How is Cromwell regarded in Britain today?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Cromwell
zooeyhall — 19 years ago(October 23, 2006 04:15 PM)
I am an American who has always had a keen interest in British history. I recently watched this movie on cable and was impressed by the granduer of the story and the movie. British historical movie-making at its best!
I am curious as how the British people regard Cromwell. What is his legacy in Britain today? I would assume he remains somewhat controversial, after all he did execute one of their Kings. What is the general consensus of British historians about him? Is he regarded as a hero of liberty or a tyrant?
I have done some research on him, and the opinions seem to be mixed. The Wikipedia entry on him says that he is still extremely controverisal in Great Britain, with some historians referring to him as a "regicidal dictator" and others as a champion of liberty. He seems to be regarded favorably by American historiansmaybe because his anti-royalist attitudes and actions were interpreted to be supportive of our own revolution. However, I recently watched a documentary on public television, with Simon Schama, who referred to him as "a pig-headed, manic-depressive, religious bigot".
I also wish the movie would have told more of the Cromwell story, instead of ending with the execution of the King Charles I. Wasn't he responsible for some actions in Ireland that today would be called "ethnic cleansing"?
However, if he truly believed in the rule of the people and democracy, then he deserves credit for that. Also, his actions need to be considered in light of the attitudes and world-view of the 17th century. I mean: in those days, kings were literally believed to be God's representatives on Earth. If Cromwell was religious with a literal belief in heaven and hell, it took a great deal of personal courage to do what he did.
So what was he? Hero or villain? Religious bigot or inspired? Tyrant or visionary revolutionary? -
General_Cromwell — 19 years ago(October 24, 2006 10:46 AM)
Unfortunately a lot of historians and our lovely MPs regard him as something to be forgotten about, to ease their guilt about Englands past. I think he was one of our greatest leaders. A fearless man with guts and determination to do what he thought was right.
I'm so glad there is an impressive statue of him at Parliment Square in London. I think there should be a public holiday on his birthday every year.
"What did i think of her? Four letter word beginning with C. You know, cold!" -
david-thornthwaite — 19 years ago(November 04, 2006 03:01 AM)
He's quite popular in England. He unites traditional patriots with more radical republican types. He's got a statue outside parliament and in a public poll of the 100 greatest Britons he came 10th (or thereabouts). In an England only poll he might have been placed higher.
Some people use him as a focus for England-bashing and attribute every English misdeed in Ireland as his personal responsbility, while some are put off by the regicide and the whole 'cancel-christmas' stereotype of extreme protestantism. -
chrislong — 19 years ago(November 11, 2006 09:12 AM)
Cromwell is rightly a controversial figure across the United Kingdom. Though ultimatly a tyrant, who used his military genious to impose his own will upon the people of Britain, his legacy is the parliamentary democracy that provided the bedrock of the Empire. The constitutional monarchy and resultant parliamentary system Cromwells revolution instigated allowed Britain to maintain its identity, whilst providing a fair and just (in theory!) system of government in which the majority of British people could rely.
It is true that Cromwells attitude towards the Irish and Scots in particular has led to him being despised in these areas, and this is with just cause. It is the attrocities he commited in these realms that emphasise the negatives of his rise to power and reign as 'Lord Protector' - he may have effected great change that was of benifit to the nation, but he did so not for justice, not for the rights of the population, but to allow his own extreame religious position to prosper.
It is this paradox that ensures Cromwell remains a controversial figure across the Commonwealth, supported by both the extreame right and left, questioned by the centre and despised by Catholics and absolute Monarchists. -
Errington_92 — 10 years ago(January 15, 2016 08:27 AM)
his legacy is
the parliamentary democracy that provided the bedrock of the Empire. The constitutional monarchy and resultant parliamentary system Cromwells revolution instigated allowed Britain to maintain its identity, whilst providing a fair and just (in theory!) system of government in which the majority of British people could rely.
In theory indeed. Most of the reforms Parliamentarians fought for in the Civil Wars were never put into practice once the Monarchy was restored. Charles II revoked the Triennial Act of 1641, which allowed general elections to take place every three years without the Monarch's consent (although this has since changed). Nowadays whenever MPs are sworn into Parliament, they have to swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than to their constituents and Parliament is never officially in session till the Monarch undertakes an opening ceremony. The Monarch also has vetoing power over any law which may inflict their interests and newly-elected Prime Ministers have to visit the Monarch in order to ask permission to form a new Government. In this respect, those Parliamentarians who fought in the Civil Wars did so for no lasting gains.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. -
jon314 — 19 years ago(November 13, 2006 09:43 AM)
Unfortunately, due to the ongoing Americanisation of Britain, most people aged 15 - 30 would answer that question with: "Oliver who?"
Ask them what a Twinkie or a Baby Ruth is and they'll be able to oblige you though. (I'm only a little bit bitter) -
inamourada_flux — 19 years ago(December 10, 2006 02:54 PM)
Thank you for the generalisation. I'm 20 (and English), and first saw this film when I was younger than 15. I love it, and I have a huge passion for history and I know many under 30's who share my sentiments.
What on earth is a 'Baby Ruth'?
My care is like my shadow in the sun. -
jon314 — 19 years ago(December 11, 2006 02:27 PM)
Yes it is a generalisation hence the word 'most', and I believe the original question specifically asks for such a generalisation. I am also in my early 20s, live in England, saw this film when I was about 8 (or most of it, I was only 8 after all!) and am a history buff - what's your point? We are definitely in a minority. Are you seriously telling me that you think otherwise?
I am currently at university and am shocked at, frankly, how thick my co-eds are. The other day someone asked me if I had ever heard of someone called 'Joseph Stal-in'.
Now, due to the nature of the medium there is no way of writing these things without sounding pompous and elitist - which I definitely am not - however I guess I'm just gonna have to live with it!
And if you don't know what a Baby Ruth is, you need to see Goonies!(A little Americanisation is fine!) -
inamourada_flux — 19 years ago(December 21, 2006 04:27 PM)
Seen The Goonies. Don't remember anything about Baby Ruths - mind, it was a very long time ago.
I guess you're right, we're are in a minority. I'm not used to that.
I'm not a university student. I would have loved to have gone to university to study history (though the 17th century is not my specialty I must admit) but I simply could not afford to do so. Therefore I can't have my dream of becoming a great historian and shall have to settle for marriage with a rich businessman!
Apologies, total deviation from the subject there.
My care is like my shadow in the sun. -
ecjcasey — 19 years ago(December 14, 2006 10:54 AM)
I am from the UK and I guess I am a monarchist in that I wouldn't like to be without our Royal family. I am not, however, an absolute monarchist, and thus can appreciate Cromwell for finishing off what the Magna Carta started. He is indeed despised in Ireland for Drogheda and Wexford, and rightly so. I think Charles I inherited his views on the divine right of monarchs from his father and thus can't be held entirely accountable, but I think the fact the revolution happened at all means he must have been doing something pretty wrong!! In general the Stewarts were a distinct low point in our Royal family's history.
I would say that more people I know in the UK are republicans rather than monarchists and I've certainly had some heated arguments justifying myself and my support for the Royals. I agree completely with all the comments above concerning historical knowledge amongst people these days - our country has an immense heritage & history and the ignorance of an awful lot of people to basic aspects of it is astonishing. I seem to recall a poll recently where something like only 25% of schoolchildren asked knew it was Charles I who was beheaded. -
mwjergs-1 — 19 years ago(December 19, 2006 10:58 AM)
I am an American and an instructor of World History on the high school level. We cover this part of history quite extensively in our curriculum. I can see why Cromwell would be such a polarizing figure.
Charles I did inherit his ideas of divine right from his father, James I. But, it can be argued that the Tudor monarchs, (Henry and Elizabeth) also believed in Divine Right but still understood the value of a good relationship with the Parliament. Among the reasons for hatred towards Charles would include the dissolution of Parliament for 11 years, suspension of habeus corpus, and his abuse of absolute power. The led to the English Civil War and the eventual arrest of Charles for treason against the nation. He had enlisted aid from Scotland and France to help put down the Parliamentary rebellion.
The hope of Cromwell that Parliament itself would be able to rule instead of a monarch proved to be impractical and the "Lord Protector" was instituted. Cronwell instilled his Puritain views on England and maintained strict control of the nation. The board has already pointed out why certain groups would not be fond of Cromwell's rule. However it is important to note that even though England restores the moarch with Charles II, the monarchy is forever a changed position in Britain. -
Jonathan Dore — 19 years ago(December 20, 2006 11:00 PM)
It's important to realize that any hostility towards Cromwell among Britons today is unlikely to be because of his role in the execution of Charles I (though that was the reason for most of the previous three centuries). The emotional charge of that event is entirely dissipated. Among English people today (I am one), and especially those on the left (I am one too), hostility towards Cromwell is almost entirely due to the guilt we are supposed to feel for his execution of soldiers at Drogheda and Wexford in 1649 a harsh, but not unusual act at that time, but which has since been made into a symbol bearing the weight of every act of oppression visited upon the Irish since the Normans crossed the water in 1171.
For those who refuse to allow their assessment of Cromwell to be hijacked by this event, there is much to celebrate. He was probably our greatest general, and a field tactician of genius (and the Scots, by the way, unlike the Irish, have no cause for complaint they were beaten fair and square on the battlefield, and at Dunbar, well against the odds; Cromwell certainly invaded Scotland, but by the time he did so England had already been invaded by Scottish Royalist armies, and the following year would be again a fact often conveniently overlooked).
The institution of the major-generals was a misjudgement, but Cromwell was not, as he is popularly imagined, a tyrant. I got rather annoyed when Simon Schama, who should know better, described him as a religious bigot (in his "History of Britain"), which is to apply a 21st century sensibility to the 17th. By the standards of his time, Cromwell was among the least religiously bigoted people involved in the Civil War, the Republic, or the Protectorate, of any party. Religiously he was an independent, a "seeker". He also brought about the return of the Jews to England for the first time since their expulsion in 1290.
Nor was he a killjoy Puritan. He was always more moderate and forgiving than the succession of grisly, presbyterian-dominated parliaments that he brought into being before putting them out of their misery (and who were the real "ban-Christmas" brigade). He had a lifelong passion for music.
There is something poignant in his refusal of the crown when it was offered him in 1657, even when he realized it would probably stabilize the country, but the real tragedy of his rule is that his moderation led him to pass up the opportunity of a truly radical solution to the problem of who would succeed him: a true democracy, based on universal suffrage and backed by public education, as the Levellers proposed in the Putney debates.
For anyone interested in one of the true greats of English history, I highly recommend Antonia Fraser's biography, "Cromwell, Our Chief of Men".