I know who oliver cromwell is, but i really dont understand why moz hates him...

Cromwell slaughtered hundreds of Irish men,women and children in the 1600's.
Hence,a polemical figure in the appalling history of Irish/British relationships.Also,his connections with British royalty.
 
But why do the Royal Family still salute him, while he was the one who replaced the King?
 
Why?

> But why do the Royal Family still salute him, while he was the one who
> replaced the King?

Because he's respected, etc, for 'services to Democracy' in this country. Not universally of course, and he arguably became pretty much a dictator by the time he died - but generally it is seen as A Good Thing that happened to this country. There is a statue of him outside the Houses Of Parlaiment, along with only a few of this country's most respected figureheafs. The Royal family would have to say that what happened with the Charles I thing (where Charles I was defeated in the Civil War by Cromwell) was good for this country, as it is in agreement with the values we now hold dear (move to greater accountability, away from the absolute 'The Divine Right Of Kings' etc). I guess they 'salute him' by not taking a line against him, 'allowing' the statue to survey the Queen as she goes in to Parlaiment to give the Queen's speech, given that he killed one of her ancestors.
 
Maybe Moz should have spit upon the name of P. Charles who murdered Di by being a f***wit husband!!
 
His statue in Manchester

There was a statue of Cromwell in Manchester - if it was there today it would be across the road from the MEN Arena!
Queen Victoria would not come to Manchester whilst the statue was there.
When the Town Hall opened in the 1870's, she snubbed the official opening and was slagged off by the Lord Mayor in his public speech.
A few decades ago, the statue was removed and replaced in Wythenshawe Park where it rots away unoticed and his sword was vandalised.
 
Re: Cromwell went into Ireland and tried to kill the Catholics!!!
 
Re: New Model Amy? sorry I don't like Cromwell either!
 
Here, read this

Oliver Cromwell played a leading role in bringing Charles I to trial and execution, and was a key figure during the civil war. Why does he remain one of the country's most controversial public figures?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/cromwell_01.shtml

Excerpt:

>>>>
In the summer of 1649, Cromwell was sent to Ireland with two objectives: to place it firmly under English control; to superintend the confiscation the land of all 'rebels' - as a result almost forty per cent of the land of Ireland was redistributed from Catholics born in Ireland to Protestants born in Britain. His first target was the town of Drogheda north of Dublin which he stormed and captured. Perhaps 2,500 men, mainly in arms, were killed during the storm and several hundred more - all the officers, all Catholic priests and friars, every tenth common soldier - were killed, many clubbed to death. It was in accordance with the laws of war, but it went far beyond what any General had done in England. Cromwell then perpetrated a messier massacre at Wexford. Thereafter most towns surrendered on his approach, and he scrupulously observed surrender articles and spared the lives of soldiers and civilians. It was and is a controversial conquest. But, from the English point of view, it worked. In the summer of 1650, he returned to England and was sent off to Scotland, where Charles II had been proclaimed and crowned as King of Britain and Ireland. In a campaign as unrelenting but less brutal, he wiped out the royal armies and established a military occupation of the lowlands and west that was to last until 1660. In September 1651 he returned to a roman-style triumphant entry in London. One foreign ambassador watching predicted that he would soon be king. He was almost right.
 
Re: Oliver Cromwell... Ruffians view!

> Oliver Cromwell played a leading role in bringing Charles I to trial and
> execution, and was a key figure during the civil war. Why does he remain
> one of the country's most controversial public figures?

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/cromwell_01.shtml
> Excerpt:
> In the summer of 1649, Cromwell was sent to Ireland with two objectives:
> to place it firmly under English control; to superintend the confiscation
> the land of all 'rebels' - as a result almost forty per cent of the land
> of Ireland was redistributed from Catholics born in Ireland to Protestants
> born in Britain. His first target was the town of Drogheda north of Dublin
> which he stormed and captured. Perhaps 2,500 men, mainly in arms, were
> killed during the storm and several hundred more - all the officers, all
> Catholic priests and friars, every tenth common soldier - were killed,
> many clubbed to death. It was in accordance with the laws of war, but it
> went far beyond what any General had done in England. Cromwell then
> perpetrated a messier massacre at Wexford. Thereafter most towns
> surrendered on his approach, and he scrupulously observed surrender
> articles and spared the lives of soldiers and civilians. It was and is a
> controversial conquest. But, from the English point of view, it worked. In
> the summer of 1650, he returned to England and was sent off to Scotland,
> where Charles II had been proclaimed and crowned as King of Britain and
> Ireland. In a campaign as unrelenting but less brutal, he wiped out the
> royal armies and established a military occupation of the lowlands and
> west that was to last until 1660. In September 1651 he returned to a
> roman-style triumphant entry in London. One foreign ambassador watching
> predicted that he would soon be king. He was almost right.

Your quote is brutal but selective in the way it deals with its subject matter.. We had this discussion at lunch, let's consider the bigger picture...

Admittedly, he was no angel... but lets put this into context, they were FAR FAR less enlightened times. So, we contend that Cromwell hated the Irish and the Royals.. Was an efficient general and leader of men and perpetrated atrocities. However, arguably and most importantly, lest we lose focus here, he, and his movement, helped birth modern democracy. And that's why he has an impressive statue in parliament square.. His work gave the foundation of Parliament, open debate and gave the ordinary person the rights to be heard.. (the levellers) This system still effectively is the foundation of what we call democracy (arguably)? Which was quite successfully exported round the world.

So maybe, Cromwell, as much as a maligned and portrayed as a warty faced hypocrite as he could be seen.. must be understood as a man who had the chance to make a differnec,was propelled into forefront by his strength of will and carried the revolution (of sorts). This must have taken a brave man to make a stand in those bloody days against tradition and all that had gone before. The movement he was part of (for I suggest he was the figurehead) obviously made a massive change... and lets not under estimate his contribution to democracy though the focus of his ruthlessness should also be considered. But also remember, the kings and the ruling classes at that time were more corrupt than you can ever imagine.

Interesting to read about the origin of the band name 'The Levellers' as well and where this originated..

"The Levellers were small yeomen farmers and 'copyholders', tradesmen who worked in clothing manufacture, small business men - in fact skilled workers and peasants and the 'petty bourgeoisie'. A great number of them had fought in the New Model Army. Cromwell had encouraged his soldiers to be a committed, thinking force with intelligent discipline, but also with intelligent belief in God and in the new England they fought for. Discussion, argument and the printing and circulation of leaflets and tracts were encouraged.

It was this thinking and faith that brought Cromwell's army to victory over the Royalist army of foreign Mercenaries and estate Servants, pressed into service by their Lords and Landowners. The discussions continued during the lull, in 1647, between the two phases of the Civil War. There were perhaps as many civilian Levellers as military men, especially in London, where the leadership (Lilburne, Price, Walwyn and others) were based..."

Basically the common man finally had rights and a voice..

I'd like to hear how Morrissey understands Cromwell.. I personally love the fact he's name checked!! he was also considered in the recent 'Most influential Britians and came a creditable 10th.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/25/greatbritons_final.shtml !!

Comments please Mr.Loafing Oaf?

Ruffian
 
Re: : Fundamentalist Proddie.

Chill, I'm not seeking confrontation but please explain this in your own understanding..? I'm always eager to learn. Educate me!

Ruffian
 
Back
Top Bottom