15:09:03
Regarding the British "transplanting" people to Ireland. The fact is some people believe Ireland (and we're talking since the Roman era) to be no more a seperate nation from the rest of Britain than you would consider Sicily less part of Italy.
The true trouble between the "nations" pre-dates anything to do with transplanting settlers, stretching back to the ages when Irish chieftans, in exchange for gold and weapons, would happily supply troops to any rebellion or uprising on the mainland (much the same way as the Scots routinely offered their help to any Frenchman with a claim to the English throne).
The true origin of the hostility is probably lost in time - but suffice to say that if the roles were reversed, there's no doubt the Irish would have done the same, and the Scots, and the Welsh.
The fact is we're all of the same race and stock, no matter how the Irish/Scots try to claim 'Celtic' roots we're all Britons who have since been muddied by invasion and inbreeding."
I must address this. I have not read anything this insidious, false and offensive for a long time. Even Hitler was true to his character and his ideology in 'Mein Kempf'.
Seriously? I must ask. Did you actually think this wishy-washy excuse would actually stand up? Really? Do you imagine that this makes England seem less like a despotic European principality with a recently lost Empire? Are you trying to impress your American friends?
I have to assume that you are British or irredeemably ignorant or just prone to telling ridiculous lies. Forgive me if I am wrong in either case.
I cannot speak for the Scots or the Welsh but I will speak for Ireland.
The "plantations" of Ireland by Cromwell (and previously executed plantations by Mary, Elizabeth I and James I) were criminal acts that contradicted English law and practice regarding property - let alone the moral ambiguity that it entailed. And it was ideologically unsound - it was the English philosopher John Locke who suggested that government had no right to arbitrarily dispose of private property. Notably, there were never such plantations in England. Seizure of private property by extra-legal means was far more rare in England but continually occured in Ireland. It was racism and theft from the very beginning. Irish people were quite simply the wrong kind of white for English politicians, aristocrats and monarchs. Just the same as Native Americans, Africans and Asians could never be white enough for the Empire that Britain amassed in subsequent years. We were not the kind of white that made one English/British. And we probably never will be. Your rather pallid justification that Irish chieftans were essentially part of a warlord culture neglects to mention that that is how the English nobility continued to function in England well into the eighteenth century. It is how all European nations functioned at the time.
Ireland and Britain may be geographically aligned but the continuing aggression, greed and smug self-importance of England has changed that alignment irrevocably. Mr. Cromwell's vision for Ireland was not that of Mr. Gladstone. He was a tyrannical, militaristic bigot and Ireland and the Irish were merely pawns in English political games. His little enterprise in Ireland exacerbated a long standing division beyond repair and created the conditions for future social, political and economic relations between England and Ireland that would continue to be based on a sometimes official, sometimes unofficial policy of sectarian exclusion. Conditions that were further exacerbated by the generations of British bully-boy tactics that we had supposed ended with Margaret Thatcher. These conditions forged the Irish nation in direct contradistinction to England. England made Ireland a separate nation by virtue of English greed, English spite and an unimaginably bloated sense of self-importance.
England created the hostility. A friend or a kinsman ceases to be a friend or a kinsman when he becomes a bully. That is where the hostility originates. Just in case you're still wondering.
And please do not presume to re-write Irish history with your own moral distortions. Ireland never made any claim to any territory outside of Ireland itself since it became a nation. The High King of Ireland exacted a tax upon the divided kingdoms of Britain but never actually occupied, claimed or planted Irishmen on one acre of Britain. England, on the other hand, was continually at war to prove it claims over Ireland and France from its very inception. And then went further afield in building their Empire. Theft, Murder and Tea sanctioned by a sanctimonious national character. Hmmm. Classy.
Who, might I enquire, are these "some people" who believe Ireland to still be a part of the UK? Are they Irish? Are they weak willed Irish Lady Di devotees? Marching enthusiasts from Ulster? Or are they British people who cannot imagine a world without their old benevolently racis -
blakjak_cc — 14 years ago(April 10, 2011 12:59 PM)
TL;DR this is IMDB, try blogger.com
-
LeonardPine — 14 years ago(February 13, 2012 03:41 AM)
"I am Irish for the same reasons that some British people abroad pretend to be Irish"
No English person would ever pretend to be Irish. Why would they pretend they were from a BANKRUPT country instead of a country that once ruled the civilized world?!!!
Don't forget its the Brits who have helped to bail out your skint country.
'Celtic tiger'don't make me laugh
I asked my 15 year old nephew who is half Irish and has lived there for 8 years what he was going to do when he left school. He said "Getting out of this country and coming to England"
Smart lad.
"Charlie don't surf!" -
WotanFoss — 14 years ago(March 19, 2012 08:09 AM)
@aulfla76
Irish pride?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HAUmII_hcg
They misunderestimated me. -
ansoria — 15 years ago(October 17, 2010 09:16 PM)
Hello, this is in response to lmcvo (Fri Mar 30 2007).
Since your post was over 3 years ago, it may be pointless for me to respond. However, I would like to correct an inaccurate statement you made. Twice, you refer to "the Catholic Stuarts."
FYI, and for the information of other readers, there was only ONE Catholic Stuart king James II.
The first Stuart king, James I, was Scots. He was brought up Protestant (Presbyterian?), but agreed to follow the Anglican form of worship. After all, you couldn't have a king of England who was not Anglican!
His son, Charles I, was also an Anglican. His wife was Catholic. However, the film accurately portrays that Charles I, although allowing his wife to practice her religion, strongly disapproved of his children being anything other than Anglican.
England returned to being a monarchy after the death of Cromwell. The son of Charles I was asked to return to England as king. This was Charles II, the Merry Monarch. All his life, he was an Anglican, although not a devout one. He had lots of mistresses.
It is said that he became a Catholic on his deathbed. This conversion is controversial, because some say that Charles II was already in a coma, and could not consciously have made the decision to convert to Catholicism. His Catholic "sympathies" simply meant that he refused to persecute Catholics (many of them had helped him escape, when he was fleeing for his life, after being defeated at the battle of Worcester), and that his brother was Catholic, and also his wife was Catholic.
We finally comes to the only Catholic Stuart ruling monarch James II. He had publicly converted to Catholicism, some time before his brother Charles II died. Since Charles II was married, it was expected that he would have children, so his brother's conversion didn't matter too much at first. But as time passed, and Charles had lots of illegitimate children, but not a single legitimate one, Protestants began to worry about what would happen if Charles died childless.
James II had three children: two daughters by his first marriage, Mary and Anne. Both were raised Protestant (Anglican). James II and his second wife also had a son, who never reigned in England. While the son was still a baby, James II had to flee England with his family. His daughter Mary II came to the throne, and ruled jointly with her husband William III (former prince of Orange, a Protestant Dutchman). When William III died, he was succeeded by the last Stuart monarch Anne (sister of Mary).
Anne was Protestant. She was married and had 17 children, none of which lived to adulthood. When Anne died, the descendants of James II (her father) were barred from the succession due to their Catholicism. The English throne thus passed to George I, first king of the Hanoverian dynasty.
End of history lesson! -
TudorLady — 15 years ago(October 19, 2010 07:36 PM)
James was James I of England, VI of Scotland. James I of Scotland and the succeeding Scottish Stewart kings were Catholic, as was Mary Queen of Scots.
Scottish nobles had renounced the Catholic Church in favor of Protestantism in 1557. Eventually, Mary was forced to abdicate and her one-year- old son James VI brought up by fervent protestants was placed on the throne.
The King's Good Servant but God's first -
gnolti — 18 years ago(February 08, 2008 06:48 AM)
He also has a statue in the lovely burg of Maldon.
Cromwell is one of the less interesting Puritans (yes, I think the Puritans were more interesting than they are given credit for). The Americans produced more wicked personalities, e.g. Jonathan Edwards, John Winthrop, anyone associated with the Salem Witch Trials, etc. -
IcedLemonSquash — 18 years ago(February 26, 2008 11:00 PM)
by grant_sheehan100
Charles showed he could be a good political leader and his eleven year rule was very harmonious. By 1630 he had made peace with both Spain and France. Charles was ahead of his time when it came to religion. He took the advice of his father James and tried to steer a middle course between protestantism and catholicism whichalienated both groups and bigoted individuals such as Cromwell could not compromise on issues such as religion. Parliament was just as much to blame for the civil war as Charles. When it came to foreign policy they were happy to support the war between Charles and Spain but were not prepared to pay for it and givehim the subsidies that were his by right. In my view Cromwell executed an able king who could have been counselled to make better decisions by his more moderate ministers such as Edward Hyde. During Charles' personal rule he increased poor relief tremendously and sought to reduce unemployment. Parliament were stubbornly arrogant and too hasty to act on an irish rebellion that falsely claimed to be acting in the name of the king.
Sorry but everything I (American btw) have ever read about Charles I makes him seem stubborn and willful, believing way too much in the Divine Right of Kings.
I'd might have more to say if it was 2AM and if I hadn't been up for 18 hours today. -
jamdonahoo — 16 years ago(April 16, 2009 10:32 AM)
After the Restoration(Charles II) Cromwell's body was exhumed and "tried".
His severed head was recovered and is now buried at Cambridge. Across from Cromwell's statue on a church is the likeness of Charles I glaring at him. -
TudorLady — 16 years ago(April 20, 2009 05:12 PM)
Alba gu brath! I'm a Scot, descended from the Gaels and the Picts, mother from the highlands, father from the borders. (Tudor Lady cos Tudor history is fascinating!) I'm also fascinated by the civil war. Charles I was a numpty(good Scots word!) who tried to bring the Scottish kirk into line with the Church of England in a very high-handed way. That's why there was an uproar in St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh when they tried to introduce the English prayer book. We Scots do not take kindly to being told what to do! Unfortunately that included the Stewarts or we might have had our own king!