View Full Version : Would you have supported Oliver Cromwell or King Charles??

14th May 2013, 04:33
My SIL is a drooling, google eyed royal supporter who refuses to hear a bad word said about the English Royal Family, regardless of the era.

I however have read Geoffry Robertsons "The Tyrannicide Brief" and a few other works and believe that Charles got what he richly deserved and that GB lost a great opportunity to become a permanent republic when inviting his son back into the hotseat. I also became a fan of the prosecutor but that is another story.

We have, as a result, fought most loudly and frequently on whether or not Cromwell and Co were good, bad, ugly or evil.

I understand that similar discussions are held in GB to this day.

Which side would you have chosen?

14th May 2013, 05:23
Being of Irish descent, King Charles for an obvious reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland).

Besides, the Cavaliers were sooooooo much better dressed than those ghastly Puritan Roundheads. Did you know they banned Christmas. (http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs4.htm) :=

14th May 2013, 05:34
Oliver Cromwell of course, besides the long awaited advent of Republicanism, he was an Englishman whereas Charles was a half breed and born Scot.

Loose rivets
14th May 2013, 06:23
There is a wonderful book I'm anxious to read again, but I've miss-remembered the title. Any info would be appreciated.

The book was centered around a time the king was walled up in Oxford and discussed Christopher Wren among others. It seems Sir Chris was as interested in human anatomy as he was in sketching buildings. One thing they did was to pull the spleen out of a dog and stitch him up again. Within hours, the dog was following the 'surgeons' about telling them precious little about the spleen. And serves them right.

They had a bit to say about Shakespeare's extended family. I've been in the doctor's house and it was just after reading the book. Really got a feel for the way they thought.

The book mentioned they thought then that the brain cooled the blood.

It always amazes me people then could create architectural masterpieces, but didn't know about blood circulation. Such a dichotomy.

14th May 2013, 06:25
Personally I'd have kept my head down.
Where I live was very much divided between the two factions even down to complete families being at war with each other.

If push came to shove it would have been Cromwell. Anyone who bans Christmas can't be all bad.
Bah humbug and long live the Commonwealth.

Loose Rivets, if you want to read about the interregnum and restoration period than I can recommend no better book than Samuel Pepys Diary. Absolutely fascinating first hand account from the man.

tony draper
14th May 2013, 06:27
I'm not shaving me head for anybody, the King of course,I mean how can one have any respect for some wart encrusted uppity hick in a dirty shirt. :rolleyes:

14th May 2013, 06:30
It always amazes me people then could create architectural masterpieces, but
didn't know about blood circulation. Such a dichotomy.

Does it amaze you that IK Brunel could carry out such amazing engineering feats, but knew nothing about the nuclear physics that govern the behaviour of his materials? Human knowledge moves on.

14th May 2013, 07:19
What a very interesting question!

I've really thought about this and there are pros and cons for both sides.

On balance, the King for the reasons that Drapes articulates so well.

14th May 2013, 07:28
Geoffrey Robertson is an ardent republican.

I read his book and although I enjoyed it, there was a vague feeling that I'd spent my own money to receive marketing for republicanism...... Consequently the greatest conclusion I drew from the book was that Mr Robertson is a very shrewd and convincing presenter of his point of view. Just as one would expect of a QC.....

Oh and the monarch, mostly because I have a strong dislike for anybody trying to mess with governing statues to suit their ideology. Too much time dealing with aviation regulators, I suspect.....:hmm:

14th May 2013, 10:31
I admire Cromwell for his attempts to find a good democracy. As with so many experiments, we now have a longer list of what doesn't work. One day, perhaps, we'll find one that does.

14th May 2013, 10:33
Well I'm a roundhead, so I'd support Cromwell.....:}

14th May 2013, 10:44
A very interesting question and one that brings to mind Alexander Dumas' words on D'Artagnan who having accidently insulted Athos, Porthos and Aramis is preparing to fight duels with the three of them when they encounter the Cardinal's men who then attempt to arrest them for duelling..

D'Artagnan makes up his mind immediately and fights on the side of the musketeers... thereby sealing his allegiance to the King.

Life is like that sometimes, there is no obvious logic as to our choices in these matters... we are mostly at the mercy of the fates, often malign as they are.


14th May 2013, 10:46
and that GB lost a great opportunity to become a permanent republic when inviting his son (Charles II) back into the hotseat. ... which of course was after Richard Cromwell (aka "Tumbledown Dick") had "succeeded" his father!

Some republic! Even the Bushes left 8 years between their occupancies of the White House.

14th May 2013, 11:58
Doubt if my ancestors had much of a choice given that most were Catholic and Irish. The town I'm living in was besieged by Cromwellian forces during that era although for once the inhabitants weren't massacred when it fell. But then again Cromwell wasn't present.

As an aside my brother in law, an archaeologist was recently involved in digging up the remains of two Parliamentary soldiers found locally along the siege line. Fascinating really.

It's an irony of Irish history that we found ourselves so often supporting rightful King of England against his enemies.

14th May 2013, 12:06
Given that I often sympathise with underdogs with a good cause, who suffer a bit of bad luck, I would have supported the Royalists. I have two main reasons for this:
In my birth town of Maidstone, Kent, there was a bitterly fought battle in 1648 between the defending Royalist force of only 2,000 mainly amateurs under the Earl of Norwich, and the attacking force of twice that number of professional soldiers under Sir Thomas Fairfax. Not being a trained army, and outnumbered two to one, the defence didn't really stand a chance, and there were considerable casualties on their side after Fairfax used military tactics and outflanked them, by a swift march to attack unexpectedly from the south. Most unsporting ... :uhoh:
In my wife's home island of Guernsey, the outnumbered Royalist faction took refuge in Castle Cornet (the bastion defending St Peter Port harbour) from the majority of the population who supported the Parliamentarians. The plucky Royalist minority stuck it out for nine years in the castle in the face of periodic cannon fire, with their supplies brought in by sea, until the besieging forces placed a fleet on the seaward side of the castle and starved the defenders out. The brave Royalists were the last defenders to fall to Cromwell in the British Isles. Again, most unsporting ... ;)

14th May 2013, 12:30
Depends which of them supported UKIP.

14th May 2013, 12:38
Depends which of them supported UKIP.

The alternative to the Royalists was the Roundheads, not the dunderheads! ;)

At least the Royalists and the Roundheads had some form of policy to choose from.


14th May 2013, 12:50
Such treachery - Sir Nigel of Farage will have your head for that!

14th May 2013, 13:01
Such treachery - Sir Nigel of Farage will have your head for that!


Methinks I should hastern towards Europe lest I lose that to which I have been most attached (save for those instances where merry making and wenching have made me lose much more) ... ;)


14th May 2013, 15:07
which of course was after Richard Cromwell (aka "Tumbledown Dick") had "succeeded" his father!

There has been a republican royal family in North Korea since 1945.

14th May 2013, 15:26
Wanting a king/lord protector seems to be genetic.

Nice work if you can get it.