How is Cromwell regarded in Britain today?
-
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!
-
bradford-1 — 15 years ago(February 01, 2011 02:13 PM)
Knowing virtually nothing about the English Civil War, I bought CROMWELL because I hoped there'd be some decent battle scenes. This thread has made more interested in the wars, the Protectorate and the Restoration.
BTW, what was going on in Wales at this time?
"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did." -
TudorLady — 15 years ago(February 05, 2011 02:19 AM)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUwalesCW.htm
This guy knows his stuff. (Sorry don't know how to make link clickable)
The King's Good Servant but God's first -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(February 08, 2011 01:59 PM)
Easily done:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUwalesCW.htm
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
deeveed — 14 years ago(May 31, 2011 06:23 AM)
I watched Cromwell recently. Pretty good historical film. But I think in order to counterbalance the Cromwellian presentation a second part should be added and that would be his life after after Charles was executed. Then obviously we might see a different man with his many sides. He's a man who goes down two tracks. Just because one believes in the palliamentary democracy doesn't preclude him from doing things abhorrent to the concept.
And it was interesting to learn that in the Civil War you can kill a king but you'll pay for it. I think almost every man who signed Charles' death warrant did not have an easy death. They were hunted down like dogs. -
vonmazur — 14 years ago(July 27, 2011 07:30 PM)
Goffe, Whaley and Dixwell had to hide in Connecticut!! All they got for their troubles was 3 streets named after them, and burial in the three churches on the Green in New Haven
Dale
"If those sweethearts won't face German bulletsThey'll face French ones!" -
-
deeveed — 14 years ago(March 19, 2012 08:52 AM)
on the other he did chop a kings head off (something that needs to be done occasionally)
Surely yes. If I was Cromwell, I'd have a hard time checking myself too in keeping the sword in my scabbard..;-)Charles was supposed to be a "king" but the porr fellow wasn't a "lovable" king. It would have been nice if those who advised him helped him better in how to carry on "realtinships". Charles unfortunately just mucked things up as he went along in his rule of hard power politics. Cromwell I'd think was forced to play the same way.