Damn you Cromwell!
January 30, 2009 4:44 PM Subscribe
For all which Treasons and Crimes, this Court doth adjudge that the said Charles Stuart, as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murtherer, and a public enemy, shall be put to death by the severing of his Head from his Body.
On January 30, 1649, King Charles I was beheaded on a scaffold at Whitehall.
Historical reenactment.
Some background.
The inspiration for the post title.
Historical reenactment.
Some background.
The inspiration for the post title.
that's Obi Wan Kenobi in the youtube clip at the bottom of that 'beheaded at Whitehall' link, right?
posted by spicynuts at 4:58 PM on January 30, 2009
posted by spicynuts at 4:58 PM on January 30, 2009
Well, I think he'd prefer to be known as Sir Alec Guinness, but yes.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2009 [2 favorites]
from the first link:
"Why was Charles executed?
To quote Sellar and Yeatman, from 1066 and All That, the civil war was an:
'utterly memorable Struggle between the Cavaliers (Wrong but Wromantic) and the Roundheads (Right but Repulsive)
Charles I was a Cavalier king and therefore had a small pointed beard, long flowing curls, a large, flat, flowing hat and gay attire. The roundheads, on the other hand, were clean-shaven and wore tall, conical hats, white ties and sombre garments. Under these circumstances a Civil War was inevitable.' "
Blog carnivals! I think I like 'em!
posted by mwhybark at 5:20 PM on January 30, 2009
"Why was Charles executed?
To quote Sellar and Yeatman, from 1066 and All That, the civil war was an:
'utterly memorable Struggle between the Cavaliers (Wrong but Wromantic) and the Roundheads (Right but Repulsive)
Charles I was a Cavalier king and therefore had a small pointed beard, long flowing curls, a large, flat, flowing hat and gay attire. The roundheads, on the other hand, were clean-shaven and wore tall, conical hats, white ties and sombre garments. Under these circumstances a Civil War was inevitable.' "
Blog carnivals! I think I like 'em!
posted by mwhybark at 5:20 PM on January 30, 2009
It's a pity that Cromwell was already dead when they dug him up and hanged him, as he strikes me as someone who would have had some rather colourful last words.
Post-Revolutionary Russia? You've got nothing on us.
posted by Artw at 5:23 PM on January 30, 2009
Post-Revolutionary Russia? You've got nothing on us.
posted by Artw at 5:23 PM on January 30, 2009
Post-Revolutionary Russia? You've got nothing on us.
Exactly. I mean, when was the last time you saw Russians taking the piss out of their own history a la Monty Python, Black Adder, etc?? NI-KOGDA!!
posted by spicynuts at 5:36 PM on January 30, 2009
Exactly. I mean, when was the last time you saw Russians taking the piss out of their own history a la Monty Python, Black Adder, etc?? NI-KOGDA!!
posted by spicynuts at 5:36 PM on January 30, 2009
Well, I think he'd prefer to be known as Sir Alec Guinness, but yes.
He' dead. He doesn't prefer anything.
posted by spicynuts at 5:37 PM on January 30, 2009
Video or it didn't happen.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 6:10 PM on January 30, 2009
posted by Dipsomaniac at 6:10 PM on January 30, 2009
20 Jan 1649 - King Charles I's trial begins
29 Jan 1649 - King Charles I's death warrant is signed
30 Jan 1649 - King Charles I was beheaded.
They didn't mess around in those days. No "death row".
posted by crapmatic at 6:11 PM on January 30, 2009
29 Jan 1649 - King Charles I's death warrant is signed
30 Jan 1649 - King Charles I was beheaded.
They didn't mess around in those days. No "death row".
posted by crapmatic at 6:11 PM on January 30, 2009
I'm normally a monarchist, but for some reason I make an exception for Charles I. I don't know why - he wasn't that egregiously bad a king, and I love his flamboyant but not much more competent son.
I do dislike arbitrary power, and he did try to make England into an absolutist state as opposed to a constitutional monarchy, and he was pretty damn stupid not to give in long before he did. Of course, he couldn't know he was going to lose the military side of the war (it was close), and he was his Majesty, the king, with all the dignity of that high rank. But still, there were many times when he could have diffused it all before the violence got started - and he was trying to turn England into a modern absolutist state, instead of accepting it as an oldfashioned constitutional monarchy.
yeah, so I'm afraid my sympathy lies strongly with the Right but Repulsive Parliamentarians - who weren't that repulsive. I mean, they weren't all puritans - some were presbyterians and others simply a bit low Church. And Cromwell himself wanted religious toleration - at least for all prostestants - Catholics as well? don't know. He did allow the Jews back into England, as he needed to borrow money.
But whatever you think on the religious side, the Parliament was on the right politically. They were defending some pretty good institutions - namely a representative government.
posted by jb at 6:19 PM on January 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
I do dislike arbitrary power, and he did try to make England into an absolutist state as opposed to a constitutional monarchy, and he was pretty damn stupid not to give in long before he did. Of course, he couldn't know he was going to lose the military side of the war (it was close), and he was his Majesty, the king, with all the dignity of that high rank. But still, there were many times when he could have diffused it all before the violence got started - and he was trying to turn England into a modern absolutist state, instead of accepting it as an oldfashioned constitutional monarchy.
yeah, so I'm afraid my sympathy lies strongly with the Right but Repulsive Parliamentarians - who weren't that repulsive. I mean, they weren't all puritans - some were presbyterians and others simply a bit low Church. And Cromwell himself wanted religious toleration - at least for all prostestants - Catholics as well? don't know. He did allow the Jews back into England, as he needed to borrow money.
But whatever you think on the religious side, the Parliament was on the right politically. They were defending some pretty good institutions - namely a representative government.
posted by jb at 6:19 PM on January 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
They almost got medieval on his ass.
You know, if it were like two centuries prior to the time it actually happened and all.
posted by orme at 6:26 PM on January 30, 2009
You know, if it were like two centuries prior to the time it actually happened and all.
posted by orme at 6:26 PM on January 30, 2009
that's Obi Wan Kenobi in the youtube clip at the bottom of that 'beheaded at Whitehall' link, right?
Yes -- and they cut out the next scene, where Cromwell stomps on Charles' suddenly empty robes.
You see, the whole thing was a diversion to buy the Pilgrims time to get to their ship and take off for America. So when he told the Rump Parliament, "If you strike me down, I shall become more
powerful than you can possibly imagine," he was referring to how his ghost would later help Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence.
Study your history, people. It can't be just me and Bill O'Reilly correcting people all the time.
posted by PlusDistance at 7:43 PM on January 30, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yes -- and they cut out the next scene, where Cromwell stomps on Charles' suddenly empty robes.
You see, the whole thing was a diversion to buy the Pilgrims time to get to their ship and take off for America. So when he told the Rump Parliament, "If you strike me down, I shall become more
powerful than you can possibly imagine," he was referring to how his ghost would later help Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence.
Study your history, people. It can't be just me and Bill O'Reilly correcting people all the time.
posted by PlusDistance at 7:43 PM on January 30, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm reminded of the story of the kid who told Sir Alec Guinness that he'd watched Star Wars a hundred times, and Guiness says thanks him and politely asks him never to watch it ever again.
posted by Artw at 7:49 PM on January 30, 2009
posted by Artw at 7:49 PM on January 30, 2009
Exactly. I mean, when was the last time you saw Russians taking the piss out of their own history a la Monty Python, Black Adder, etc?? NI-KOGDA!!
Oy! Sorry, I can't let this kind of calumny go by without notice. I mean, lots of Great Russian Literature is based on precisely this theme. Like in Venedikt Erofeev's Moscow to the End of the Line, where a bunch of drunks reenact the Revolution:
Oy! Sorry, I can't let this kind of calumny go by without notice. I mean, lots of Great Russian Literature is based on precisely this theme. Like in Venedikt Erofeev's Moscow to the End of the Line, where a bunch of drunks reenact the Revolution:
How did it all start? Everything started when Tikhonov nailed his fourteen theses to the doors of the Eliseykovo village soviet. Actually, he didn't nail them to the doors, but rather wrote them on the fence in chalk, and they were actually more like words than theses--they were clear and lapidary words, not theses--and there were more like two of them, not fourteen--but at any rate, that's where it all began. In two columns, with battle-standards in hand, we set out, one column to Eliseykovo, the other to Tartino. And we marched until sunset without encountering any resistance: there were none killed on either side, there were no wounded either, and the only prisoner was the former chairman of the Larionovo village soviet, who had been discharged in his old age for binge-drinking and congenital feeblemindedness. Eliseykovo was toppled. Cherkasovo lay at our feet, Neugodnovo and Peksha begged us for mercy. All the life-centers of Petushki County, from the grocery store in Poloshi to the agricultural warehouse in Andreevo, were occupied by the rebel armies...posted by nasreddin at 9:51 PM on January 30, 2009
And after sunset--the village of Cherkasovo was declared the capital, the prisoner was conveyed there, and a Congress of Victors was improvised on the spot. Every presenter was drunk as a skunk, and they all jabbered about the same thing: Maximilien Robespierre, Oliver Cromwell, Sonya Perovskaya, Vera Zasulich, punitive squads from Petushki, war with Norway, then Sonya Perovskaya and Vera Zasulich again...
Someone from the audience yelled: "Where the hell is that--Norway?" "Aw, who the hell knows," someone else replied, "Somewhere over the rainbow." "Well, wherever it might be," I tried to calm the noise, "we can't do without an intervention. In order to reconstruct our war-ravaged economy, we have to ravage it first, and we need a civil or at least some kind of war for that, we need at least twelve fronts..." "We need the armies of White Poland!" yelled Tikhonov, who was totally sloshed. "O, you idiot," I interrupted, "you're always mouthing off! You're a brilliant theoretician, Vadim, your theses are inscribed in our hearts, but when things come to action, you're a piece of shit! Why do we need White Poland, you dumbass?" "Hey, I'm not sayin' nothing," Tikhonov surrendered, "As if I needed them any more than you do! Norway it is..."
Exactly. I mean, when was the last time you saw Russians taking the piss out of their own history a la Monty Python, Black Adder, etc?? NI-KOGDA!!
Prokofiev did it, and the result was great art. (Of course, laughing at the Czars was safe during the early Soviet period, but it's still a case of laughing at the nation's history.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:23 PM on January 30, 2009
Prokofiev did it, and the result was great art. (Of course, laughing at the Czars was safe during the early Soviet period, but it's still a case of laughing at the nation's history.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:23 PM on January 30, 2009
Having just read the Adventures of Luther Arkwright, I had a whole different version of Cromwell pop into my head upon seeing this FPP.
posted by not_on_display at 10:52 PM on January 30, 2009
posted by not_on_display at 10:52 PM on January 30, 2009
Cromwell was never for the execution of Charles in the beginning; it was the latter's consistent bad faith in negotiations and particularly his escape and pursuit of a second civil war, then defeated in that negotiations with forces in Ireland that led the future Lord Protector to concede to radical demands that he execute this man of blood (who got a fair trial if you believe Geoffrey Robertson in The Tyrannicide Brief). If nothing else, it served, as Boswell's father Lord Auchinleck said, "to gart kings len they had a lith in their neck."
posted by Abiezer at 12:19 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by Abiezer at 12:19 AM on January 31, 2009
err, "ken" not "len." Neither my Scots or my typing are what they might be; in plain English, "taught kings they had a joint in their neck."
posted by Abiezer at 12:21 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by Abiezer at 12:21 AM on January 31, 2009
On a slight tangent, it always amuses me that a certain sort of American likes to make a fuss about how teh US was formed by telling an English king to fuck off, and that this shows that Americans are a Free and Noble People, while the English are craven subjects.
This view ignores the fact that the English just kill their annoying kings.
posted by rodgerd at 12:24 AM on January 31, 2009
This view ignores the fact that the English just kill their annoying kings.
posted by rodgerd at 12:24 AM on January 31, 2009
well, americans kill other peoples' annoying kings, so there's that...
sadly, they seem to like mine.
posted by klanawa at 1:05 AM on January 31, 2009
sadly, they seem to like mine.
posted by klanawa at 1:05 AM on January 31, 2009
On a slight tangent, it always amuses me that a certain sort of American likes to make a fuss about how teh US was formed by telling an English king to fuck off, and that this shows that Americans are a Free and Noble People, while the English are craven subjects.
This view ignores the fact that the English just kill their annoying kings.
Yeah but you guys don't seem to be able to do the job.
His son comes into power, 11 years later?
This view ignores tha fact that nothing was accomplished.
posted by vacapinta at 1:43 AM on January 31, 2009
This view ignores the fact that the English just kill their annoying kings.
Yeah but you guys don't seem to be able to do the job.
His son comes into power, 11 years later?
This view ignores tha fact that nothing was accomplished.
posted by vacapinta at 1:43 AM on January 31, 2009
Mercurius Politicus - the first and third links - is my blog. My life is complete now I've been FPPed!
It's a pity that Cromwell was already dead when they dug him up and hanged him
The story of Cromwell's head is an interesting one. After the posthumous execution the body was thrown into a pit but the head was put on a spike at Westminster Hall. It then seems to have blown down in high winds in the 1680s. Traditionally a sentry is supposed to have picked it up and taken it away. After changing hands a few times in the eighteenth century, it ended up in the hands of a family called Wilkinson.
The last private owner was Canon Horace Wilkinson from that family. The link above says that "although he refused permission for the BBC to film the head in 1954 he was known to show the head to local children!". This is absolutely true. My wife's grandmother tells a fantastic story about being taken by her father when she was a young girl to visit Canon Wilkinson. The two men called her into Wilkinson's study and said they had something important to show her. A wooden box was opened and there, staring up at her, were the shrivelled remains of the Lord Protector's head.
After Wilkinson's death the head was given to Sidney Sussex College Cambridge, Cromwell's old college, where it's been reburied.
posted by greycap at 1:54 AM on January 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
It's a pity that Cromwell was already dead when they dug him up and hanged him
The story of Cromwell's head is an interesting one. After the posthumous execution the body was thrown into a pit but the head was put on a spike at Westminster Hall. It then seems to have blown down in high winds in the 1680s. Traditionally a sentry is supposed to have picked it up and taken it away. After changing hands a few times in the eighteenth century, it ended up in the hands of a family called Wilkinson.
The last private owner was Canon Horace Wilkinson from that family. The link above says that "although he refused permission for the BBC to film the head in 1954 he was known to show the head to local children!". This is absolutely true. My wife's grandmother tells a fantastic story about being taken by her father when she was a young girl to visit Canon Wilkinson. The two men called her into Wilkinson's study and said they had something important to show her. A wooden box was opened and there, staring up at her, were the shrivelled remains of the Lord Protector's head.
After Wilkinson's death the head was given to Sidney Sussex College Cambridge, Cromwell's old college, where it's been reburied.
posted by greycap at 1:54 AM on January 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Couple of mp3s of lectures (including Geoffery Robertson talking on his book I mentioned) and links to some good reading at Bristol Radical History Group's page for their event last year on Regicide and the English Revolution. Freeborn John thought the trial had no legitimacy and was a portent of worse to come.
posted by Abiezer at 2:05 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by Abiezer at 2:05 AM on January 31, 2009
This view ignores tha fact that nothing was accomplished.
Not sure if you're seriously of this view vacapinta but if so I'd say you're dead wrong. The execution of Charles I broke the magic spell of the Divine Right and shook Europe. The Restoration was followed in short order by the Glorious Revolution which while far short of the goals of the republicans showed that the old monarchical principles had indeed died with Charles.
posted by Abiezer at 2:13 AM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not sure if you're seriously of this view vacapinta but if so I'd say you're dead wrong. The execution of Charles I broke the magic spell of the Divine Right and shook Europe. The Restoration was followed in short order by the Glorious Revolution which while far short of the goals of the republicans showed that the old monarchical principles had indeed died with Charles.
posted by Abiezer at 2:13 AM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Abiezer, I'm an American in the UK. I love the UK and have spent the time since I arrived here learning about and immersing myself in British history and culture. My wife and I live on a diet of BBC Radio 4. And, finally, any country with free museums and universal healthcare is one that has its priorities straight.
But at the same time, I do love to poke fun. Especially at the monarchy. When I read your response aloud to my wife she replied "Divine right is actually a good excuse to have a monarchy! Whats the excuse nowadays?"
As for the Glorious Revolution, that was, what, one king replacing another king? :)
posted by vacapinta at 2:46 AM on January 31, 2009
But at the same time, I do love to poke fun. Especially at the monarchy. When I read your response aloud to my wife she replied "Divine right is actually a good excuse to have a monarchy! Whats the excuse nowadays?"
As for the Glorious Revolution, that was, what, one king replacing another king? :)
posted by vacapinta at 2:46 AM on January 31, 2009
We're only arguing history, bonny lad, and believe me I'm not here to defend the British monarchy!
You might concede that had we not got the ball or head rolling, your later revolution may not have even occurred - most of the Interregnum's key documents seem to exist on line at the websites of American constitutional studies enthusiasts.
The Glorious Revolution did not, of course, mean James was replaced by another king - we were subsequently ruled by an orange.
posted by Abiezer at 3:05 AM on January 31, 2009
You might concede that had we not got the ball or head rolling, your later revolution may not have even occurred - most of the Interregnum's key documents seem to exist on line at the websites of American constitutional studies enthusiasts.
The Glorious Revolution did not, of course, mean James was replaced by another king - we were subsequently ruled by an orange.
posted by Abiezer at 3:05 AM on January 31, 2009
I'm normally a monarchist
This is the perfect line for a singles ad. I wouldn't respond to it but I would enjoy reading it.
posted by srboisvert at 6:06 AM on January 31, 2009
This is the perfect line for a singles ad. I wouldn't respond to it but I would enjoy reading it.
posted by srboisvert at 6:06 AM on January 31, 2009
This view ignores the fact that the English just kill their annoying kings.
We Americans seem to feel that the fallout from the execution of King Charles I was that in short order you were all made to feel terribly, terribly guilty about doing such a bad, bad thing, restored the monarchy, and have been reminded of your awful behavior ever since and scolded into never doing that ever, ever again.
By most accounts, as others have pointed out, Charles was stubborn, a bad-faith negotiator, and basically didn't have to be executed but ultimately made everyone feel that something radical was necessary in order to do something about him. However, once it came to actually heading off to his execution, he lived up so well to the ideal of the stoic martyr that everyone forgot what a bad guy he was.
posted by deanc at 6:08 AM on January 31, 2009
We Americans seem to feel that the fallout from the execution of King Charles I was that in short order you were all made to feel terribly, terribly guilty about doing such a bad, bad thing, restored the monarchy, and have been reminded of your awful behavior ever since and scolded into never doing that ever, ever again.
By most accounts, as others have pointed out, Charles was stubborn, a bad-faith negotiator, and basically didn't have to be executed but ultimately made everyone feel that something radical was necessary in order to do something about him. However, once it came to actually heading off to his execution, he lived up so well to the ideal of the stoic martyr that everyone forgot what a bad guy he was.
posted by deanc at 6:08 AM on January 31, 2009
I just finished watching The Tudors, Season 2 (The Tudors 90210) and wishing there was a good historically correct drama that covered English kings. C'est l'vie. As they used to say, this will not Crom well.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:33 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:33 AM on January 31, 2009
Hey, greycap, I'm a regular reader of Mercurius Politicus, but never realised it was you. Small world, the internet.
Today's Guardian has a profile of the historian Blair Worden, talking about the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I. Worden takes the revisionist (or vacapintian) line that the regicide accomplished nothing; his colleague Justin Champion politely disagrees. Interesting reading. I don't go all the way with Worden on this one, but I like his robust dismissal of the left-liberal position ('I don't see why people who are repelled by the death penalty rejoice in the beheading of a king'), which must have caused a few Guardian readers to choke on their muesli this morning.
Perhaps I can also take the opportunity to put in a plug for the British Library's current exhibition, Taking Liberties, where you can see Charles I's death warrant on display. (Full disclosure: I curated the Parliament & People section of the exhibition, including the death warrant.)
posted by verstegan at 6:40 AM on January 31, 2009
Today's Guardian has a profile of the historian Blair Worden, talking about the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I. Worden takes the revisionist (or vacapintian) line that the regicide accomplished nothing; his colleague Justin Champion politely disagrees. Interesting reading. I don't go all the way with Worden on this one, but I like his robust dismissal of the left-liberal position ('I don't see why people who are repelled by the death penalty rejoice in the beheading of a king'), which must have caused a few Guardian readers to choke on their muesli this morning.
Perhaps I can also take the opportunity to put in a plug for the British Library's current exhibition, Taking Liberties, where you can see Charles I's death warrant on display. (Full disclosure: I curated the Parliament & People section of the exhibition, including the death warrant.)
posted by verstegan at 6:40 AM on January 31, 2009
Greycap, those posts on MP were the inspiration for this post, so it's awesome that you're a MeFite.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:41 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:41 AM on January 31, 2009
I;m just pleased people have read them! By the way verstegan I hadn't realised a) that you were a reader and b) that you worked at the British Library. Small world indeed.
posted by greycap at 8:04 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by greycap at 8:04 AM on January 31, 2009
Thanks for the Worden link verstegan; he's always a stimulating read but he doth protest a bit too much about anything larger than happenstance and individual agency. He's right about Cromwell's antidemocratic and religious bent but of course that alone is insufficient to characterise the whole parliamentarian and republican cause or the wider social context. Other political upheavals have been guided by or seen the emergence of authoritarian figures but that doesn't mean this was their be all and end all or that such figures weren't the flotsam cast up by broader currents.
posted by Abiezer at 9:13 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by Abiezer at 9:13 AM on January 31, 2009
Don't forget your English Civil War playset. Complete with execution setup, and a serving wench.
posted by marxchivist at 9:19 AM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by marxchivist at 9:19 AM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Divine right is actually a good excuse to have a monarchy! Whats the excuse nowadays?"
Tourism.
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2009
Tourism.
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2009
Weird/cool King Charles note: he lends his name to a very famous, oft-used knitting stitch called King Charles Brocade, so named because it covers the yoke of the very finely knitted, sky-blue silk undershirt he supposedly wore to his execution (the story is that he wore plenty of undergarments so he wouldn't shiver, lest the crowd think him afraid). The shirt, bloodstained, is still at the London Museum and is regarded as a masterwork of 17th century knitting and as a proto-waistcoat garment.
posted by peachfuzz at 9:42 AM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by peachfuzz at 9:42 AM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
The Regicides. By order of the Convention Parliament, all the Regicides who had died before the Restoration were posthumously attainted for high treason and their property was confiscated. In January 1661, the corpses of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and John Bradshaw were exhumed and hanged in their shrouds at Tyburn before their skulls were impaled at Westminster Hall. Twenty Regicides fled to Europe or to America.
posted by adamvasco at 11:39 AM on January 31, 2009
posted by adamvasco at 11:39 AM on January 31, 2009
After Wilkinson's death the head was given to Sidney Sussex College Cambridge, Cromwell's old college, where it's been reburied.
posted by greycap at 4:54 AM on January 31 [3 favorites +] [!]
It's not been reburied - it's held in secret, and only shown to like the master and the head butler or something. I know someone who knows someone who was master of Sidney Sussex, and saw the HEAD.
As for the Glorious Revolution, that was, what, one king replacing another king? :)
posted by vacapinta at 5:46 AM on January 31 [+] [!]
No, it replaced a King with no requirement to call parliaments, with a King who was oblidged to have a Parliament every 3 years (the Triennial Act), later extended to 7, and then (even later) brought back to 5. It also introduced the 1689 Bill of Rights, basically same thing as the American one, only almost 100 years older.
The Glorious Revolution founded a truly Parliamentary Monarchy (as opposed to the Tudor soveignty of King-in-Parliament, which is a bit different). And this government has been stable and ruling happily and peacefully and without another revolution for 321 years, thank you very much. Can the same be said of the European republics?* And Parliamentary Monarchies on the Westminster model have been found to be more stable than many other forms of representational democracies.
* (Well, except for Iceland, which has been going for some 900-1000 years - but maybe I speak too soon)
posted by jb at 2:16 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by greycap at 4:54 AM on January 31 [3 favorites +] [!]
It's not been reburied - it's held in secret, and only shown to like the master and the head butler or something. I know someone who knows someone who was master of Sidney Sussex, and saw the HEAD.
As for the Glorious Revolution, that was, what, one king replacing another king? :)
posted by vacapinta at 5:46 AM on January 31 [+] [!]
No, it replaced a King with no requirement to call parliaments, with a King who was oblidged to have a Parliament every 3 years (the Triennial Act), later extended to 7, and then (even later) brought back to 5. It also introduced the 1689 Bill of Rights, basically same thing as the American one, only almost 100 years older.
The Glorious Revolution founded a truly Parliamentary Monarchy (as opposed to the Tudor soveignty of King-in-Parliament, which is a bit different). And this government has been stable and ruling happily and peacefully and without another revolution for 321 years, thank you very much. Can the same be said of the European republics?* And Parliamentary Monarchies on the Westminster model have been found to be more stable than many other forms of representational democracies.
* (Well, except for Iceland, which has been going for some 900-1000 years - but maybe I speak too soon)
posted by jb at 2:16 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just finished watching The Tudors, Season 2 (The Tudors 90210) and wishing there was a good historically correct drama that covered English kings.
There are better dramas than that one - I think there was one that came out right before called Henry VIII (BBC?) with an older Henry - I only saw a scene, but the acting is excellent and I've heard the history isn't bad. Helen Mirren stars as Elizabeth in a Channel 4/HBO mini-series which might be more historically accurate than the Cate Blanchett films, but apparently gets boring after Leicester dies (naturally).
And I would totally plug the BBC Charles II - It's the reason I'm a Charles II fan. The wikipedia page goes through the historical mistakes or omissions.
And I agree - history is always better by mini-series. After I finish my dissertation (about agriculture and drainage conflicts in the 17th century fens), I'm going to start shopping it around to screenwriters.
Seriously, who wouldn't rather see a film of Wrigley and Schofield's Population History of England, 1541-1871? It's a super important book, but do you know anyone who has read it cover to cover? But it would make a great film - there's lots of sex, after all. (Except for c1650-1750, when there isn't as much).
posted by jb at 2:33 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
There are better dramas than that one - I think there was one that came out right before called Henry VIII (BBC?) with an older Henry - I only saw a scene, but the acting is excellent and I've heard the history isn't bad. Helen Mirren stars as Elizabeth in a Channel 4/HBO mini-series which might be more historically accurate than the Cate Blanchett films, but apparently gets boring after Leicester dies (naturally).
And I would totally plug the BBC Charles II - It's the reason I'm a Charles II fan. The wikipedia page goes through the historical mistakes or omissions.
And I agree - history is always better by mini-series. After I finish my dissertation (about agriculture and drainage conflicts in the 17th century fens), I'm going to start shopping it around to screenwriters.
Seriously, who wouldn't rather see a film of Wrigley and Schofield's Population History of England, 1541-1871? It's a super important book, but do you know anyone who has read it cover to cover? But it would make a great film - there's lots of sex, after all. (Except for c1650-1750, when there isn't as much).
posted by jb at 2:33 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Divine right is actually a good excuse to have a monarchy! Whats the excuse nowadays?"
Other countries' presidents.
posted by pompomtom at 2:50 PM on February 1, 2009
Other countries' presidents.
posted by pompomtom at 2:50 PM on February 1, 2009
"You have selected regicide. If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1."
posted by kirkaracha at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2009
posted by kirkaracha at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2009
>And Cromwell himself wanted religious toleration - at least for all prostestants -
>Catholics as well? don't know. He did allow the Jews back into England, as he needed
>to borrow money.
You can rest assured that Cromwell did not espouse religious toleration for Catholics.
As an Irishman, I can safely tell you that Cromwell was a cunt.
Mephisto
posted by Mephisto at 5:39 AM on February 2, 2009
>Catholics as well? don't know. He did allow the Jews back into England, as he needed
>to borrow money.
You can rest assured that Cromwell did not espouse religious toleration for Catholics.
As an Irishman, I can safely tell you that Cromwell was a cunt.
Mephisto
posted by Mephisto at 5:39 AM on February 2, 2009
"Divine right is actually a good excuse to have a monarchy! Whats the excuse nowadays?"
2000 - 2008. Elizabeth II or George Bush as head of state.
posted by rodgerd at 3:50 PM on February 2, 2009
2000 - 2008. Elizabeth II or George Bush as head of state.
posted by rodgerd at 3:50 PM on February 2, 2009
You can rest assured that Cromwell did not espouse religious toleration for Catholics.
Cromwell's visciousness in Ireland was following some alledged guerilla tactics by the Irish, and popular fears of Irish rebels murdering Protestants; I'm not excusing it, but as far as I know he didn't seek out the Catholic community in England for retribution. So maybe he was just racist.
posted by jb at 6:21 PM on February 2, 2009
Cromwell's visciousness in Ireland was following some alledged guerilla tactics by the Irish, and popular fears of Irish rebels murdering Protestants; I'm not excusing it, but as far as I know he didn't seek out the Catholic community in England for retribution. So maybe he was just racist.
posted by jb at 6:21 PM on February 2, 2009
he didn't seek out the Catholic community in England for retribution
The difference seems to be those "malignants", as Cromwell called them, who in his terms had covered their hands in blood by starting and continuing the wars. Basing House, the centre of an English Catholic garrison under the marquis of Winchester, was rased to the ground after its siege in 1645 in no small part due to the presence of Catholic noblemen and priests there. If you look at Cromwell's public pronouncements on the Irish, he justified the massacres at Drogheda because it was "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood". Religion was what explains his attitudes.
But Drogheda itself is interesting in that most of the garrison were English royalists. The political and ideological fault lines in Ireland were complex and to reduce it to English Parliamentarians versus Irish Catholics ignores the fact that there were Irish Catholics fighting on the Parliamentary side and all sorts of other much more complicated divisions. I got into trouble with an Irish friend for asking what they thought about the Marquis of Ormonde, or about John Lambert, who also presided over killings and ethnic cleansing respectively...
posted by greycap at 9:55 AM on February 3, 2009
The difference seems to be those "malignants", as Cromwell called them, who in his terms had covered their hands in blood by starting and continuing the wars. Basing House, the centre of an English Catholic garrison under the marquis of Winchester, was rased to the ground after its siege in 1645 in no small part due to the presence of Catholic noblemen and priests there. If you look at Cromwell's public pronouncements on the Irish, he justified the massacres at Drogheda because it was "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood". Religion was what explains his attitudes.
But Drogheda itself is interesting in that most of the garrison were English royalists. The political and ideological fault lines in Ireland were complex and to reduce it to English Parliamentarians versus Irish Catholics ignores the fact that there were Irish Catholics fighting on the Parliamentary side and all sorts of other much more complicated divisions. I got into trouble with an Irish friend for asking what they thought about the Marquis of Ormonde, or about John Lambert, who also presided over killings and ethnic cleansing respectively...
posted by greycap at 9:55 AM on February 3, 2009
> The political and ideological fault lines in Ireland were complex and to
> reduce it to English Parliamentarians versus Irish Catholics ignores the fact
> that there were Irish Catholics fighting on the Parliamentary side
> and all sorts of other much more complicated divisions.
I recommend you read the following paper by Micheál Ó Siochrú of the University of Aberdeen
The English Civil Wars, in England and especially in Scotland and Ireland, were very much associated with anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment.
Check out the Guardian's review of Dr Ó Siochrú's recent book God's Executioner.
Read these two pieces first, and then come back here praising Cromwell.
posted by Mephisto at 4:04 PM on February 3, 2009
> reduce it to English Parliamentarians versus Irish Catholics ignores the fact
> that there were Irish Catholics fighting on the Parliamentary side
> and all sorts of other much more complicated divisions.
I recommend you read the following paper by Micheál Ó Siochrú of the University of Aberdeen
The English Civil Wars, in England and especially in Scotland and Ireland, were very much associated with anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment.
Check out the Guardian's review of Dr Ó Siochrú's recent book God's Executioner.
Read these two pieces first, and then come back here praising Cromwell.
posted by Mephisto at 4:04 PM on February 3, 2009
Read these two pieces first, and then come back here praising Cromwell.
posted by Mephisto at 7:04 PM on February 3 [+] [!]
Mephisto - neither of us are praising Cromwell, we are just talking about how history is more complicated. Of course the English Civil Wars were associated with anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment - in England. What greycap was saying is that it's more complicated in Ireland - Irish Catholics were fighting with the Parliamentary armies. Why? I want to know more about it.
As for Cromwell - the description of O Siochru's book from the Amazon page sums up the issue very well:
Also interesting quotes from the Guardian review:
posted by jb at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2009
posted by Mephisto at 7:04 PM on February 3 [+] [!]
Mephisto - neither of us are praising Cromwell, we are just talking about how history is more complicated. Of course the English Civil Wars were associated with anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment - in England. What greycap was saying is that it's more complicated in Ireland - Irish Catholics were fighting with the Parliamentary armies. Why? I want to know more about it.
As for Cromwell - the description of O Siochru's book from the Amazon page sums up the issue very well:
"In a century of unrelenting, bloody warfare and religious persecution throughout Europe, Cromwell was, in many ways, a product of his times. As commander-in-chief of the army in Ireland, however, the responsibilities for the excesses of the military must be laid firmly at his door, while the harsh nature of the post-war settlement also bears his personal imprint. Cromwell was no monster, but he did commit monstrous acts. A warrior of Christ, somewhat like the crusaders of medieval Europe, he acted as God's executioner, convinced throughout the horrors of the legitimacy of his cause, and striving to build a better world for the chosen few. He remains, therefore, a remarkably modern figure, somebody to be closely studied and understood, rather than simply revered or reviled."I am definitely putting that on my (always long) list of books to read. I would also be interested in the article you referred to - did you mean to put a link?
Also interesting quotes from the Guardian review:
"As an obscure MP in 1642, Cromwell served on a committee to organise relief for Protestant victims of the rising of Irish Catholics that began the previous year. Those victims were real: about 5,000 Protestant colonists died in massacres or from hunger, exposure and disease. But in the official version that shaped Cromwell's attitudes, the number of dead was exaggerated to 150,000 (and later to 200,000), a figure far higher than the entire settler population. Lurid propaganda combined with his own religious zeal to give Cromwell, as he declared on arrival in Dublin, his 'great work against the barbarous and bloodthirsty Irish'.Yes, I would very much like to read this book, thanks.
It is not just this role of propaganda and religious self-righteousness that gives his subsequent campaign a queasily contemporary ring. It is also a refusal to distinguish between civilians and combatants and a resort to ethnic cleansing. In his first engagement, at Drogheda, he personally supervised the slaughter of about 2,500 soldiers and an indeterminate number of civilians. The arguments of apologists that this was within the laws of war at the time are contradicted by the evidence in Cromwell's own account that he himself understood the scale of the massacre to be exceptional. It would, he admitted, have prompted 'remorse and regret' were it not intended to have exemplary effect as both collective punishment and a warning for the future. Contemporaries fully understood the atrocity, and its repetition at Wexford a month later, to be shocking, terrible events."
posted by jb at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2009
It is interesting to me also how suddenly emotional this conversation is. As a Canadian, I am very aware of the dark history of English, Irish and Scottish settlement in the New World - and always have to think of how I am part, and yet as a 21st century person not part, of it.
posted by jb at 3:15 PM on February 4, 2009
posted by jb at 3:15 PM on February 4, 2009
The English Civil Wars, in England and especially in Scotland and Ireland, were very much associated with anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment.
Yes and that was the point I was making about Cromwell's attitudes to Ireland. I wasn't trying to praise Cromwell in my comment there; it's just interesting that he is singled out as the architect of killings and ethnic cleansing in Ireland when there are others who are just as responsible.
posted by greycap at 2:48 AM on February 7, 2009
Yes and that was the point I was making about Cromwell's attitudes to Ireland. I wasn't trying to praise Cromwell in my comment there; it's just interesting that he is singled out as the architect of killings and ethnic cleansing in Ireland when there are others who are just as responsible.
posted by greycap at 2:48 AM on February 7, 2009
« Older Lego Turing machine | Lost Generation? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by spicynuts at 4:51 PM on January 30, 2009