Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The real question is would Cromwell vote out or in?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Please... for the love of god nobody start that one.:rolleyes:
    Out. He'd recognise the EU was a Catholic conspiracy to destroy our country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    He obviously means an officially recognised Cromwell Day. You're right in saying anyone can stage any themed day on any day of their choosing.

    I'll admit despite possessing a moderate level of interest in the time period I wasn't familiar with The Cromwell Association.
    I'm entering their essay competition :P
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I was hoping you were talking about Thomas Cromwell. Those financial and Privy Council reforms go down in history...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ****, 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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorwhofan98)
    I was hoping you were talking about Thomas Cromwell. 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.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ****?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You admire Tumbledown ****?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver Cromwell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rimstone)
    Since were not 5 years old and no one cares. I know a lot of what happened, and cromwell was not a great british ruler or even person really. We have a Ton that were better than him, but since we only have 365 days and no one gives shite, we dont have a cromwell day.

    also he :
    -abolished Parliament
    -Killed many people for god
    -He used human shields
    -Killed most the catholics in ireland
    -He took away womens rights, to publish books ect
    and what everyone has said before, He was a horrible person and ruler, did not listen to the people, fromed his own dictatorship, much like and worse than some ex-arab states. He wanted his son to rule after him, but he was so weak, that they restored the monarch. And this is who you want to celebrate ?

    he has gone down in history as a horrible person, with very little to make up for it . so why would you want to give a day to him over so many better people ?
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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"....
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calmingforzzzz)
    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.
    honestly not, I'm very against holding people in past to our morality, which seems to change every 10 years or so.
    but the main bad things he did were already stated and i added a few more. He was disliked by the people at the time, and as you can see a lot of people now dont know enough about him, And he just wasnt a great person, He did next to no good and did so many horrible things; and you want to celebrate him ? I mean im okay with people liking him and learning about him but having a day about a horrible guy. The OP clearly doesnt know enough about him. It'll be like having a day for hitler, since he lowered inflation, feed the germans and bought germany back from complete destruction before WW2, Hence why he was time person of the year; and not looking at what hitler did after. comwell is in no way as bad a hitler, but hes the person who first came to mind.

    cromwell, was no peter the great, He was no genral hannibal, he was no elizabeth tudor. He wasnt a great leader compared to the many great english rulers weve had and there very little point on picking him out of the many. Yopu clearly can't support a day for him, when he did so much wrong, and so little good. Is your only disagreement with my statement that the bad things he did in his era are seen as worse in our ? or do you have any other reasonable argument as to why we should have a day for him ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rimstone)
    honestly not, I'm very against holding people in past to our morality, which seems to change every 10 years or so.
    but the main bad things he did were already stated and i added a few more. He was disliked by the people at the time, and as you can see a lot of people now dont know enough about him, And he just wasnt a great person, He did next to no good and did so many horrible things; and you want to celebrate him ? I mean im okay with people liking him and learning about him but having a day about a horrible guy. The OP clearly doesnt know enough about him. It'll be like having a day for hitler, since he lowered inflation, feed the germans and bought germany back from complete destruction before WW2, Hence why he was time person of the year; and not looking at what hitler did after. comwell is in no way as bad a hitler, but hes the person who first came to mind.

    cromwell, was no peter the great, He was no genral hannibal, he was no elizabeth tudor. He wasnt a great leader compared to the many great english rulers weve had and there very little point on picking him out of the many. Yopu clearly can't support a day for him, when he did so much wrong, and so little good. Is your only disagreement with my statement that the bad things he did in his era are seen as worse in our ? or do you have any other reasonable argument as to why we should have a day for him ?
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calmingforzzzz)
    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.
    Jews were kicked out, went to other parts of europe,were kicked out again, so went to the ottoman empire, when jew + muslim were kicked out of europe in some countries ,mainly spain. He allowed jew to come back , only because he needed them, since he was a strict over the top puritan and didn't believe christians should loan to each other, not many jews came back, since they new europe wasn't a great place to live, since they kept getting kicked out.

    religious tolerance... your joking right ? killed catholics and hated other forms of christianity that wasn't his own . He was extremly intolerant.

    Anyone could have taken colonies from spain at that time, they were extremely weak, thanks to other english rulers and silver prices dropping and spain kicking most the trademens out 100+ years ago, The jews and muslims. though i guess its worth a mention.

    My point is not he was just ahorrible person, i dont think he was too bad, for the reason you said. Im saying there so many other better people to pick over him.He is also without a doubt one of the worst protectorates of this country
    .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.