How is Cromwell regarded in Britain today?
-
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!
-
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.