This war had so much to do with freedom and the genesis of law as Americans know it. The idea of a constitutional republic and the rule of law beat so strongly in the puritan forefathers that it can be seen clearly portrayed here. It is not simply protestantism v. catholicism. Rather the rule of law v. arbitrary rule.
As Australian of Irish / Scottish heritage I can not stand the monarchy. I long for the day when Australia's head of state will be an Australian & not the Queen of England!
Cromwell is my man, he beheaded Charles Stuart, a traitor and a degenerate tyrant. Some day England will again be a republic and the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha thrown out. I relish that day...
There is very little if any mention of Cromwell's invasion of Ireland, the four or more years spent there subjecting the Catholics and populating it with Protestants etc etc. It was another 130 odd years before Cromwell was revered as a hero by the English.
@wasatchhike Like fuck. Cromwell banned Christmas, put people in jail for dancing, ruled as a dictator (more power than the king ever had), and killed thousands of innocent Irish for being Catholic.
Charles I was a good king. He continued his dad's noble pursuits of creating a unified Britain and tolerance between Catholics and Protestants. And parliament was not the noble democratic institution it is today. Back then, like 2% of the pop could vote, and they were nobemen greedy asswipes.
The main weakness of the US presidential system is that the chief of state and iconic figure (the picture on the wall) of the Republic is the man who makes policy and runs the government.This confuses people. If you attack the President because of his policies and running of the government, they are offended because they think you are criticizing the USofA.Brits think you're attacking them if you attack \The Queen, but you can say anything about the PM and they deal with the points rationally.
@ChaosDynamics Better than that of a constitutional republic. As you know there are many republics that have a figure head president. I don't see that as necessarily better than a figurehead king or queen.
@ChaosDynamics But it wasn't a republic! Cromwell was Lord Protector for life and his designate successor was his eldest surviving son, Richard. They used a crown, a sceptor and an ermine robe. The protectorate was a monarchy in all but name.
@ChaosDynamics The republic was a fiction. Oliver Cromwell died with a crown and sceptor on his coffin and the title of His Highness the Lord Protector. He had been signing documents as Oliver P (for Protector, but it is reminiscent of Prince) for years. Cromwell could not or would not--it is unclear which--create a republican form of government for Britain. He merely copied kingship, and because he lacked the authority of a legitimate king, it was perceived as a military dictatorship.
In fact, a drumroll began as soon as the King began to speak to his people and they could not make out what he said. But he died with Kingly grace, and at that moment the restoration began. Who was it that said, "Nothing became him more in life than the leaving of it."?
You're racist comments are offensive, and had nothing to do with the English Civil War. This was Catholicism vs Protestantism. I think you would want to comment on WW2, and how much you love hitler.
King Charles made a much longe speech at the scaffold.
He said that he had only raised an army to preserve his rights, because parliament had taken control of his militia. Which militia was his and not theirs. He said that he never encroached on parliament's privileges but they encroached on his. He said he died in the Church of England that he had inherited from his father. He said also that he died a martyr to the liberties of the people. The rest is more or less as Alec Guiness pronounces.
The Republic! Will that word ever be heard again in England? If the present Prince of Wales takes the throne or if his son William follows his father's ways, I predict YES!
This is a foolish saying: Ever since the Magna Charta England evolved from Monarchy towards republican self government! Since the English Civil War there was not a doubt that the aristocratic and oligarchic English parliament was the true holder of power and sovereignty but before Queen Elisabeth I and even her father Henry VIII had their laws and actions passed and approved by the parliament; the restoration of 1660 was a only temporal and William III the last true English king...
...since the time of Queen Anne the prime ministers ruled the country and they became more and more dependant to parliament; the German succession of the house of Hanover aided to that: Politicians like Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger started to rule in England until the time of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, that was before spineless dimwits like Blair or Brown took over (electing the Conservatives in the next election does not help: They are alike New Labour now)...
...anyway the morale is: The current English kings and queens hold no more power than the sacrifice kings hold in the Roman republic when the monarchy was abolished; so abolishing the monarchy will do no harm and no good, save that the yellow press will be out of work! The problems were caused by the ruling parties in parliament and their prime ministers; Maggie had much to do with it as her blind faith into the free market this and the ignorance of New Labour cleaved the way to disaster...
@GreatGrumbledook you socialists r always so right everyone should think like u if they dont they r idiots but tell me this pal, name 1 time socialism worked the only people it helps r snobs like u u prob work 4 the government, teach, or u r on government assistance liberal wanker
@ZDiddy7: You seen to confuse a lot of things: I am not a socialist at all (and I will quote Nietzsche on that matter later!) but a republican, democrat and my political views and ideas are based on the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy on historical grounds and on Aristotle, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Kant and others; but now to the quote of Nietzsche on socialism:
"When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering--what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; (...)"
"(...) it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, (...)"
"(...) as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too"--on such logic are revolutions made. Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself--the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter--really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; (...)"
"(...) in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian--to repeat it once more--he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches "the world," his instinct is the same as that which (...)"
"(...) prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge--the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off. The "beyond"--why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"
Your view of English history is whiggish. The idea that English constitutional evolution is a straight line of development from Magna Carta is "pariscoping" history. This approach was debunked in the 1950's.
@mc0558: Thanks for that as I would join the good-old Whig Party anytime! Down with New Labour and that idiot Gordon Brown (it is real nice to have too passports, so one can elect twice and see which decision was the most regrettable); anyway history is no straight line and if Charles I would have prevailed England might have suffered the yoke of the absolute monarchy like France had to. But the impact of the Magna Charta cannot be denied as well, can it?
Comwell was indeed a lion of a man! The most gifted and successful ruler England has ever had, except perhaps for William III. But I think he surpasses even him.
I was thinking of England's victories over the Dutch and the extension of English commercial power in the Western Hemisphere.
I agree, Cromwell failed to find a political and religious settlement that the English gentry found to be an adequate replacement for the monarchy or religious monopoly of the Church of England. Nonetheless, on behalf of the English people for generations to come, Cromwell struck a victory over the principle of "divine right monarchy" that would endure forever.
Cromwell did it. No one could find a stable form of free government for the country without Kingship. Yet, Cromwell could not put Charles' crown on his own head without it being said that he had killed Charles in order to steal his crown.
The country floundered from one political disaster to another, ending up in a military dictatorship. As a result, the crown was restored to its rightful holder twenty years after Charles I's death and two years after Cromwell's death.
This war had so much to do with freedom and the genesis of law as Americans know it. The idea of a constitutional republic and the rule of law beat so strongly in the puritan forefathers that it can be seen clearly portrayed here. It is not simply protestantism v. catholicism. Rather the rule of law v. arbitrary rule.
thinkingman07 1 day ago
Good Riddance!
89murph 1 month ago
As Australian of Irish / Scottish heritage I can not stand the monarchy. I long for the day when Australia's head of state will be an Australian & not the Queen of England!
2510smo 1 month ago
Cromwell is my man, he beheaded Charles Stuart, a traitor and a degenerate tyrant. Some day England will again be a republic and the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha thrown out. I relish that day...
Sillach 6 months ago
There is very little if any mention of Cromwell's invasion of Ireland, the four or more years spent there subjecting the Catholics and populating it with Protestants etc etc. It was another 130 odd years before Cromwell was revered as a hero by the English.
MrDrum22 8 months ago
@wasatchhike Like fuck. Cromwell banned Christmas, put people in jail for dancing, ruled as a dictator (more power than the king ever had), and killed thousands of innocent Irish for being Catholic.
Charles I was a good king. He continued his dad's noble pursuits of creating a unified Britain and tolerance between Catholics and Protestants. And parliament was not the noble democratic institution it is today. Back then, like 2% of the pop could vote, and they were nobemen greedy asswipes.
MajBlood 9 months ago 2
I would die before I let my king be murdered.
MajBlood 9 months ago
Wow man, Cromwell is a fucking asshole.
MajBlood 9 months ago
The main weakness of the US presidential system is that the chief of state and iconic figure (the picture on the wall) of the Republic is the man who makes policy and runs the government.This confuses people. If you attack the President because of his policies and running of the government, they are offended because they think you are criticizing the USofA.Brits think you're attacking them if you attack \The Queen, but you can say anything about the PM and they deal with the points rationally.
mc0558 10 months ago
@ChaosDynamics Better than that of a constitutional republic. As you know there are many republics that have a figure head president. I don't see that as necessarily better than a figurehead king or queen.
mc0558 10 months ago
@ChaosDynamics But it wasn't a republic! Cromwell was Lord Protector for life and his designate successor was his eldest surviving son, Richard. They used a crown, a sceptor and an ermine robe. The protectorate was a monarchy in all but name.
mc0558 10 months ago
@ChaosDynamics The republic was a fiction. Oliver Cromwell died with a crown and sceptor on his coffin and the title of His Highness the Lord Protector. He had been signing documents as Oliver P (for Protector, but it is reminiscent of Prince) for years. Cromwell could not or would not--it is unclear which--create a republican form of government for Britain. He merely copied kingship, and because he lacked the authority of a legitimate king, it was perceived as a military dictatorship.
mc0558 10 months ago
In fact, a drumroll began as soon as the King began to speak to his people and they could not make out what he said. But he died with Kingly grace, and at that moment the restoration began. Who was it that said, "Nothing became him more in life than the leaving of it."?
mc0558 10 months ago
Why did you cut out the Kings conversation with his children?
ProtestantIRA 1 year ago
is that Geoffry rush
Hunte9753 1 year ago
A small inaccuracy; although the King's head was held up, the headsman never said "behold the head of a traitor".
LankyGeorge 1 year ago
yeah man, quit being a "whigger" lol xD
alexp9999 2 years ago
You're racist comments are offensive, and had nothing to do with the English Civil War. This was Catholicism vs Protestantism. I think you would want to comment on WW2, and how much you love hitler.
Highice007 2 years ago 5
he lied till last breath
amrfarag 2 years ago
This world cries for an army of Cromwells. May it be numerous and powerful.
kamranii 2 years ago
King Charles made a much longe speech at the scaffold.
He said that he had only raised an army to preserve his rights, because parliament had taken control of his militia. Which militia was his and not theirs. He said that he never encroached on parliament's privileges but they encroached on his. He said he died in the Church of England that he had inherited from his father. He said also that he died a martyr to the liberties of the people. The rest is more or less as Alec Guiness pronounces.
mc0558 2 years ago
i dig the gimp masks
eatmypies 2 years ago
The Republic! Will that word ever be heard again in England? If the present Prince of Wales takes the throne or if his son William follows his father's ways, I predict YES!
mc0558 3 years ago
This is a foolish saying: Ever since the Magna Charta England evolved from Monarchy towards republican self government! Since the English Civil War there was not a doubt that the aristocratic and oligarchic English parliament was the true holder of power and sovereignty but before Queen Elisabeth I and even her father Henry VIII had their laws and actions passed and approved by the parliament; the restoration of 1660 was a only temporal and William III the last true English king...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
...since the time of Queen Anne the prime ministers ruled the country and they became more and more dependant to parliament; the German succession of the house of Hanover aided to that: Politicians like Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger started to rule in England until the time of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, that was before spineless dimwits like Blair or Brown took over (electing the Conservatives in the next election does not help: They are alike New Labour now)...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
...anyway the morale is: The current English kings and queens hold no more power than the sacrifice kings hold in the Roman republic when the monarchy was abolished; so abolishing the monarchy will do no harm and no good, save that the yellow press will be out of work! The problems were caused by the ruling parties in parliament and their prime ministers; Maggie had much to do with it as her blind faith into the free market this and the ignorance of New Labour cleaved the way to disaster...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@GreatGrumbledook you socialists r always so right everyone should think like u if they dont they r idiots but tell me this pal, name 1 time socialism worked the only people it helps r snobs like u u prob work 4 the government, teach, or u r on government assistance liberal wanker
ZDiddy7 2 years ago
@ZDiddy7: You seen to confuse a lot of things: I am not a socialist at all (and I will quote Nietzsche on that matter later!) but a republican, democrat and my political views and ideas are based on the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy on historical grounds and on Aristotle, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Kant and others; but now to the quote of Nietzsche on socialism:
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
"When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering--what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; (...)"
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
"(...) it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, (...)"
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
"(...) as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too"--on such logic are revolutions made. Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself--the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter--really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; (...)"
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
"(...) in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian--to repeat it once more--he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches "the world," his instinct is the same as that which (...)"
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
"(...) prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge--the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off. The "beyond"--why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
Your view of English history is whiggish. The idea that English constitutional evolution is a straight line of development from Magna Carta is "pariscoping" history. This approach was debunked in the 1950's.
mc0558 2 years ago 3
@mc0558: Thanks for that as I would join the good-old Whig Party anytime! Down with New Labour and that idiot Gordon Brown (it is real nice to have too passports, so one can elect twice and see which decision was the most regrettable); anyway history is no straight line and if Charles I would have prevailed England might have suffered the yoke of the absolute monarchy like France had to. But the impact of the Magna Charta cannot be denied as well, can it?
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
your approach to History is unecessarilly definate-it was debunked in the 50s only if you agree with it
bulked 2 years ago
which I do.
mc0558 2 years ago
Comwell was indeed a lion of a man! The most gifted and successful ruler England has ever had, except perhaps for William III. But I think he surpasses even him.
mc0558 3 years ago 2
Bullocks, if he were so successful, why was England reversed back to monarchy?
DarthFanta 2 years ago 2
I was thinking of England's victories over the Dutch and the extension of English commercial power in the Western Hemisphere.
I agree, Cromwell failed to find a political and religious settlement that the English gentry found to be an adequate replacement for the monarchy or religious monopoly of the Church of England. Nonetheless, on behalf of the English people for generations to come, Cromwell struck a victory over the principle of "divine right monarchy" that would endure forever.
mc0558 2 years ago
Comment removed
BarnacleBillTheFirst 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarthFanta
Because most people have a strange affection for their hated tyrants. How little you know of human nature.
BarnacleBillTheFirst 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarthFanta
@DarthFanta
Because most people have a strange affection for their hated tyrants. How little you know of human nature.
BarnacleBillTheFirst 1 year ago
Who was it that said, When the king's head was chopped off such a groan went through the crowd assembled that he hoped he would never hear again.
mc0558 3 years ago
Comment removed
mc0558 3 years ago
Cromwell did it. No one could find a stable form of free government for the country without Kingship. Yet, Cromwell could not put Charles' crown on his own head without it being said that he had killed Charles in order to steal his crown.
The country floundered from one political disaster to another, ending up in a military dictatorship. As a result, the crown was restored to its rightful holder twenty years after Charles I's death and two years after Cromwell's death.
mc0558 3 years ago