The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why Can't We Have a Cromwell Day?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by mrITguy
Oh yes, I am not saying the Charles was democratic. But I would say he was much better than Cromwell lol. Fact is, I think if things have kept going there would have been another person to rebel against the crown. Or the English would have deposed of Charles 1 and put Charles the 2nd on instead, who was a ok king.

Also note: Charles the first was quite popular with the people...


Charles I was quite popular with the people? Proof? Lol, I hardly think his draining of the Fens, his implementation of unparliamentary forms of money-making (ship money, distraint of knighthood, forest fines, ship money), his religious autocracy (appointing the tyrannical William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury, forcing Arminianism on the people, forcing the Prayer Book on the Scots, punishing critics of his religious policies by having his royal courts of Star Chamber and High Commission throw them in jail, etc) makes him out to be a popular man. As a matter of fact, when the Scots invaded England in 1639 they were welcomed as liberators by the northern English population.
Original post by Lujubi
Apart from the fact that Cromwell ruled like a dictator (Lord Protectorate was his actual title), his takeover was the first step towards a constitutional monarchy and challenging the view of divine right.

The fact I find hypocritical is that his son was 'next in line' to take his place. Screams heredity right/monarchy but without the title.


What would you have had Cromwell do? He was no fan of hereditary monarchy, but elective monarchies have never worked due to the imperfect nature of man. Cromwell realised, too late, than one cannot legislate human beings into being moral. He was not a hypocrite for making his son the heir, though I think there were other more deserving candidates, but I think he simply came to the realisation that the idealistic ideas he had held when he was younger about the nature of governance no longer applied.

Original post by Lujubi
Most of his efforts went in vain since the Cavalier Parliament came in and reversed pretty much most things militarily and politically when Charles II came to power and you've the parliament of William III to thank since they were the ones who introduced the Bill of Rights in the 1700s.

So no, I don't think Cromwell should deserve a day.


Not true. Cromwell was the architect of religious liberty in this country and without him the Jews would never have been invited back to Britain. His New Model Army revolutionised the British way of fighting and he arranged the system of colonial administration that helped to launch the British Empire.
Original post by L i b
Speaking as someone from Scotland, I doubt 99% of Scots could tell you what the Battle of Dunbar was.



It was an entirely factual statement. He committed the offence of treason, under laws that are still in effect today.


Treason is a subjective concept. How is this an argument? He wouldn't be seen as a traitor if the Commonwealth still existed today.

Sometimes "traitors" are good men. Sometimes disobedience against the established powers is admirable and justified.

Original post by L i b
He fought against the idea of Divine right of Kings, but his own dictatorial theocracy, which he claimed was inspired by God - but in fact was nothing more than his own perverse interpretation of scripture - was hardly better.


This is nonsense with nothing factual to back it up whatsoever. It is a common misrepresentation of Cromwell's ideas and style of governance stemming from ignorance and propaganda. The Commonwealth was not run as a theocracy. In fact it wasn't even approaching a theocracy. Cromwell supported religious freedom and was what we now know as an "Independent" - Protestants who believed that there should be no state church (like the Church of England) imposing its ideas on people, but that like-minded congregations of Protestants should band together and worship God together. If anything, Cromwell was a very tolerant man by the standards of the time, but his ideas were hard to implement using anything other than force since he was surrounded by people that wanted to kill anyone that disagreed with them religiously. Cromwell was undoubtedly extremely pious even by the standards of the time, but the fact that he believed himself led by God, or allowed religion to influence his decision to an extent, does not make him a theocrat. During Cromwell's time numerous sects sprung up including Fifth Monarchists, Muggletonians, Quakers, Shakers, Ranters, Ravers, Baptists and Presbyterians (the latter of whom, in the form of the Scottish Covenanters constantly tried to impose their bigoted form of religious belief on everyone else in the British Isles just as Charles I had tried to impose Arminianism on his subjects, and had to be smacked down twice by Cromwell for their treacherous actions). Cromwell befriended the Quaker leader George Fox, even welcoming him into his own home to talk with him, and defended him from persecution. He let the Jews back into England - an unthinkable act at the time. The Fifth Monarchists (who were religious extremists that really wanted to create a theocracy) hated Cromwell and saw him as a traitor to their cause for refusing to back their zany ideas, and tried to assassinate Cromwell on many an occasion, forcing him to suppress them. In fact the Nominated Assembly of 1653 failed precisely because of the Fifth Monarchists hijacking the assembly and getting their crazy ideas passed as legislation.

Original post by L i b
His contribution to constitutional monarchy was more or less sod-all. The Stewarts brought that very French idea into fashion, briefly, and it fell out of style just as quickly. Britain has a long tradition of balanced monarchy, ruling within the law. After Cromwell's time, Charles II went back to very same ideology as before. It was the Glorious Revolution that really changed things - without the bloodshed that Cromwell brought.


That is simply not true. It is true that initially, the English people were so grateful for the restoration of the monarchy that they indulged Charles II's every whim and accepted with enthusiasm the old order, but by the time of the dissolutionof the Cavalier Parliament in 1679 things clearly were not the same, and a Cromwellian spirit of rebellion can be identified rising among members of the ruling classes.

And Cromwell alone was responsible for bringing "bloodshed"? Charles I didn't bring bloodshed by his duplicity and starting a second civil war by allying with the Scottish Covenanters in 1647-8? The Scottish Covenanters didn't bring bloodshed by constantly invading England and trying to force everyone to be Presbyterian? The Fifth Monarchists didn't bring bloodshed by trying to kill anyone who refused to accept their millenarian ideas?
Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC
It's Sir Thomas Fairfax and other we have to thank for fighting for democracy against theocratic monarchy not the traitor Cromwell who betrayed his own side and turned England into ISIS


How the hell did he turn England into ISIS? Do you even read what you type?
Original post by mrITguy
Are you SERIOUS????

Cromwell was not only a traitor and puritan (basically people who think everything is sinful). But he banned literally everything we enjoy, such as sports and even CHRISTMAS!!!!! He helped spread this puritan "religion" until we the English people had enough and shipped some/most of them to the "new world" (america) who became one of the first the new settlers. They didn't bring any food etc and was starving, but the locals took pity on them and gave them food (hence the reason Americans now have Thanksgiving).

This illusion that Cromwell was a hero that saved England from the evil Charles the first, is a big fat lie. If anything it should be seen as a tragedy.


*Sigh*, it's clear you've been watching far too much Horrible Histories for your own good. Cromwell had nothing to do with the banning of sports or Christmas, that was all done during the Rump Parliament that began in Charles II's rule and which, though he sympathised with, he had little to do with.

Read this:

http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs4.htm

And it is simply not true that he forced people that disagreed with Puritanism to go to the New World. Many of those sent to the New World during Cromwell's rule were soldiers captured in battle during the civil wars, among them Scottish Covenanters and Irish Catholic rebels. And they deserved it too. And the first settlers in the New World arrived during Elizabeth's time, not Cromwell's.
I was hoping you were talking about Thomas Cromwell. :frown: Those financial and Privy Council reforms go down in history...
Original post by L i b
Because not only was Cromwell a traitor, he's got a fairly chequered record in terms of being a brutal dick, particularly in his campaigns in Ireland.

I have very little time for the Covenanters - pretty much the most pointless ***** in the Civil War. But neither do I have any time for religious fundamentalists cutting about the place, chopping off the head of the King and trying to ban Christmas.


Cromwell did not want Charles executed until the very last minute, still holding out hope that the King would change his ways. He started a second civil war and even after that refused to see reason. There was nothing for it but to kill him to avoid further bloodshed.

And Cromwell had nothing to do with the banning of Christmas in 1647.
Original post by doctorwhofan98
I was hoping you were talking about Thomas Cromwell. :frown: Those financial and Privy Council reforms go down in history...


I admire both Cromwells. They were both God-fearing patriots that served their country well and helped deliver us from Popish tyranny.
Original post by Cato the Elder
I admire both Cromwells. They were both God-fearing patriots that served their country well and helped deliver us from Popish tyranny.


You admire Tumbledown Dick?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
You admire Tumbledown Dick?


Posted from TSR Mobile


No, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver Cromwell.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Why can't we have a Cromwell Day taking place on 3rd September, the day of that great man Oliver Cromwell's death, and the anniversary of his God-given victories over the barbarous Scottish Presbyterian pigs at Dunbar and over the royalist heathens at Worcester? It would at least give us a day to celebrate one of our national heroes, something the leftists want to stop us doing.

Alternatively, it could be placed on 25th April, two days after St George's Day, the day of his birth, but for fear that they might clash, 3rd September is probably the safer course.


he didnt do much,, just was a good general.
so he must be eternally judged by your 21st century morality?

human shields, genocide, patriarchy, censorship, and religious persecution wer the order of the day back then.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Why can't we have a Cromwell Day taking place on 3rd September, the day of that great man Oliver Cromwell's death, and the anniversary of his God-given victories over the barbarous Scottish Presbyterian pigs at Dunbar and over the royalist heathens at Worcester? It would at least give us a day to celebrate one of our national heroes, something the leftists want to stop us doing.


You complain about leftists and you want to celebrate a man who waged war against a British King, beheaded him and abolished the monarchy.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
You complain about leftists and you want to celebrate a man who waged war against a British King, beheaded him and abolished the monarchy.


lolol.... Charles I deserved it. he abolished parliament, levied taxes unconstitutionally, and after he lost the first civil war, he started the second. to say Cromwell was wrong, when he wasn't even the main mover/shaker behind the "trial" execution is pretty silly. Charles I caused the war, and he was too stubborn not to accept his hand in it, and even accept guilt in his "trial"....
Well he brought back the Jews, promoted religious tolerance, and gained colonies in the Caribbean and Africa from the Spanish. i don't care if he deserves a day, just responding to your point, to say he was "horrible". Not more than Charles I, or Charles II, or any other ruler of that time.
and he did so when the Kings before him didn't. and his goal as Lord Protector was tolerance, and his supporters did things that he didn'tn condone. the OP is wrong, and the best leader, King or Lord Protector, of that era was Charles II.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Charles I was quite popular with the people? Proof? Lol, I hardly think his draining of the Fens, his implementation of unparliamentary forms of money-making (ship money, distraint of knighthood, forest fines, ship money), his religious autocracy (appointing the tyrannical William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury, forcing Arminianism on the people, forcing the Prayer Book on the Scots, punishing critics of his religious policies by having his royal courts of Star Chamber and High Commission throw them in jail, etc) makes him out to be a popular man. As a matter of fact, when the Scots invaded England in 1639 they were welcomed as liberators by the northern English population.


Shall we list all the terrible things Cromwell did and the parliament did? Like Cromwell's war crimes? or the fact that they had to make up a law on the spot to execute a king. The turning point with regards to his popularity was when Cromwell and parliament started a propaganda war that Charles really lost his support.



Original post by Cato the Elder
*Sigh*, it's clear you've been watching far too much Horrible Histories for your own good. Cromwell had nothing to do with the banning of sports or Christmas, that was all done during the Rump Parliament that began in Charles II's rule and which, though he sympathised with, he had little to do with.

Read this:

http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs4.htm

And it is simply not true that he forced people that disagreed with Puritanism to go to the New World. Many of those sent to the New World during Cromwell's rule were soldiers captured in battle during the civil wars, among them Scottish Covenanters and Irish Catholic rebels. And they deserved it too. And the first settlers in the New World arrived during Elizabeth's time, not Cromwell's.


Orr but I like that show :frown: and ye being a supporter of banning Christmas, still means he takes the blame as technically he put them in power.

Your second point I am not sure about to be honest. I just know that we kicked the puritans out (I didn't say Cromwell did it omg) :P I also know that there was alot of Irish and Scottish that went as well.

Ye the whole first settlers debate thing has become been changed so many times.

Original post by MagicNMedicine
You complain about leftists and you want to celebrate a man who waged war against a British King, beheaded him and abolished the monarchy.


^^ this
Original post by Cato the Elder
How the hell did he turn England into ISIS? Do you even read what you type?


He and his kind turned England into a fanatical religious state where mass hysteria and paranoia flourished resulting in sectarian conflict and witch burnings. Similar to what we seen in the Islamic State
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Salsa123
Oh nice do you have anymore details on that - for a figure like him I wish it wasn't so obscure he had just as much of a pivotal role


The Coldstream Guards were a regiment raised personally by Monck as part of the New Model Army. It accompanied him south. When the Parliamentary Army was disbanded, it laid down its arms and took them up again in service of Charles II as the Lord General's Regiment, Monck (now Duke of Albemarle) was Lord General. At that time, regiments were named after their colonels and so it was due to change names when Monck died but rather than take the name of its new colonel, it was permanently named after where Monck crossed into England on his march.

Although the regiment has had three royal colonels in the past, it hasn't had any since 1850 and generally the tradition has been kept that the colonel of the regiment is not a prince (the Queen is colonel in chief of all the guards regiments). The tradition is shared with the other Roundhead regiment in the army, the Life Guards.
Original post by Lujubi
Apart from the fact that Cromwell ruled like a dictator (Lord Protectorate was his actual title), his takeover was the first step towards a constitutional monarchy and challenging the view of divine right.

The fact I find hypocritical is that his son was 'next in line' to take his place. Screams heredity right/monarchy but without the title.

Most of his efforts went in vain since the Cavalier Parliament came in and reversed pretty much most things militarily and politically when Charles II came to power and you've the parliament of William III to thank since they were the ones who introduced the Bill of Rights in the 1700s.

So no, I don't think Cromwell should deserve a day.


I'd argue that the constitutional monarchy's first step was in fact 1534 when Henry VIII separated from the Pope.

But I agree there's no good reason for Cromwell to get any sort of commemoration.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you