The People's Will - AusCivics Critique and Review Series
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Media description: Two scenes from the movie Cromwell (Columbia Pictures1970) where Oliver Cromwell and King Charles 1, argue their differing political ideologies.
MEDIA CONTEXT
Oliver Cromwell (Richard Harris) is the lead character in the Columbia Pictures film, Cromwell. Based on the historical figure's life and the tumultuous events of 17th Century England, during the reign of Charles Stuart 1 (Alec Guinness), the viewer follows Cromwell on an emotion charged journey. As a strict Puritan -- having, according to historians, converted to that faith in his 30s -- Cromwell seeks to do what he understands to be God's will in establishing an English democracy, where Parliament would act upon the will of the people and not for its own interests, or that of the monarch's. Cromwell is depicted as one rising from relative obscurity to taking effective leadership of an army during years of civil war, then on to being dubbed Lord Protector of the nation -- after usurpation of the monarchy. From historical accounts it is thought Cromwell played only a minor role in Parliament, but he is portrayed by director Ken Hughes as a prime mover in the execution of King Charles 1 and thereafter the purging of Parliament. In the Columbia Pictures film Cromwell obtains personal audience with the king on several occasions where they debate their opposing views of proper government.
MEDIA CRITIQUE
Do the film makers present an accurate character portrayal of the historical figure Oliver Cromwell? Does the film Cromwell demonstrate the political events of the period accurately? Most historians struggle to form solid conclusions about what exactly caused the civil war. What degree of involvement in events is the viewer left feeling Cromwell had? Does this align with the consensus among historians? Is the portrayal of King Charles 1 as a man of wavering principles -- at once a loving husband and father, then a harsh, calculating ruler -- a fair representation of what is known about this king?
ANALYSIS & REVIEW
1. According to the Australian Constitution, what role does Queen Elizabeth 2 play in the government of Australia?
2. Using the 21 August, 2010 Federal Election as an example, discuss how the current Australian system may be considered a "true representation of a free people."
3. Consider the implications of a military regime as opposed to a "constitutional government", e.g. Fiji.
4. If a time did come when "parliament no longer represent[ed] the people of this nation," what constitutional power do Australian citizens have to ensure a true representation? Discuss.
THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION & AUSTRALIA TODAY
The Protectorate under Cromwell followed a civil war and had many flaws, but it also laid the foundations for future systems of English government. Unlike England and many other countries, Australia didn't need a civil war or period of great unrest to achieve Federation and a workable constitution. This is a remarkable feat achieved by building on the learning of the past. Do you feel that Australian's, in general, have enough appreciation of the traditions and heritage on which our constitution and our way of life are based?
PERSONAL APPLICATION
As an individual do you feel that you have a sufficient appreciation of the traditions and heritage on which our constitution and our way of life are based? Is there something you could do personally (preferably not for a school assignment) to gain a greater awareness of Australia's constitutional heritage? What is it?
The idea that a new country like Australia, created by Britain, avoided civil war and reached democracy by some kind of remarkable feat, is utterly nonensical. The reason it managed to be a democracy without a civil war is because it was an extension of Britain herself, her people, her common law, her system of Parliamentary govt, her culture and so on, not a country developing from scratch at all! Therefore it is more true to say that Australia's civil war took place in England in the 1640's and 50's before England knew Australia existed. I don't mean to be unkind, but there is no remarkable feat to celebrate here, and to claim so is rather worrying for an organisation claiming to teach history.
Research the eureka stockade.
@@magusd123 And similar uprisings happened even earlier in the UK, non of which achieved anything militarily, but did change the mood politically, in time, amongst the ruling classes. The working man didn't get the vote in the UK till 1918, (something most feminists overlook), ours was a common struggle against a system, but we were largely in the same system.
@@jamespennington7919 the point was we did have an uprising, which actually resulted in a great deal of autonomy in Australia, which in turn gave more people a say in local pollitics.
@@magusd123 I'm glad the authorities took note of the popular feeling, it's a pity thinngs had to get so violent for them to understand the depth of feeling. It's hardly Cromwell though, that's all I'm saying . A bit of devolution is not the same as regicide. Indeed when Oz had the chance in recent times to vote out the Queen, it declined. Rightly so imho.
@@jamespennington7919 agreed. Last thing we need is to make the gove or general position a partisan problem
They got an Irishman to play Cromwell - now, that's irony if I ever saw it. And, the best sales job ever!!!!!
@Percy Harry Hotspur Well said
@Percy Harry Hotspur referring to the Irish?
He wanted the part,ancestor in Cromwell's army in Ireland ,a planter
Cromwell's father was Irish.
You have fallen for Royalist propaganda......there is not that much evidence of Cromwells killings of civilians
A spectacular film. Alec Guinness and Richard Harris were magnificent in their roles. Both were perfectly cast; the direction, dialogue, scenes, and costumes are first rate. I first saw this in Mrs. D’s Grade 10 history class at H.C.I. It made an impression then and does so still, nearly forty years on.Timeless.
King Obi-Wan: If you strike me down, Lord Cromwell, I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.
*Do you really think Parliament would have placed a 9 ft statute outside the gates of Parliament if Cromwell were just a "minor figure" in the history of England and Parliament? No...the film by Ken Hughes does justice to the real person of Cromwell, he was no minor figure but the bull-work, the spearhead of the implementation of democracy being given to the "common man.".*
BloodOfYeshuaMessiah
This film sucks. It’s highly inaccurate. We need a better film about Oliver Cromwell and the English civil war. I think a show would be even better. Someone please make a show!! I love this time period yet no one barely ever focuses on it like they do with the tudors.
Cromwell was a minor figure for the majority of the war, although a successful cavalry commander he only really came to real prominence near the end of the war where he became the voice for those in the military and the radicals, both of which wanted the king gone, to which he was able to strong arm fairfax, the man who was probably the most prominent up until that point into joining on his side, which effectively let cromwell do whatever he wanted with the king
@@dorflam He wasn't all that radical, either: he sided with Ireton and Fairfax against the Levellers and other more rigorously democratic elements of the Army. In the end, he was just another bourgeois Calvinist.
I can see you mean business by your heavy dark font which is not out of keeping with your puritan messiah. I rather wish he 'had' immigrated. Then as now he would have found kindred spirits with which to reinvent the world. But of course you're quite right to identify Cromwell as an important figure, how could he not have been ? But you must surely see the personal failure of his specific aims for Briton. The creation of an army that could hold the country hostage, Military Governors of regions, social engineering by dictatorship and so on. That statue was erected at Parliament - but not without controversy. Cromwell was a complicated man finally enveloped in circumstances beyond his control. The Restoration is his legacy.
And his influence in helping lay the ground work for modern parliamentary democracy is pretty much on a par with Charles I. It took the both of them.
Parliament people should hear this and take note!! It be the will of the people of Britain!
Too drunk and moronic to learn such things. Greed and lust is in their hearts. Be warned.
Your gov't has all the guns, unlike us benighted bourgeois fascists here in Flyover, USA.
'Where Parliament would act upon the will of the people and not for its own interests' Parliament has never acted on the will of the people, Self interest drives them and we peasants can go to hell.
The peasants are farming all day. They’re not worrying about fairness
@@Patrick3183 Peasants are the royalist stock, Parliament held London
“Lord Protector is but another name for King, and you're a cruel one.”
I doubt Cromwell actually called for a democracy, given in the Putney debates he described expanding voting rights as "anarchy".
Falconer Omen
Oliver Cromwell was a conservative. He didn’t even really want to kill the king. He actually wanted the king on the throne. He only decided to have the king executed because he realised the king would never compromise with parliament and because he believed god wanted the king executed. He thought the king losing twice meant that the king was no longer in favour with god and he could execute him.
Maxim Charles
How was he scoundrel? He was a good father and a good husband. He was more tolerant than many make him out to be. Cromwell’s friends would show him negative pamphlets that people wrote about him during his rule and Cromwell would just laugh it off. On the other hand, Charles I use to cut people’s ears and imprison them when someone wrote something negative about him. It’s strange that men like Charles II are considered ‘good’ when they had hundreds of mistresses and 16 bastard children yet a pious man like Oliver Cromwell are considered scoundrels.
@@joellaz9836 Cromwell was a religious zealot who just wanted to replace one tyranny with another.
byteresistor
He wasn’t a religious zealot. That’s a misrepresentation of him.
The King was a Catholic.. a foriegn power also.. that is why he raged against "Pope-ish idolatory" ... Henry VIII took the power away from the Catholic Church / Vatican .
2:04 - “Greek drollery” or not, “democracy” never entered into Oliver Cromwell’s thick Puritan skull. It was not democracy that he - or anyone else in England at the time - was interested in.
This Cromwell guy would make a great founding father.
too bad all his work is undone the moment he died. britain reverted back to worshiping kings and queens. guess you can't really change the nature of people . they will be forever be subservants to their monarchs. they don't care even if those monarchs are abusing them and their children like their pedophile princes.
such a shame britain and it's people will rot away like this.
He was, in a way. American society was built upon bigoted puritan attitude, and it's still visible.
Probably... If he lived during the time of the revolution.
@@black10872 Yep, born at the turn of the 1600s, wild to wonder how he might have affected American history as he was considering moving there anyways; he would have reached old age around the time the US founders were being born.
There was a black revolutionary soldier named Oliver Cromwell who crossed the Delaware with Washington, he can be seen in the famous painting near the front of the boat.
I don't believe Cromwell ever said he was a democrat, or that he supported democracy. He supported a constitutional form of governance and eventually a republican system, but not one of "one man, one vote." Democracy was referring to an ancient Greek system very different from Anglo-Saxon republicanism. He was absolutely against universal suffrage, and is on the record against it, multiple times and demonstrably by his actions.
This is a sad movie, one really feels for the King, he made mistakes, but he was also in a hopeless position. He was forced to defend England from attacks on all sides, and thus had to make compromises with foreces which only inflamed mistrust and dissension in England herself.
The man who would be our king, he wore the royal red and green, it is a shame that Cromwell was able to poison the nation as he did.
I vaguely remember from some Cromwell documentary that I watched that some soldiers had asked for democratic rights, and Cromwell and his men had disagreed.
lol at 2:41 as the introduce Alec Guinness, I was sure the Star Wars theme was about to start playing. The first 2 notes were spot on.
Cromweel was furious , a great historic figure!
Didn't the English King ultimately seed power to parliment and become the Head of State which is somewhat what Cromwell wanted? Didn't his ideology win out in the end although it took almost 4 hundred years?
This is an Australian link, and there seems to be a political agenda here. The English Civil War made Cromwell into one of the greatest Brition's who ever lived. It is true however that when he became a member for Parliament in 1628-1629 representing Huntingdon, that he made just one speech,
Excellent performance by Harris, all the more so coming from a background in his personal life which despised Cromwell.
Hey guys it's me. Still here. Thank you for supporting my family and maybe there is yet hope in time. May God be your Protector in all things.
We the People Provide the Security of the Free State under English Common Law! The People are the Government and Commonwealth Law! Magna Carta
BREXIT!
He was a king in all but name! Aside from being a despot and war criminal
Of course "the people" mentioned on the Magna Carta were not the people like you and me, they were the Barons and other nobles. Do not get carried away with misinterpreting history just because it might fit your bill.
medula oblanta
Herman22 False. Magna Carta was the first constitutional document that took into account of the commoners, including the city dwellers and free farmers.
Ironic that Cromwell was such an admirer of democracy that he was a an intolerant religious zealot, opposed extending voting rights to any beyond a small minority, and finally became Lord Protector, which was in essence a dictatorship propped up by the support he enjoyed from within the military - he had greater powers of government invested with himself that Charles I did. He even signed "Oliver P" (for "protector") just as Charles signed Charles R (for Rex - latin for king) - and Cromwell was addressed as "Your Highness"
He wasn’t, the movie is rather false in putting those words in his mouth.
@@baronofbahlingen9662 I didn't refer to anything in the movie. What I said are matters of hisotrical fact. Cromwell as Lord Protector had greater powers vested in himself than the king he professed to detest, he was addressed as "Your Highness" and signed "Oliver P" for "Protector" in exactly the same way the King signed "Charles R" (for Rex). And Parliament for the large part did not dare to oppose him because he had the backing of the army. For all his talk of democracy he vehemently opposed extending voting rights beyond a very small minority.
Is this why they cast an older Richard Harris as Sulla, Rome's first Dictator for Life, in the 2002 TV movie on Julius Caesar?
Why the hell is Cromwell sitting in front of the King?? The only times the two met was when Charles I was held captive.
Dramatic effect, to put on some kind of "Clash of Titans" thing.
Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell He was a parliament member. Is parliament member never seeing his king before?
Because it's easier to digest complex historical events if you compromise the narrative's historical accuracy... oh and it makes it more entertaining.
It's not you?
Its a movie. Condensing weeks and months into minutes
Cromwell may have not finished off Royalty but his puritan views did especially after the return of the monarchy many could not live under the crown and left England for America and a second civil war a hundred years later ended up with the United States.
English and US civil wars not related
@@Patrick3183 he’s referring to the US Revolution against the crown, not the US civil war. Effectively, the US revolution was an intra-UK fight because they were colonies.
@@therealbettyswollocks Exactly. In fact the English civil war and the American Revolution were both heavily linked to taxation and the need for 'consent' before it is levied; something that has been part of the rights of Englishmen since Magna Carta. The only difference really been the two wars was that it was Parliament that was acting like 'Charles I' between 1763-1775, during the lead up to the war with the colonies rather than the king - who pretty much had very little to do with it until 1776.
King kenobi - ''an did you know cromwell, that during the clone wars i was a great knight''
Respect, from the people, RIP mr.cromwell.
2:44 - I know I can't be the only one actually thought that the Force theme song was about to start playing
one of my favorite historical figures Oliver Cromwell was driven by religion (stupid thing in our current era) but that drive allowed him to establish the UK as we know it today
I think it's telling that despite us being a constitutional monarchy, his statue remains outside Westminster.
What is it about the painting (1:09) that provokes Cromwell's ire ?
Is it the crucifix worn as decoration or that the woman is Catholic
or both. Just look at his countenance : he can barely keep a lid on it.
Both she was considered the power behind the throne, by the puritans who were always seeing catholic plots and she fitted the bill.
They hated the Catholic queen.
You answered ur own question… she was aggressively Roman Catholic and Cromwell was a puritan
@@daco54 I may be wrong about this, but it seems similar to Tsar Nicholas II and the Tsarina, who, along with Rasputin, were conveniently labelled as traitors to the country on account of nationality and status respectively.
Nobody in the comments watched the last 40 seconds of the video. Who needs to watch the whole video when my opinion needs to be heard?!
Personally, I came here for Alec Guiness. 😁
He needs a comeback right now
Well spoken Oliver! A magnificent movie which captured and reflected a time of crisis in the history of these islands. The masses do not need to be in awe of a monarchy privileged and pampered above the "ordinary" people. We should consider the virtues of a Republic!
Then hundreds of years later they Paid an Irish Man to Captain their Cricket Team so they could win the Cricket World Cup, funny that
Was it most likely that Australians were able to achieve a Constitutional Government so well and so quickly, and without bloodshed, due to their virtue? Yes. And, have the Australians learned, understood, believed, embraced and applied the importance of virtue, or are they aware of its worth beyond measure? No. Haven forgotten virtue, you create the vacuum throughout which any vile cult is willing to take over.
Roman de Caesar - Well said. A lesson easily learned is quickly forgotten or dismissed.
Nice
Oh how I wish we had a Cromwell now!
You do but the people are to thick headed and blind to listen to reason. That is why England has no guns , no brexit and criminals running the nation. Military does not function for the peoples good. It is a joke! They would have made the arrest a long time ago agreed? Still today people would beg on knee then to stand against. But we do what we can and that is plant the seed in mens minds.
This appears to be an intelligent and worthy site-theme promoting historical, constitutional and civic awareness. I was a little concerned that it might display an overt republican bias with Cromwell lauded for his attempt to impose one on his countrymen. This appears thus far, not to be the case. The film is a decent one and captures all too well the protagonist of its name.
Not a bad movie. Harris plays it too much over the top as Cromwell, he was passionate as a leader but not a screamer. Guinness is perfect as the soft spoken Charles I who's major flaw was that he often acted on the advice given to him by the last advisor he talked too.
I loved Cromwell . No I deplored what happened in Wexford and Drogheda .
But he brought the jews back into England after 350 years . He did a great thing.
What, has this got to do with the price of fish ?
England needs him now in 2017
Every Australian, Canadian and New Zealander. Are my Brethren regardless of monarchy. We share a common Bond. We are the commonwealth.
Winston Churchill said once, the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute talk with an average voter.
haha for a guy who needed the voter many times.
Kjelly Lund v true
Ordinary people, as a whole, know more than experts. It is experts who have made all things in civic life awful, ugly, stupid and captive to moneyed and ideological interests. The idea that the well educated make better govt decisions than the compound choice of the masses, is an old lie - told many times over and believed by the feeble-minded, the gullible and the vain.
If experts are better at general decision-making, where's the evidence for this elitist and left-wing bullshit excuse for the power of overweening govt?
@@damianbylightning6823
Fair point, though I am afraid you are unfortunately painting yourself into a corner in an effort to escape another.
You do not need to claim experts are always wrong, that interventions always fail and that only a manipulated people could ask for more of it to rebuke the quote made above. It unnecessarily exposes you to criticism and asks for far more than you know.
Suffice to say that there is far more knowledge contained in masses of people than in any single one of its individuals. It is not a reason to leap into libertarian madness, but it is a reason to be cautious.
@@stephanesurprenant60 I am not being cautious because there is no need to be so. Nor do I think I have painted myself into any corner. This is a CZcams thread and not a PhD thesis.
I have only really tried to get one thing over - that intellectuals have done a great deal of damage because of their philosopher king fantasies. In order to make these perverse fantasies real, intellectuals believe in idiotic ideas such as Marxism and its 21st century variants.
It is perfectly possible, within an economic liberal world, to use Aristotle's ideas and defend the point that intellectuals can be total morons and - who act like Lewis Carroll's character and believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Jeremiah 48:10 Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.
I haven't a clue what that means! Sounds terribly violent. Give 'Peace' a chance, is what I say...
A very rosy view of the Long Parliament and the English Civil War. In truth, much of the war was a matter of anti-Catholic sentiment and a bitter and conniving Parliament, pitted against a king that wouldn't relinquish authority or take scorn. Even after the war, Cromwell was no democrat (in the classical sense of the word). He simply became a monarch of another title.
Military dictatorship is more fitting. He ruled by raw military power and VERY strict laws (I believe ball games, card games, music and other forms of entertainment were outlawed aswell).
Hence King Charles' Son once he returned during the glorious revolution, was also called 'The Merry Monarch' as he was able to regain a lot of previous powers and also brought England back to times before Cromwell.
Surely didnt help that Cromwell's Son had no heightened interest in continuing the 'rule with an Iron fist' of his father.
The Movie itself is a fairly good one, though riddled with historical inaccuracies and with a VERY favourable view of Cromwell.
I'd like to say that Mr. Cromwell was a man of his time... but I am someone who usually advocates for monarchies, and Mr. Cromwell surely did a most... illoyal thing both in the way how he conducted himself and what he did exactly. But then again almost everyone has a different view on different people and I have no real personal stake in that matter.
Indeed! He was king in all but name and was a despot and religious bigot and war criminal to boot. He wanted freedoms, but still believed in a ruling class, allowing voting within his own class, not to the ordinary peasant.
Oversimplified needs to do something with the English Civil War it would literally make a perfect oversimplified episode
Bring Cromwell back
What if Cromwell was just jealous of King Charles’ glorious hair?
Why is Cromwell trying to sound like Batman?
In 1970?
Great Review!
2:01 based King Charles
Cromwell and charles the 1st face to face
Brexit could use a Cromwell.
They have NIgel Farage he's good enough.
I don't think it will be Charles that unites the nation, he likes Islam too much.
By the time Charles becomes king, Islam may be the majority religion of the UK. From "Protector of the Faith" to "Protector of the Faithful"=Head of Mosque and State. SHARIA,anyone????
@@GFSLombardo it is the "Day of Small Things". Never underestimate the size of the spiritual community in the UK. Many that were baptised Christian in the UK keep their allegiance close to their hearts. It is not for statisticians to know who we are so that they can try to manipulate society and our culture. Those that hold the Christ teachings in our hearts cannot be defeated by Islam, for it is easy for the Christ teachings to defeat Islam.
Your delusions of grandeur are pretty funny. Seems like a lot of Christians suffer from those. It makes your life seem more important than it really is. You're not restocking shelves at M&S, you're a Soldier Of Jesus
@@owenb8636 My Christian mother was stocking shelves in London shops and she did it lovingly. There was times when I was helping her, as it brought in extra income on top of my full-time job.
@@eliakimjosephsophia4542 Jesus of Nazareth is a very important figure in Islam. I have Muslim friends who, when speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, always say "Praise Be Upon Him" after they mention his name. Jesus of Nazareth is considered and important and highly revered prophet in the Muslim faith and is high respected. Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths, monotheistic and no more violent in its teachings than any other form of religion. Many of the practices are tribal or localised, they do not stem directly from the religious texts and there are calls to violence in all sorts of religious texts as that was the way things were in those days. It's a minority that act upon such archaic views. I find many of my Muslim, Sikh and Hindu friends very tolerant of my Secular views and have had some lively debates where we've agreed to disagree and then just get on with living together in harmony. I do wish that more people would try it - simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion
This film, Beckett and a Man for all Seasons (not the ghastly Heston attempt) are three of the greatest films ever.
2:18 I could hear the slap from here....
an Indiana citizen resident? yes, I do believe so
1:05 Cromwell triggered by Olivia Coleman.
There is nothing 'ordinary' about the Angles.. 🥰
Makes good sense 👏
Dumbledore vs Obi-wan Kenobi
My great grandfather x8 was A major general in Cromwells army for a while. Robert Overton 1609
Why couldn’t they just have found another royal related person to come and overthrow Charles and give the new guy the throne?
The first burguoise revolution in Ocident.
Constitutional heritage in dinghies?
Its interesting how Charles 1st remains a king even after his death and Oliver Cromwell remains a commoner
Michael Germanovsky He was lord protector !
Cromwell did not claim to be King. He rejected an effort to declare him King. That he would remain a commoner is entirely understandable. His title was Lord Protector. He was succeeded in that role by his son, Richard Cromwell, but Richard was deposed. It is said that the children's nursery rhyme, "Hickory, Dickory, Dock," is a reference to Richard (Dick) Cromwell.
nice
the Carolinas? NC, SC
No they were named after his son. Charles 2nd.
A Protestant fanatic and hypocrite.
And I suppose the catholics were all saints, st.bartholomew's day massacre anyone?
I never said that. I only said this particular figure was a fanatic and a hypocrite.
Cromwell was a minor political figure, who in the fullness of time would become a major one. It is true that he made only one speech as member for Parliament in 1628-1629, representing Huntingdon. He criticised the theology of Arminianism.This had very little, or nothing to do with the condition of the British polity, nor the downtrodden. In the movie Ireton reminds Cromwell that he had once spoken out against the tyranny of the Stuarts, but this is simply not true.
Cromwell really came onto the centre-stage in 1650 when Thomas Fairfax resigned as Commander-in-Chief of the New-Model Army against the wishes of Cromwell. However Cromwell become the supreme Commander, of not only the Model Army, but all forces raised by Parliament comprising of well over 50,000 men. Cromwell's influence would have been very strong in Parliament in relation to putting Charles lst on trial in 1649 for treason, and in calling for his execution.
In 1645 after the battle of Neasby, the entire gameplan changed, and Fairfax found himself tremendously politically weakened despite the great victory, which without Cromwell he may not have won. Fairfax believed that a constitutional monarchy could be achieved. But Cromwell knew that King Charles l would never relinquish his belief in the Divine Right of Kings. The issue upon which the civil war was fought.
By 1653 Cromwell had more power than any King, and he used it to terminate the Rump Parliament, and set himself up as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth- Republic of Great Britain, and Ireland. This political experiment only lasted in truth for 5 years. Cromwell's great vision of an England ruled by Parliament, with a Constitution produced by Parliament, under a Republic
Thomas Fairfax had switched sides and was deeply involved in the return of the Stuarts in 1660. The Commonwealth and Republic, were as we know, utterly obliterated.
There is a possibility that Cromwell had embraced Republican ideology as early as his entry into politics in 1623. If this is true then Cromwell was always a Republican. However the polity in his lifetime in Britain, and Ireland, was not open to his modern and indeed liberal Republican vision. Therefore he shut down Parliament in 1653, dissmising his own vision of a limited franchise but a Parliament Republican in character, as impractical and dangerous. He feared anarchy from below, and neo-monachism from above. Of course the latter fear would prove to be true.
In the end a counter-revolution occurred, welcomed by a fickle populace and the bloody narrative of the Stuarts would continue until the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the Bill of Rights in 1689.
Cromwell an the people of anceint england had their battle against those in indulgence in worldly scheme an acts, adding only never content
We today have a Same battle with a different face , yet Same rotten desires in our world between our own people ,
how will our battle end ,
What????
Long live our Protestant Church and Lord Protector!
and where is your Protestant Church now, C Alex, netuered like a cat and declawed with no say but pleased with deceant and perverted social norms?
King Victor
Nonsense there's no such thing as democracy freedom from religion ?
No Prince A
Praying or Karma doesn't save innocent children's lives.
WHAT am I?
The traditional, time-tested mantra of the dictator or wannabe dictator: "The Peoples Will". "I Know the Peoples Will". "I Am The Peoples Will". "I Am The People."=BUNK.
I knew that opening track was familiar czcams.com/video/3EQcvKCFFW4/video.html
Frydenberg 1 trillion pissed away
As an Irishman I often think of Cromwell in terms of Hitler. Hitler occupied Poland, Cromwell occupied Ireland. Hitler committed genocide in Poland, Cromwell murdered just as many people in Ireland as Hitler did in Poland and went further in ethnically cleansing whole parts of our Island, pushing people who lived in the north and east to go west or go to hell! The amusing thing I find is that British people actually call Hitler a war criminal while making movies and erecting statues to Cromwell! History is always viewed through the rose tinted glasses of the victors and the stronger nations but surely a genocidal war criminal is an evil criminal regardless of his/her nationality and people who settle into making comments in praise of one war criminal while condemning another are surely nothing but worthless, racist bigotes who believe that some races are better than others. While I am entirely a democrat and believe wholly in republican government - in this movie my sympathy is with the king, my conscience and morals don't allow me to support the genocidal war criminal!
Paul Fitzpatrick cry me a river potato
Paul Fitzpatrick No great historical figure is without fault, and Cromwell was a Puritan fanatic, which is why he saw the Irish people, as worshiping a satanic type religion! Yet it’s inevitable that people from different countries will see historical figures through rose tinted glasses, Gengis Khan is seen in Mongolia as a hero for example! He has a statue outside Parliament because he was instrumental in redefining the power between King and Parliament, and avoiding the tyrannical rule of an autocratic King, no other reason.
Paul Fitzpatrick On every video clip of Cromwell, without fail, there is a comment or many comments reciting the same garbage such as this.
Paul Fitzpatrick the only downside was he did not clear the entire island and fill it with sheep . maybe next time potato .
near about 25% of the population plus at least 50000 children hauled off to work in the sugar plantations of the West Indies...percentage wise more than the number killed in famine...add to that the complete reduction of the native population to servitiude and the theft of their land...what's not to like?
#BREXIT
M