Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 1st November 2008
Who do you think was better for Britain? The little that I have read says that Charles II was a nice monarch and that the British people of that period loved him. What is the truth? Cromwell was certainly effective but who did the people prefer more?
TasLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 2
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 1st November 2008
Hello Tas
It must be appreciated that there was no such political entity as 'Britain' in the Seventeenth Century. Scotland and England were separate countries while Kingdom of Ireland was in 'personal union' with the Crown of England.
When Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector of England his single-minded defence of England's interests in foreign affairs came as a rude shock to royalist types in Scotland and Ireland who had become used to playing for the favour of the Crown of England over the centuries.
Cromwell's republican mentality coupled with his personal religious puritanism was the antithesis of the 'royal touch'. He also ensured that the English Commonwealth was feared and respected abroad on the continent.
I'm not sure if given the choice, however, the people of any of the 3 countries would have preferred either Charles or Cromwell.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 3
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 1st November 2008
Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:44 GMT, in reply to Vizzer aka U_numbers in message 2
Cromwell's republican mentality聽
I take issue with you there - I believe Cromwell was at heart a monarchist - but otherwise agreed. Although Cromwell cannot take the blame for everything that was wrong with the Protectorate (nor, I suppose, can Charles for his reign).
At least Charles II got the Holbein drawings back which his father had given away!Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 4
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008
Hi Vizzer,
It appears from the little that I know that Cromwell ran his Commonwealth very effectively; that its failure came about after him, by his followers. Were the English people happy with the efficient rule of a dictator? Was Cromwell really a classic dictator? If so he was probably the first dictator in modern history.
Did the English heave a sigh of relief when the monarchy was restored and they got the "Merry Monarch?" How did the Puritans of that period accommodate all of Charles mistresses? What did they think of Nell Gwyn?
I suspect people prefer some relief after a period of stern rule. Like Savonarola was kicked out of medieval Florence after his stern rule and I believe killed.
TasLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 5
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008
Anglo-Norman.
You got that right He was a monarchist, in fact he said that he took no joy from his position in opposeing the crown but his puritain views made him chose another path.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 6
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008
Hi Tas
The fact that Charles the First had been deposed and Cromwell had governed England made all subsequent monarchs 鈥渂etter鈥.
By removing the false notion of an absolute monarch as well as the transferring of many powers to parliament made Britain a better place. Granted much of the actual transferral of powers did not happen until after the glorious revolution but it was made possible by the Civil War and parliaments victory.
As for who the people preferred it is impossible to say because of the lack of evidence from the average people of the 17th century.
Most common people were monarchists the same way they were religious, they accepted it as part of society and had very little choice or input anyway.
Cromwell did not come to power through a great popular movement, but instead he came to power through the power of the army. The fact that he was succeeded by his son demonstrates that it was not a brave new world of democracy.
Charles 2nd did not come back to rule Britain due to a demand from the people, but through a realisation from a small elite that a Monarch would suit their objectives better than a continuation of the Commonwealth.
The 鈥減eople鈥 as always had no say in either case, whether they liked Cromwell or Charles was pretty irrelevant.
Rather than Charles being popular I think it was more a reaction to the oppressive puritan rules of the last eleven years that made him seem like a breath of fresh air. Protestantism had gained popularity in Britain mainly because it suited British ideals better than Catholicism, it was liberal, egalitarian and certainly less stuffy than the established Church. But the puritans had brought about a Protestant idealism with even greater dictatorial control than the old Catholic church.
The puritans had moved away from the ideals of the average British people, they had lost touch with public opinion and when the return of a Monarch in the shape of Charles 2nd brought back a sense of fun and easy going enjoyment of life it must have proved popular. It has to be aid that Charles fitted the bill perfectly, unfortunately his brother proved to be a throw back to their father.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 7
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008
In Charles's defence - parliament kept him short of money that he was forced into forever dealing with Louis XIVth which included the infamous Traety of Dover. A highly explosive treaty if the facts had become known at the time.
I believe although he died a catholic, he knew the country's loathing of catholocism and would have preferred not to have dealt with Louis. If of course parliament had given him enough money.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 8
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008
The fact that Charles the First had been deposed and Cromwell had governed England made all subsequent monarchs 鈥渂etter鈥.
By removing the false notion of an absolute monarch as well as the transferring of many powers to parliament made Britain a better place. Granted much of the actual transferral of powers did not happen until after the glorious revolution but it was made possible by the Civil War and parliaments victory.聽
In short, Cromwell had made himself redundant. Once he had cut the Stuarts down to size, there was no need for any further "regime change", and no especial reason to prefer the Cromwell family as monarchs. Oliver's only claim to rule was the support of the Army - a support which his son did not inherit. And as no other general was able to fill his shoes, things soon went back to the old regime with a somewat stronger Parliament - an arrangement reaffirmed in 1688.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 9
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008
My mother always admired Charles II so as a small child I was taken to see the image of the king which was displayed at his funeral. I believe it now resides in the Museum of London. She laughed when I took one look at the king and hid behind her skirts. I was only three but I will never forget his face. It is a truly wonderful face and it tells you so much about him.
I respect Oliver Cromwell as a very efficient organiser. He was very busy hereabouts in the Civil War and had his first victory at Hillesden just to the west of here. Cromwell and his ilk were products of the Puritan congregations which pervaded England and parts of Wales in the early half of the seventeenth century as `gathered' churches of Calvinist believers. They considered themselves a religious Elect and followed this through with commercial and marital association. Such networking created an exclusive but very strong political and commercial establishment that defeated the more traditional organisation of the King and his Court. Despite military prowess Cromwell's government was as constrained by financial considerations as his predecessors' and his successors'.
Charles II was a delight after the exigencies of Puritan rule and the greed and stupidity of the reign of Charles I.
Remember it was Cromwell's government that abolished Christmas and acting. They had a good argument for both but the absence of fun put the backs up of many ordinary people who abjured Bible study because they could not read.
It was the failure of the Protectorate to ensure its continuity that ensured its demise. When Oliver died they tried to give the job to his son who was not interested. The fact that Oliver never trained him is significant. After that failure the country was run by a military junta. This had no legitimacy at all and so inevitably the desire for a renewal of the monarchy slowly gathered support.
Charles II had learned the lesson of his father's execution. This is the key to the success of his reign and the continuation of the English & Scottish monarchy. He did nothing to antagonise the conflicting establishments in his kingdom despite the many attempts by either party to start the trouble all over again. In this he had widespread popular support. The people had no stomach for any more rebellions as Shaftesbury soon found out.
Who do I like the most? I think on balance it is Charles. He seems like a man with whom one could enjoy a drink. One could have a drink with Oliver perhaps, but one could never enjoy a drink with him.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 10
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008
Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:01 GMT, in reply to stanilic in message 9
I think, provided the topic of conversation steered clear of politics and religion, one could enjoy a drink with Cromwell. He appreciated art and music, and had a robust (if not exactly sophisticated) sense of humour.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 11
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 3rd November 2008
In one sence both Cromwell and charles II failed in that both of their appointed successors were overthrown.
I have often wondered what would have happened if Ireton had survived Cromwell instead of dying on campaign in Ireland. He was Cromwell's son in law; he was a general in the army (even if not that good a one) and so more acceptable to the army that Richard Cromwell was; and had a formidable political mind; he also was far more radical than Cromwell.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 12
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 5th November 2008
I have often wondered what would have happened if Ireton had survived Cromwell instead of dying on campaign in Ireland. He was Cromwell's son in law; he was a general in the army (even if not that good a one) and so more acceptable to the army that Richard Cromwell was; and had a formidable political mind; he also was far more radical than Cromwell. 聽
Trouble is, it only postpones the problem as Ireton was only about 12 years younger than Cromwell. So unless Ireton's son is a whole lot better than Cromwell's, you get the same problem.
This is the trouble with these military dictator types, they have a personal following, but can't count on being able to transmit it as an hereditary monarch can. There might be a case for preferring Oliver Cromwell to Charles II, but none for preferring Richard Cromwell to Charles II - or even to any other general who might put in a bid. So when your strong man goes, the whole set up is liable to spontaneous collapse.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 13
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 5th November 2008
Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:44 GMT, in reply to Mikestone8 in message 12
The Protectorate's great failing was in finding a workable system of government. It could have worked, if Parliament had been better at their job, and Cromwell had possessed a longer fuse. Had they succeeded in achieving that sort of stability, Richard might have had a better chance. As it was, by the end Cromwell was more or less holding the country together by sheer strength of character, and Richard lacked that quality, at least by comparison with his father - indeed, one could argue he was too nice!Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 14
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 6th November 2008
The Protectorate's great failing was in finding a workable system of government. It could have worked, if Parliament had been better at their job, and Cromwell had possessed a longer fuse. Had they succeeded in achieving that sort of stability, Richard might have had a better chance. As it was, by the end Cromwell was more or less holding the country together by sheer strength of character, and Richard lacked that quality, at least by comparison with his father - indeed, one could argue he was too nice!聽
The problem wasn't Parliament, or even Cromwell as an individual, but the Army.
Since, at latest, the Battle of Worcester, the New Model Army had been "surplus to requirements". It wasn't needed for national defence, which rested mainly on the Navy, and the only other task of an English army in this period was to keep Ireland under control, which could be, and after 1660 was, done with a far smaller force. Essentially it had no remaining function except to keep its leader(s) in the corridors of power.
Once the Civil Wars were over, the only sensible thing to do was give the Army its arrears of pay - even if the Land Tax or something had to be doubled in order to do so - and send it home. But Parliament had missed the chance to do this, and of course Cromwell, once installed as ruler, could not do it, as his power rested totally on the Army, without which he must go back to being a country squire.
Nor could any agreement between Protector and Parliament really fix this problem. Oliver's power didn't stem from being "Lord Protector", or even "King", had he accepted that title, but from his prestige as a general, which meant that the soldiers would obey him. His son could inherit the title, but not the prestige, so the moment he did anything the Army leaders didn't like, his Protectorate was at an end. Certainly, he had even less chance than his father of being able to send the Army home.
As previously suggested, Ireton might have been able to keep things going for a bit longer, but even this is doubtful. No other general had a fraction of Oliver's influence, as Lambert found out when he aspired to be the new leader, while the taxpaying classes were of course implacably hostile to paying through the nose for a largely purposeless army, and, with Oliver's commanding figure gone, less easily deterred from saying so.
To avert the Restoration (if that's what you want to do) you need to find a regime with enough support to keep the Stuarts out without needing a huge army to do it. This was achieved after 1688, because James II's pro-Catholic policies had alienated most of the monied and landed classes, not just the ex-Roundheads, but even most of the ex-Cavaliers, and marginalised the Jacobite element. Something of the kind might have happened in the 1650s had the Stuarts embraced Catholicism then, but Charles II was too smart to fall into that trap, and even James was not yet ready for such a step. So things held together as long as Cromwell was around to keep the Army united, but with him gone, and the Army starting to fall apart, Charles II became the only game in town, and General Monk was smart enough to recognise this.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 15
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 6th November 2008
Hi all,
Thank you all for the very good explanations about the Protectorate and the conditions of the period. I learnt a lot from all of you. I do have one or two additional questions:
How did the People react to the severity of the retribution on Cromwell's body and others by Charles II's entourage? I understand they dug up his body and strung the corpse. Must have been a bit traumatic.
You notice when I said 'People' in the above. I did not say 'the British people' or even 'the English people,' because I have learnt from the string that there were no 'British people' at that time.
TasLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 16
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 6th November 2008
How did the People react to the severity of the retribution on Cromwell's body and others by Charles II's entourage? I understand they dug up his body and strung the corpse. Must have been a bit traumatic 聽
Not very. This was an age when things like that were routinely done to offenders while they were still alive, never mind their dead bodies, and when crowds happily gathered to watch.
Recall the famous entry from Pepys' Diary. "Went to the coffee house, then to Tyburn to see Major General Harrison hanged, drawn and quartered, he as cheerful as anyone could be in that condition."
Some of Cromwell's veterans (and of course his family) would have been distressed, but I doubt if the population at large was too concerned.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 17
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 7th November 2008
I suppose it could be argued that Cromwell had a longer-lasting impact on the development of the English political system than Charles II....
Despite the fact that Cromwell eventually installed himself as Lord Protector, we did see parliament come out of the Civil War much stronger than were before. Yes, Charles II did walk a tightrope in terms of keeping the peace, but it could be said that the eventual clash between James II and parliament was inevitable.
Under William and Mary, parliament emerged so much stronger....
So, I would say that though Charles seemed like the nicer person, Cromwell probably had the greater impact.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 18
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 7th November 2008
I suppose it could be argued that Cromwell had a longer-lasting impact on the development of the English political system than Charles II....
Despite the fact that Cromwell eventually installed himself as Lord Protector, we did see parliament come out of the Civil War much stronger than were before.聽
Cromwell was crucial to the outcome of the First Civil War, so was arguably the more important historical figure in that sense. It's not so clear to me that his career after the Battle of Naseby was all that crucial. Most of it could have beeen done by someone else.
As for Charles II, he and James seem to have done a good job of destroying what was left of the Republican element in English politics. The executions after the Rye House Plot, followed by the crushing of the Monmouth Rebellion, pretty much eliminated the radical wing of the Whig Party, and from then on no one seriously considered anything but the old Monarchy with Parliament looming larger than before.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 19
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Futher thought. Might one include General Monk as a figure of comparable importance with the other two?
He's an interesting character, who served Charles I and Cromwell in succession. However, finding himself effectively "masterless" after the fall of the Protectorate, he showed no interest in seizing power for himself, but looked around for an effective civil authority which he could serve, rather than dominate.
The modern British Army is much more recognisably Monk's army than Cromwell's. He famously remarked that where he came from, soldiers "received and observed commands, but gave none" [to the civil authorities]. In general, though going along with Cromwell's assumption of power, he saw the Army's natural place as under, not above, the civil authority, and in 1659/60, when that authority broke down altogether, he saw his role as not to grab power for himself, but to "hold the ring" while a new civil government was organised - so that he could go back to being under it.
Any British officer today would understand this attitude perfectly, and it is a "heritage" which has lasted better than anything identifiably Cromwellian or Stuart.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 20
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Mikestone8
Very good point.
One immediately thinks of John Churchill who was later the 1st Duke of Marlborough. He served Charles II, James II, William & Mary and Anne.
I understand his missus was a bit political.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 21
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
I doubt if the population at large was too concerned.聽
Probably true, although it's worth bearing in mind that for the few who were upset, it wasn't the best of times to mention it!Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 22
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
I doubt if the population at large was too concerned.
Quoted from this message
Probably true, although it's worth bearing in mind that for the few who were upset, it wasn't the best of times to mention it! 聽
There's a sad story in John Prebble's _Culloden_ about a man whose teenage son got expelled from school, and rather than face his father with the news, ran off and enlisted in the Jacobite army
The boy was hanged, and some time later, passing the spike where his son's head was impaled, the father raised his hat to it - for which he was hauled before the magistrates and fined.
That was almost a century later.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 23
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
Mikestone8
"Trouble is, it only postpones the problem as Ireton was only about 12 years younger than Cromwell. So unless Ireton's son is a whole lot better than Cromwell's, you get the same problem."
I agree that it depends on for how long Ireton managed to suceed Cromwell. But I think that Ireton was more politically astute than Cromwell and in those 12 years, let us say, he might well have been able to come up with some form of stable republican government. Also at the England of that period England would have been without a monarch for over 20 years and the reign of Charles I receeding more into history and Charles II becoming more remote.
TimLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 24
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
I think Tim one of the problems the Cromwell people had was that there had never been a State before that was not a Monarchy, in Europe at least.
With the French Revolution, at least they had the example of America before them.
TasLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 25
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
I agree that it depends on for how long Ireton managed to suceed Cromwell. But I think that Ireton was more politically astute than Cromwell and in those 12 years, let us say, he might well have been able to come up with some form of stable republican government. Also at the England of that period England would have been without a monarch for over 20 years and the reign of Charles I receeding more into history and Charles II becoming more remote.聽
Except that it wouldn't have been without a monarch. It would still have been a monarchy, but one where the monarch used some other title instead of king. And since the position of this quasi-monarch rested on nothing except the support of the army, as soon as he or his successor lost this, the whole house of cards was liable to come tumbling down.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 26
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
I think Tim one of the problems the Cromwell people had was that there had never been a State before that was not a Monarchy, in Europe at least.聽
Not quite, but close enough.
In the 17th century, a "Republic" was nearly always an elective monarchy. That's why Poland was called a Republic in this era. The Netherlands got a few spells of "republican" rule, but only when the current Prince of Orange was a minor. As soon as he grew up, things tended to revert to de facto (and from 1814 de jure) monarchy.
The genuine republics were virtually all city states. The only exception, Switzerland, avoided having a monarch only be having virtually no central authority at all. This was never really an option in Britain.
About the only way I can imagine a real Republic happening, is if the City of London somehow gains complete domination over the rest of Britain, with the provinces (and of course Scotland and Ireland) reduced to political nullity. That gives us something like Venice, with the Lord Mayor of London as a kind of Doge. But enforcing this would require a permanent standing army, which the Londoners would not have been willing to pay for, so it's a very unlikely scenario.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 27
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 16th November 2008
Re: message 26.
Mikestone,
in my opinion was the Dutch Republic a true republic. To early in the morning to expand...
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 28
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 18th November 2008
Milestone8
"Except that it wouldn't have been without a monarch"
But Ireton may have had the time to change this.
By the way I am at heart a constitutional monarchist not a republican.
regards
TimLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 29
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 19th November 2008
Milestone8
"Except that it wouldn't have been without a monarch"
But Ireton may have had the time to change this.
By the way I am at heart a constitutional monarchist not a republican.
regards
罢颈尘听
But how does he go about changing it?
If Ireton succeeds Cromwell, his power rests on the same footing as Cromwell's did - the Army. He can impose any constitutional framework he pleases by military fiat, but if any of his successors disagree (and the events of 1658/60 suggest he would have little control over who succeeded him) they can undo it all at the stroke of a pen.
As long as the army exists, and remains united, Britain cannot be anything except a monarchy, with the Army's commanding general as a de facto king. He may choose not to call himself that (monarchs may call themselves what they will) but nothing can change the fact.
OTOH, if he (or indeed Cromwell) manages to disband the army, then he saws away the branch on which he is sitting, and his power is gone. At best, he reverts to being a country squire and/or back bench MP. At worst, if the wrong people come to power, he faces death or exile. He is riding a tiger, a bit like the situation in "I, Claudius", where Claudius really wants the republic back, but finds he is stuck with being Emperor whether he likes it or not.
This was what Monk understood. A professional soldier with no ambition to be head of government, he simply held the ring while a new Parilament was elected, without seeking to dictate the outcome. When it voted to recall Charles II, he made no attempt either to prevent this or to make himself the power behind the throne, but was content to "rest on his laurels", and accept a Dukedom from the new ruler.
The basic problem, I think, is that you are looking to the wrong side for a solution. The only people who could possibly make a republic work were not the Roundheads, but the Royalists. If the Stuarts make themselves impossible (eg by turning Catholic sooner) and an acceptable alternative dynasty cannot be found, then enough former Cavaliers and "Presbyterians" might become reconciled to a republican government to make it viable. This is more or less what happened after 1688, when Britain became in effect a republic with an hereditary lifetime president enjoying about as much power as the Doge of Venice.
The same situation arose in France after 1870. Gambetta and his friends could not make the Third Republic secure - but the Comte de Chambord could and did.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 30
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
Milestone8
Interesting comments. I was thinking of the republic continuing not in a strict republican way, after all it was not so with Cromwell as Lord Protector, but without the restoration of the previous monarchy. The Roman Empire had had a successful period when Emperors appointed their successors on the basis of ability rather than them being thier children.
Cromwell had tried to get aparliamant that worked with the protectorate, Ireton was, i belive, more polically astaute than Cromwell and might have succeeded. There is a lso the question of what Caharles would have donw if faced with a successor to Cromwell who did not fall as fast as Richard Cromwell did.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 31
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
Interesting comments. I was thinking of the republic continuing not in a strict republican way, after all it was not so with Cromwell as Lord Protector, but without the restoration of the previous monarchy. 聽
That was certainly possible. My problem is that I feel you're approaching it from the wrong direction, trying to find a Roundhead leader who can fix things. As I see the matter, the change would have to be on the Royalist side, ie some really dopey Stuart who behaves so badly as to force important numbers of former Royalists to abandon the family - IOW 1688 comes early.
I can't really see any change of leadership among the Roundheads that is likely to make much difference in the long run. Richard Cromwell's problem wan't incompetence. He would probably have made as good a constitutional monarch as anybody, but like his father (and like Ireton had the latter come to power) he was totally dependent on the army, which in turn was pretty much a parasite on the taxpaying classes. That wasn't a recipe for a stable regime.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 32
Posted by CarmarthenshireHowell (U13674951) on Monday, 8th December 2008
<>
Yes it is easy to find out the effect of the end of the Inter-regnum on people or even the beginning of it.
I never thought I would be interested in this era of history but due to genealogy research find that one man who was locked up for 6 years during the interregnum and another his Brother Thomas Howell Bishop of Bristol are forefather and James Howell a forebrother!
The bishops were all successfully impeached in 1641, although the bishop of Exeter, it is now thought was the mentor for the execution of Charles 1st, who was thought to be the gay lover of the Duke of Buckingham, who was himself assassinated some what earlier.
James Howell somehow succeeded in changing support
from Charles 1st to Cromwell and was then appointed Historiographer Royal to Charles 2nd in the restoration.
Why did the inter regnum come to an end? Cromwell died?
Reallyit must have been rather like the transfer of power from Labour to conservative or back in more recent years; people coming to the realisation that this gang of thugs was really not as good as the gang of thugs which were now pitting themselves forward as an alternative!
Charles 2nd was an affable man, had no hard feelings against his predecessors, hired and waged a good many people like James Howell,(as Historiographer royal)and was a competent leader of men.
In James Howell extensive writings before the Civil war, her did a good deal of questioning of the divine right of kings, as did many other writers of the day. He saw the revolution in Naples and the horrific murders and beheadings there and the rule of the mob.
Perhaps they thought to themselves that the divine right had been successfully questioned by 1660, and that they could go back to it again with impunity, that it was only one way of looking at the world.
The Privy council was the all important council of state in those days. I don't quite recall how that functioned under Cromwell.
It is important to remember that since the beginning of the 17thC there had been secretive political opposition in the form of the Baptist movement, and their secret religious meetings.
Their beliefs surely had a very serious effect on the die hard reactionary views of the religious elite of the established church of the day?
It took two sides to tango.
The non conformist churches even today form the core opposition to the establishment; it is a truism to say so.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 33
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 13th December 2008
Ireton was a general and would have had the support of the army which Richard Cromwell did not, ny the way i agree with what you say about him as a ruler.
The army and navy certainly made England a power to be reckonned with something they had not been under the stuarts.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 34
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 13th December 2008
I wouldn't say the army was that much of an asset. It did a "good" job of crushing the Irish, but after that it's not clear how England gained from it. The fighting in Flanders benefited our French allies far more than ourselves, and our principal gain, Dunkirk, proved a financial burden which we'd probably have been better off without.
I agree with you about the navy, but as far as I can see the navy was never particularly republican. Much of it had defected to the Royalist side as early as the Second Civil War (1648), while in 1659 it rejected the army's seizure of power, blockading the Thames in protest, and the following year adhered to General Monk. All in all, it appears to have been politically conservative, and distinctly hostile to the army. Inter service rivalry seems to have got off to an early start.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 35
Posted by CarmarthenshireHowell (U13674951) on Saturday, 13th December 2008
What was the NEXT revolution in the 1680s, at the end of Charles 2's reign?
It was beginning to get like a parliamentary democracy.
Away from divine right; back to divine right....
Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 36
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 13th December 2008
The next one was against James II, not Charles II. The latter proved to be that anomaly, a Stuart with brains. He overcame his opponents, and died in 1685 more absolute than any monarch since the Tudors.
With his brother, things went back to normal. James' promotion of his Catholic faith soon got the country's back up, and in 1688 his regime collapsed in the face of a Dutch invasion. James fled to France, where a French courtier, subjected to a wearisome ramble about how unfairly treated he had been, reportedly said "Quand vous lui ecoutez, vous comprenez pourquoi il est ici".Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 37
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 23rd December 2008
The army conquered Scotland something that no royal army had managed.
The navy went with Parliament in 1642 and the republican navy defeated the Dutch who then were the dominant sea power.
The Roylaist navy of 1648 was fairly easily defeated so I have my doubts as to how much defected. Its actions in 1659 are not really relevant to what would have happened if Ireton had succeeded Cromwell.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 38
Posted by Malleeboy (U13115583) on Tuesday, 23rd December 2008
It could be argued that the Protectorate was not a Republic but closer to a constitutional monarchy. Just that the monarch was appointed by Parliament as the best person to lead the country.
William could in that sense be seen as Cromwell's true successor, not a king by divine right through birth but by consent of the people of the realm.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 39
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 23rd December 2008
I think that is a very good assessment of William III.
How important was his wife Mary, because of whom he was King of England? Did she have any power given to her by Parliament? And did she ever exercise that power? Or was she essentially a queen consort as all the other queens before her except Elizabeth and Mary Tudor?
Thanks Malleeboy.
TasLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 40
Posted by CarmarthenshireHowell (U13674951) on Wednesday, 24th December 2008
<>
But that amounts to the same as presidency, which means republic.
<>
William+Mary were elected, but the rot soon set in as they were never elected again, just thinking of themselves as "the Elect".
Kings and Queens are like that; more's the pity.
Self selection is an unfortunate feature of parliamentary democracy, where the most pushy win the seats, and so the most pushy for president get elected for life or for...ever.
The man in Rumania is pretending to be the King on various websites, and it is just that, pretense.
We have a lot to learn from the French Republic, and a little from the USA.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 41
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 24th December 2008
Tas,
How important was his wife Mary, because of whom he was King of England?聽
Mostly just being 1) KJ2's closest Protestant heir and 2) marrying her Dutch cousin Billy Orange. No Mary, no William; much like Elizabeth of York marrying Henry Tudor two centuries earlier. But I've never heard that she took an active role in government, even though she was legally co-monarch.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 42
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 29th December 2008
Hi Tas
I am a great admirer of Queen Mary II
Quotes are all taken from 鈥楿ngrateful Daughters鈥
鈥楳ary was charming, affectionate and intelligent鈥
As Princess of Orange in 1677 鈥楳ary had matured and used her time wisely. Making up for the shortfalls in her education 鈥 she read books on history and divinity.鈥
鈥楪ilbert Burnet was the first to recognise that Mary possessed a formidable intelligence and he could not praise her too highly. 鈥淪he had great knowledge, with a true understanding, and a noble expression,鈥
鈥榯he Dutch people immediately took her to their hearts鈥
鈥榌Mary] had heard nothing but jokes and snears about the hated Dutch republicans but she was curious and intelligent enough to make up her own mind about her new people. And she liked what she saw.鈥
鈥楽he won over the Dutch with her east charm, her gaiety and conversation鈥
鈥楽he gave generously to charity.鈥
When thousands of French Protestants fled the persecution of Louis XIV 鈥楽he set up charitable institutes for Huguenot girls at The Hague and donated generously to funds to help the refugees.鈥
When her father James II tried to convert her to Catholicism and sent her a book 鈥淩eflections on Differences in Religion鈥 she wrote back to her father coherantly rebutting its arguments. Gilbert Burnet 鈥業t gave me an astonishing joy to see so young a person 鈥 able to write so solid and learned a letter鈥
On becoming Queen in GB and left in charge while William was on campaign. 鈥楳ary proved an astute judge of character.鈥 鈥業n an emergency there was no time to consult William and here Mary acted courageously and decisively.鈥
鈥榮he was rapidly gaining the love of her people through her dedication, her piety and her goodness鈥
She woke at six - spent two hours reading writing. Prayers at eight, business for four or five hours. Cards and public receptions from four to seven. After evening prayers and supper she would attend to he private correspondence until midnight. She went to bed every night knowing she might be woken at any time to deal with a national emergency.
She was nearly 6 feet tall with large frame, a huge woman for those days and the strain of rule lead to her putting on weight. Knowing how her mother had become gross she would walk vigerously to try and keep her weight down.
When an Anglo-Dutch fleet 鈥 won a great victory at La Hogue [so removing the threat of a French invasion], a grateful Mary immediately despatched 拢38,000 for distribution amongst her seamen. She also opened the palace of Greenwich as a hospital for wounded sailors. This was in marked contract to the behavouir of Queen Elizabeth I after the defeat of the Armada.
When she caught smallpox, and knowing she would die, she requested that no great expense should be spent on her funeral as, apart from her dislike of pomp and ceremony, she felt that the country being at war could not afford the expense. Her request was not honoured.
In one of those thoughtful gestures so typical of her Mary gave permission for all members of her household who had not already had smallpox to withdraw immediately.
It was said that William declared 鈥淗e said, during the whole course of their marriage, he had never known one single fault in her: there was a worth in her that nobody knew besides himself.鈥 William who had never shown Mary either the love and support that she needed was distraught over her death. She was always totally devoted to William despite his lack of affection to her.
regards
TimLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 43
Posted by CarmarthenshireHowell (U13674951) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
Tim,
That is an interesting historical reminiscence you provide. It makes me wonder for some reason about the incidence of Queens in English history of more recent year, and the future possible incidence of female representatives in the democratic chambers of these islands, and many other legislatures too.
I wonder whether the success of queens has been due to the lack of females in parliaments, and that monarchy may be less successful in future because of the change to gender equality in legislatures,
in this country?
Ah Well.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 44
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:44 GMT, in reply to Tim of Aclea in message 37
The Roylaist navy of 1648 was fairly easily defeated so I have my doubts as to how much defected.聽
Quite a substantial part of the fleet defected to the Royalists; however, as I understand it most of them fairly rapidly redefected, or undefected, or whatever the word is! It turns out that regular pay and proper provisions are more attractive than principals...
Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 45
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Would not dispute that Anglo-Norman.
Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 46
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 4th January 2009
Quite a substantial part of the fleet defected to the Royalists; however, as I understand it most of them fairly rapidly redefected, or undefected, or whatever the word is! It turns out that regular pay and proper provisions are more attractive than principals... 聽
Indeed, and this was crucial to what happened in 1659/60.
By the end of 1659, it was getting harder and harder to raise money to pay the soldiers, since the taxpayers were increasingly resistant to tax demands from the various joke governments which had followed the fall of Richard Cromwell. The only general able to regularly pay his men was now Monk, who had secured a grant of money from a Scottish assembly, which no doubt found his conservative views reassuring. As a result, the forces opposed to him simply melted away for lack of pay, and he walked into London against minimal opposition. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Charles II's government was sensible enough to pay on the nail, regardless of cost, and get the soldiers packed off back into civilian life. In retrospect, I can't help feeling that Parliament could have saved itself a lot of trouble by doing that thirteen years before.Link to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
-
Message 47
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 4th January 2009
"I can't help feeling that Parliament could have saved itself a lot of trouble by doing that thirteen years before."
I agreeLink to this forum: Who was better for Briton; Cromwell or Charles II?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.