Rating the Monarchs of Britain: Now Disc. George III

I think you need to take a closer look at the Italian city states

 

Sorry Zaz, but I think to learn the true ESSENCE of Cromwell, we this time need to outsource:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ1yPz14LrU

Bonus points if you can recite the entire song from memory. I was able to do that once upon a time years and years and years ago.

 

Part two...

Cromwell: "I was by birth a gentleman, living neither in any considerable height, nor yet in obscurity."

If there is an American version of Cromwell, it is perhaps Ulysses S. Grant, who was languishing in obscurity until the US Civil War started, whereupon he became a successful general and President of the United States. But at least Grant had been to West Point and served in the American Army. Cromwell had no military experience at all until Charles I declared war on his subjects in 1642.

He was the Brits call gentry, but not nobility. As noted above, he had a Welsh strain, and may have been actual related to the Tudors.

From Wiki: "The social status of Cromwell's family at his birth was relatively low within the gentry class. His father was a younger son, and one of 10 siblings who survived into adulthood. As a result, Robert's inheritance was limited to a house at Huntingdon and a small amount of land. This land would have generated an income of up to £300 a year, near the bottom of the range of gentry incomes.[7] Cromwell himself, much later in 1654, said "I was by birth a gentleman, living neither in considerable height, nor yet in obscurity".[8]

Records survive of Cromwell's baptism on 29 April 1599 at St. John's Church,[9] and his attendance at Huntingdon Grammar School. He went on to study at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, which was then a recently founded college with a strong puritan ethos. He left in June 1617 without taking a degree, immediately after the death of his father.[10] Early biographers claim he then attended Lincoln's Inn, but there is no record of him in the Inn's archives. He is more likely to have returned home to Huntingdon, for his mother was widowed and his seven sisters were unmarried, and he, therefore, was needed to help his family.[11]

On 22 August 1620 at St Giles-without-Cripplegate, London,[12] Cromwell married Elizabeth Bourchier (1598?1665). They had nine children..."

"Elizabeth's father, Sir James Bourchier, was a London leather merchant who owned extensive land in Essex and had strong connections with puritan gentry families there. The marriage brought Cromwell into contact with Oliver St John and also with leading members of the London merchant community, and behind them the influence of the earls of Warwick and Holland. Membership in this influential network would prove crucial to Cromwell?s military and political career. At this stage, though, there is little evidence of Cromwell?s own religion. His letter in 1626 to Henry Downhall, an Arminian minister, suggests that Cromwell had yet to be influenced by radical puritanism.[14] However, there is evidence that Cromwell went through a period of personal crisis during the late 1620s and early 1630s. He sought treatment for valde melancolicus (depression) from London doctor Theodore de Mayerne in 1628. He was also caught up in a fight among the gentry of Huntingdon over a new charter for the town, as a result of which he was called before the Privy Council in 1630.[15]

In 1631 Cromwell sold most of his properties in Huntingdon ? probably as a result of the dispute ? and moved to a farmstead in St Ives. This was a major step down in society compared to his previous position, and seems to have had a major emotional and spiritual impact. A 1638 letter survives from Cromwell to his cousin, the wife of Oliver St John, and gives an account of his spiritual awakening. The letter outlines how, having been the "the chief of sinners", Cromwell had been called to be among "the congregation of the firstborn".[14] The language of this letter, which is saturated with biblical quotations and which represents Cromwell as having been saved from sin by God's mercy, places his faith firmly within the Independent beliefs that the Reformation had not gone far enough, that much of England was still living in sin, and that Catholic beliefs and practices needed to be fully removed from the church.
Oliver Cromwell's house in Ely

In 1636, Cromwell inherited control of various properties in Ely from his uncl

 

Been to Oliver Cromwells house in Newmarket and it's very interesting, he really was a man of humble beginnings. The ceilings are also very low but then our ancestors were much shorter than we are.

Nowadays historians use the term 'The War of the Three Kingdoms" (England, Ireland and Scotland) rather than English Civil War.

I don't think Cromwell wanted to kill the king, I think he did everything to avoid it. He was very much a man who didn't yearn for greatness but had it thrust upon him. The reason that he was the victor of Martson Moor was that he stayed on the battlefield whilst all the other Parliamentary commanders fled, unaware that they'd actually won. The new model army was unique in that it was paid, wasn't allowed to loot or rape and wasn't allowed to be drunk on duty. Also it promoted it's officers for their competency rather than their social status. The WOTTK was very much a battle between the romantic Cavaliers and the more ulitarian Roundheads, a dueling pistol against an AK-47

 

Screw this "War of the 3 Kingdoms" bit. It sounds like Chinese History, not British.

 

Shouldn't this thread be titled "rulers of Britain" instead?
Cromwell was no Monarch, he deposed the Monarchy so he would hardly become one.

Besides, he is not listed on any Monarchs of Britain list that I've ever seen.

 

He is listed on *this* thread, however, because I find him a helluva more interesting than any Stuart that ever breathed.

 

But not for long...

 

Member of Parliament: 1628?1629 and 1640?1642

"Cromwell became the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon in the Parliament of 1628?1629, as a client of the Montagus. He made little impression: records for the Parliament show only one speech (against the Arminian Bishop Richard Neile), which was poorly received.[17] After dissolving this Parliament, Charles I ruled without a Parliament for the next eleven years. When Charles faced the Scottish rebellion known as the Bishops' Wars, shortage of funds forced him to call a Parliament again in 1640. Cromwell was returned to this Parliament as member for Cambridge, but it lasted for only three weeks and became known as the Short Parliament.

A second Parliament was called later the same year. This was to become known as the Long Parliament. Cromwell was again returned to this Parliament as member for Cambridge. As with the Parliament of 1628-9, it is likely that Cromwell owed his position to the patronage of others, which would explain the fact that in the first week of the Parliament he was in charge of presenting a petition for the release of John Lilburne, who had become a puritan martyr after being arrested for importing religious tracts from Holland. Otherwise it is unlikely that a relatively unknown member would have been given this task. For the first two years of the Long Parliament, Cromwell was linked to the godly group of aristocrats in the House of Lords and Members of the House of Commons with which he had already established familial and religious links in the 1630s, such as the Earls of Essex, Warwick and Bedford, Oliver St John, and Viscount Saye and Sele.[18] At this stage, the group had an agenda of godly reformation: the executive checked by regular parliaments, and the moderate extension of liberty of conscience. Cromwell appears to have taken a role in some of this group's political manoeuvres. In May 1641, for example, it was Cromwell who put forward the second reading of the Annual Parliaments Bill, and who later took a role in drafting the Root and Branch Bill for the abolition of episcopacy.[19]
[edit] Military commander: 1642?1646

Failure to resolve the issues before the Long Parliament led to armed conflict between Parliament and Charles I in the autumn of 1642. Before joining Parliament's forces, Cromwell's only military experience was in the trained bands, the local county militia. Now 43 years old, he recruited a cavalry troop in Cambridgeshire after blocking a shipment of silver from Cambridge colleges that was meant for the king. Cromwell and his troop then fought at the indecisive Battle of Edgehill on 23 October 1642. The troop was recruited to be a full regiment in the winter of 1642/43, making up part of the Eastern Association under the Earl of Manchester. Cromwell gained experience and victories in a number of successful actions in East Anglia in 1643, notably at the Battle of Gainsborough on 28 July.[20] After this he was made governor of Ely and made a colonel in the Eastern Association.

By the time of the Battle of Marston Moor in July 1644, Cromwell had risen to the rank of Lieutenant General of horse in Manchester's army. The success of his cavalry in breaking the ranks of the Royalist horse and then attacking their infantry from the rear at Marston Moor was a major factor in the Parliamentarian victory in the battle. Cromwell fought at the head of his troops in the battle and was wounded in the head. Cromwell's nephew, Valentine Walton, was killed at Marston Moor, and Cromwell wrote a famous letter to the soldier's father, Cromwell's brother-in-law, telling him of the soldier's death. Marston Moor secured the north of England for the Parliamentarians, but failed to end Royalist resistance.

The indecisive outcome of the second Battle of Newbury in October meant that by the end of 1644, the war still showed no signs of ending. Cromwell's experience at Newbury, where Manchester had let the King's army slip out of an encircling manoeuvre, led to a serious dispute with Manchester, whom he believed to be less than enthusiastic in his cond

 

Politics: 1647?1649

"In February 1647 Cromwell suffered from an illness that kept him out of political life for over a month. By the time of his recovery, the Parliamentarians were split over the issue of the king. A majority in both Houses pushed for a settlement that would pay off the Scottish army, disband much of the New Model Army, and restore Charles I in return for a Presbyterian settlement of the Church. Cromwell rejected the Scottish model of Presbyterianism, which threatened to replace one authoritarian hierarchy with another. The New Model Army, radicalised by the failure of the Parliament to pay the wages it was owed, petitioned against these changes, but the Commons declared the petition unlawful. During May 1647, Cromwell was sent to the army's headquarters in Saffron Walden to negotiate with them, but failed to reach agreement. In June 1647, a troop of cavalry under Cornet George Joyce seized the king from Parliament's imprisonment. Although Cromwell is known to have met with Joyce on 31 May, it is impossible to be sure what Cromwell's role in this event was.[25]

Cromwell and Henry Ireton then drafted a manifesto ? the "Heads of Proposals" ? designed to check the powers of the executive, set up regularly elected parliaments, and restore a non-compulsory Episcopalian settlement.[26] Many in the army, such as the Levellers led by John Lilburne, thought this was insufficient, demanding full political equality for all men, leading to tense debates in Putney during the autumn of 1647 between Fairfax, Cromwell and Ireton on the one hand, and radical Levellers like Colonel Rainsborough on the other. The Putney Debates ultimately broke up without reaching a resolution.[27] The debates, and the escape of Charles I from Hampton Court on 12 November, are likely to have hardened Cromwell's resolve against the king.

The failure to conclude a political agreement with the king eventually led to the outbreak of the Second English Civil War in 1648, when the King tried to regain power by force of arms. Cromwell first put down a Royalist uprising in south Wales led by Rowland Laugharne, winning back Chepstow Castle on May 25 and six days later forcing the surrender of Tenby. The castle at Carmarthen was destroyed by burning. The much stronger castle at Pembroke, however, fell only after a siege of eight weeks. Cromwell dealt leniently with the ex-royalist soldiers, less so with those who had previously been members of the parliamentary army, with John Poyer eventually being executed in London after the drawing of lots.[28]

Cromwell then marched north to deal with a pro-Royalist Scottish army (the Engagers) who had invaded England. At Preston, Cromwell, in sole command for the first time with an army of 9,000, won a brilliant victory against an army twice that size.[29]

During 1648, Cromwell's letters and speeches started to become heavily based on biblical imagery, many of them meditations on the meaning of particular passages. For example, after the battle of Preston, study of Psalms 17 and 105 led him to tell Parliament that "they that are implacable and will not leave troubling the land may be speedily destroyed out of the land". A letter to Oliver St John in September 1648 urged him to read Isaiah 8, in which the kingdom falls and only the godly survive. This letter suggests that it was Cromwell's faith, rather than a commitment to radical politics, coupled with Parliament's decision to engage in negotiations with the king at the Treaty of Newport, that convinced him that God had spoken against both the king and Parliament as lawful authorities. For Cromwell, the army was now God's chosen instrument.[30] The episode shows Cromwell?s firm belief in "Providentialism"?that God was actively directing the affairs of the world, through the actions of "chosen people" (whom God had "provided" for such purposes). Cromwell believed, during the Civil Wars, that he was one of these people, and he interpreted victories as indications of God's approval of his actions, and defeats as signs that God was directing him in another di

 

I think it's important to qualify the 'Irish', Irish unionists have little problem with Cromwell and regard him as highly as the rest of the UK. Irish Nationalists whine on about him incessantly but conveniently forget about the pro-Royalist massacres that provoked him, a hypocrisy that repeats itself time and again. Cromwell's actions are controversial in some respects but it's beyond doubt that he was much more merciful than his enemies in practically every respect.
It sickened me when the BBC held the 100 greatest Briton's contest and Cromwell rightfully made the top 10 but when they did the countdown the only people who got to speak about him just repeated the same old rhetoric about his actions in Ireland. Thankfully when we got to the debate he had his day, fair and square

 

The Scots got their best government in a very long time with him in charge--he had no problem at all with Presbyterianism nor the Covenant. I would also note: he protected English Catholics, and invited the Jews, which had been forbidden in Britain for 350 years, to come back. And some did. His actions in Ireland were not good, no question, but I'm not prepared to paint him as a religious bigot on that basis. He wanted to ensure Ireland would not rebel again.

 

Why, you might ask, did Cromwell bother with Scotland and Ireland at all? After all, England had no right to rule either of them: Scotland was a Stuart possession, and Ireland was Ireland. The problem was that they both gave staging grounds for invasions of England, and the Stuarts made it clear they would use of both or either of them for just that purpose. And that's what happened:

Scottish Campaign: 1650?1651

Scots proclaim Charles as King

"Cromwell left Ireland in May 1650 and several months later, invaded Scotland after the Scots had proclaimed Charles I's son as Charles II. Cromwell was much less hostile to Scottish Presbyterians, some of whom had been his allies in the First English Civil War, than he was to Irish Catholics. He described the Scots as a people fearing His [God's] name, though deceived".[66] He made a famous appeal to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, urging them to see the error of the royal alliance?"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."[67] The Scots' reply was robust: "would you have us to be sceptics in our religion?" This decision to negotiate with Charles II led Cromwell to believe that war was necessary.[68]"

[edit] Battle of Dunbar

His appeal rejected, Cromwell's veteran troops went on to invade Scotland. At first, the campaign went badly, as Cromwell's men were short of supplies and held up at fortifications manned by Scottish troops under David Leslie. Cromwell was on the brink of evacuating his army by sea from Dunbar. However, on 3 September 1650, in an unexpected battle, Cromwell smashed the main Covenanter army at the Battle of Dunbar, killing 4,000 Scottish soldiers, taking another 10,000 prisoner and then capturing the Scottish capital of Edinburgh.[69] The victory was of such a magnitude that Cromwell called it, "A high act of the Lord's Providence to us [and] one of the most signal mercies God hath done for England and His people".[69]

[edit] Battle of Worcester

The following year, Charles II and his Scottish allies made a desperate attempt to invade England and capture London while Cromwell was engaged in Scotland. Cromwell followed them south and caught them at Worcester on 3 September 1651. At the subsequent Battle of Worcester, Cromwell's forces destroyed the last major Scottish Royalist army. Charles II barely escaped capture, and subsequently fled to exile in France and the Netherlands, where he would remain until 1660.[70] Many of the Scottish prisoners of war taken in the campaigns died of disease, and others were sent to penal colonies in Barbados.
[edit] Scottish campaign concluded

In the final stages of the Scottish campaign, Cromwell's men, under George Monck, sacked the town of Dundee, killing up to 2,000 of its population of 12,000 and destroying the 60 ships in the city's harbour.[71] During the Commonwealth, Scotland was ruled from England, and was kept under military occupation, with a line of fortifications sealing off the Highlands, which had provided manpower for Royalist armies in Scotland, from the rest of the country. The north west Highlands was the scene of another pro-royalist uprising in 1653-55, which was only put down with deployment of 6,000 English troops there.[72] Presbyterianism was allowed to be practised as before, but the Kirk (the Scottish church) did not have the backing of the civil courts to impose its rulings, as it had previously.[73]

Cromwell's conquest, unwelcome as it was, left no significant lasting legacy of bitterness in Scotland. The rule of the Commonwealth and Protectorate was, the Highlands aside, largely peaceful. Moreover, there was no wholesale confiscations of land or property. Three out of every four Justices of the Peace in Commonwealth Scotland were Scots and the country was governed jointly by the English military authorities and a Scottish Council of State.[74] Although not often favourably regarded, Cromwell's name rarely meets the hatred in Scotland that it does in Ireland."


In fact, the Scots should be glad Cromwell kicked their collective asses i

 

How can you rate Cromwell the man was a complete lunatic who oversaw a reign of terror that destroyed hundreds of years of history in the name of religious purity. Britain is still affected by that period today. He made Catholics feel like what it was like to be a Jew in Spain. And when he was finished he took his lunatic minions to America and continued his work there while Britain recovered. His work in the US is still visible in the religious fanaticism we see today and all of it's subsequent American incarnations.

All Charles II did was unite England and Scotland which has actually in the long run worked out well. He was also a bit of a lunatic, and a friend of Dorothy. He also amassed one of the largest art collections in the history of the world preserving not only British culture but European as well. it's a Shame Cromwell dissected destroyed and sold most of this collection.

 

All of this is untrue. Cromwell protected Catholics in England, and invited the Jews back into the country after 350 years of proscription. And he didn't do anything in the USA as described, you seem a bit confused. If you are referring to witch-burning, he tried to stamp that out, and generally succeeded.

Charles II didn't unite England and Scotland, that was his niece, Queen Anne.

A friend of Dorothy who?

The large art collection belonged to his father, Charles I. Cromwell did sell some of the collection, but kept some of it, too.

Charles II persecuted the Covenanters in Scotland with great violence and intolerance, and sold his soul to Louis XIV for money.

 

If Cromwell was such a paragon of virtue why does the BBC describe him as a radical Puritan. Who's rule is looked at as a period of Chaos in the eyes of most British historians. Why are their written accounts of Catholic churches being sacked and destroyed with art and artifacts being burned during his period of rule. And why is that Catholiscism went under ground in the UK during that period. He may not have physically gone to the US but his idealogy and philosophy went and that has been disastrous for the world. I just watched a special on BBC4 about the history of religion in Great Britain and Cromwell was responsibile for the destruction of Abby's and churches. Or do the burnt out husks from that period that litter the English country side not prove that point? If there is an argument for Monarchy and religious tolerance in the UK it is that period. Anglicanism is based on a fusion of Protestantism and Catholicsm, both of which were not tolerated during that period. While I respect the right of people to have an opinion, I do not respect people who refuse to do the basic amount of research required to get the facts. If you had you would have known not only that he did not embrace Catholicism and that he was a radical Purtian. I suggest next time you adopt a university standard of research where you find at least 3 sources based on academic research and not Wikipedia.

Also, Marston Moor was not a battle, it was in fact a massacre. Any current British textbook will tell you that along with songs written about still sung in the area. And You do not fall out of the gentry. You are either Noble or you are not. By that reasoning my husband a Heridatary Knight who's lands were stolen by Communists is no longer a Knight. Get your facts straight and learn the basics.

 

You still didn't tell me who Dorothy was.

Was Cromwell a 'radical Puritan'? Maybe. Why is that necessarily a bad thing? He did more for Britain than all the Stuarts combined. As for "He may not have physically gone to the US but his idealogy and philosophy went and that has been disastrous for the world" I absolutely disagree with this. I believe the reverse, in fact. Cromwell's rule did a lot for the world: it showed that you didn't have to endure a incompetent king, nor have to match your religion to his, if you didn't want to. Cromwell was a pattern for the American radicals, like, you know, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson...

Henry VIII was the one who destroyed most of the Abbeys and Priories in England. In Scotland, the locals obliged, mainly because the Scottish Catholic Church was notoriously corrupt and despised by the majority of populace.

This is absolute nonsense. James I was tolerant. Charles I and Charles II were crypto-Catholics. The whole English Civil War erupted because Charles I wanted impose Anglicanism upon Scotland, which was not inclined to it. James II *was* an open Catholic, and he wanted a totalitarian nation-state like that of his first cousin, Louis XIV, you remember him, the King who reversed the Edict of Nantes, allowing French Protestants free worship?

It absolutely is not. Anglicanism is Catholicism with the King not the Pope as head of the Church and some other modifications, but not *that* many.

Now *this* I absolutely agree with.

I never said he embraced Catholicism; I said he protected Catholic worship in England. "Clean different things" as Charles I would say.

I have two University degrees, one in history. The information came from a biography of Cromwell and from a survey of the Stuarts.

Marston Moor
Cromwell was the reason the Parliamentarians won the battle, but why you should describe it as a 'massacre' I don't know.

And you can't always rely on textbooks. For instance, dozens of them describe Edward IV as a blonde, blue-eyed and very tall. Portraits of him, reproduced in these same books, show him as dark-haired, dark-eyed and fat. Which is kind of odd.

 

I think she's calling him gay.

"Friend of Dorothy" = American codeword for male homosexual in olden times.

 

The guy had 25 illegitimate children. She's got to be kidding. If she verified *that* one with three sources, I'd love to know what the hell they were.

 

[image=http://libn.com/files/2009/08/wizard-of-oz.jpg]



I KNEW IT!

 

Dissolution of the Long Parliament


"From the middle of 1649 until 1651, Cromwell was away on campaign. In the meantime, with the king gone (and with him their common cause), the various factions in Parliament began to engage in infighting. On his return, Cromwell tried to galvanise the Rump into setting dates for new elections, uniting the three kingdoms under one polity, and to put in place a broad-brush, tolerant national church. However, the Rump vacillated in setting election dates, and although it put in place a basic liberty of conscience, it failed to produce an alternative for tithes or dismantle other aspects of the existing religious settlement. In frustration, in April 1653 Cromwell demanded that the Rump establish a caretaker government of 40 members (drawn both from the Rump and the army) and then abdicate. However, the Rump returned to debating its own bill for a new government.[75] Cromwell was so angered by this that on 20 April 1653, supported by about forty musketeers, he cleared the chamber and dissolved the Parliament by force. Several accounts exist of this incident: in one, Cromwell is supposed to have said "you are no Parliament, I say you are no Parliament; I will put an end to your sitting".[76] At least two accounts agree that Cromwell snatched up the mace, symbol of Parliament's power, and demanded that the "bauble" be taken away.[77] Cromwell's troops were commanded by Charles Worsley, later one of his Major Generals and one of his most trusted advisors, to whom he entrusted the mace.
[edit] The establishment of Barebone's Parliament: 1653

After the dissolution of the Rump, power passed temporarily to a council that debated what form the constitution should take. They took up the suggestion of Major-General Thomas Harrison for a "sanhedrin" of saints. Although Cromwell did not subscribe to Harrison's apocalyptic, Fifth Monarchist beliefs ? which saw a sanhedrin as the starting point for Christ's rule on earth ? he was attracted by the idea of an assembly made up of men chosen for their religious credentials. In his speech at the opening of the assembly on 4 July 1653, Cromwell thanked God?s providence that he believed had brought England to this point and set out their divine mission: "truly God hath called you to this work by, I think, as wonderful providences as ever passed upon the sons of men in so short a time."[78] Sometimes known as the Parliament of Saints or more commonly the Nominated Assembly, it was also called the Barebone's Parliament after one of its members, Praise-God Barbon. The assembly was tasked with finding a permanent constitutional and religious settlement (Cromwell was invited to be a member but declined). However, the revelation that a considerably larger segment of the membership than had been believed were the radical Fifth Monarchists led to its members voting to dissolve it on 12 December 1653, out of fear of what the radicals might do if they took control of the Assembly.[79]
[edit] The Protectorate: 1653?1658
Royal styles of
Oliver Cromwell
Lord Protector of the Commonwealth

Commonwealth Arms.svg
Reference style His Highness
Spoken style Your Highness
Alternative style Sir
See also: The Protectorate

After the dissolution of the Barebones Parliament, John Lambert put forward a new constitution known as the Instrument of Government, closely modelled on the Heads of Proposals. It made Cromwell Lord Protector for life to undertake ?the chief magistracy and the administration of government?. Cromwell was sworn in as Lord Protector on 16 December 1653, with a ceremony in which he wore plain black clothing, rather than any monarchical regalia.[80] However, from this point on Cromwell signed his name 'Oliver P', standing for Oliver Protector - in a similar style to that used by English monarchs - and it soon became the norm for others to address him as "Your highness".[81] As Protector, he had the power to call and dissolve parliaments but was obliged under the Instrument to seek the majority vote of a Council of State. Nevertheless, Cromwell's power was buttre

 

Interesting article: Was Cromwell a War Criminal?

 

I'd have to say any grudge held by the Irish against Cromwell is simply amusing given the historical context and more a result of being so thoroughly cowed than any special act.