h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have just read the article on the Civil War and also watched the film Cromwell and feel that Cromwell didn't want to declare war on the King, but he was badgered into doing so by several members of the Parliament and the actions of the King and his french wife. Iam a Royalist, but I feel that Cromwell's situation hasn't been portrayed in history and teachings. Perhaps I'm missing something somewhere but do feel a trifle sorry for him. Any comments would be gratefully accepted, thank you.

You're definitely on the right track.
Cromwell was against rule by divine right, but had nothing against the concept of monarchy in general. The problem was that Charles I was a complete arse.
Cromwell wasn't even a rigid Puritan, as most would have you believe. He was Puritan in general outlook (mostly the whole scripture thing) but had no problem with drinking, gambling and hunting (just as long as God came first). It is well known that Cromwell refused the crown because he wasn't sure that he could trust himself not to let the power go to his head (being only human and all).
Course after he died the royalists managed to get the monarchy back and treated Cromwell as a common rebel rather than a founding father of the current system of British government (for example the monarch can no longer disband parliament as and when they please).

I'm sure he was a lovely chap but he did kind of sit at the head of a regime responsible for lots of horrible atrocoties did he not?
Certainly the reinstatement of the monarchy was helped by Cromwell's regime being massively unpopular...

Yeah, but the royalist regime didn't exactly have a spotless track record... besides the original question was about Cromwell himself rather than his government.

Indeed but I've heard similar comments about Hitler. Oh he wasn't too bad really, he was lazy and stayed in bed all day. It was the deputies that were the *real* evil B**tards.
Sorry but the person at the top has to take some responsiblity the buck stops with them after all.

As an aside I once read that Prince Charles when (and if presumably) he becomes king will not be crowned as King Charles the III but Henry IX.
His reasoning is that the name King Charles is associated with disorder and beheading.

Now consider Henry VIII died of syphilis and set the whole country upon one another almost as much as Charles I, Henry III (I think) died with a red hot poker up his bottom... the list goes on.

Ah yes, much more satisfactory historical connotations to the name King Heny

>> His reasoning is that the name King Charles is associated with disorder and beheading. <<

I don't know about that. Charles the II did a lot to negate some of the excesses of his father. He was probably one of our better Kings doing a lot to promote science and the arts. The Royal Institution was founded during the reign of Charles II along with the Greenwich Meridian. Pity he had the Great Plague and the Fire of London to contend with.

On the subject of the Prince of Wales, the story I heard is that he will become George VII, continuing the line of his Grandfather.

Donald

Well you'd better talk to him about that, not me

George VII would be a better choice but what's wrong with his own name really. Absurd to be worried about something that happende 400 years ago

Charles Philip Arthur George - take your pick

Well Arthur would be excellent

He should be Henry I, not Henry IX. Just as if he keeps the name Charles, he should be Charles I.

You wouldn't care to expand on that would you Gnomon.

I know the Scots get fussy about Elizabeth I but I don't think the same can be applied the the Henry's and Charles'. There might be a case for Henry, but Charles I was the son of James I of England and the VI of Scotland. Henry VIII was the first King to bring Ireland into the realm.

Donald

<>

Okay...
I don't see how you can compare Cromwell to Hitler. As I said before Cromwell was offered dictatorship and turned not only because of the aforementioned risk of power going to his head but because he genuinely believed that no one man ahould wield such power. Hitler took dictatorship of Germany by force.

I wasn't comparing them per se, merely in terms of apologist revisionist history.

OK one dimensional portrayals of either as unaterable demons is innacurate but I wouldn't get too hung up on feeling sorry for Cromwell.

OK, I don't know about Charles. But there has never been a King of the United Kingdom called Henry. So he'd be Henry I. Henry VIII was the King of England and he was also independently the King of Ireland, but there was no Union, and he certainly wasn't the King of Scotland.

I think the most likely thing would be that he'd become Henry IX of England and I of the UK.

If we're talking about the most likely thing, then he'll follow the example of his mother. Elizabeth is Elizabeth II even though there was never an Elizabeth I. But she's the Queen, so she can call herself anything she likes.

Anyway, when have you ever heard of Elizabeth II () being referred to as the Queen of Scotland? Or Queen of the United Kingdom? I've only actually heard her referred to as the Queen of England, thus making the II part entirely accurate.

Or Queen of Canada, or Queen of Australia, or Queen of New Zealand or any of the many places.
Most people who live in them probably have heard the title. I haven't much, but then i don't live in those countries.

Anyway, to get back to the Civil War, there was this bloke called Cromwell...

Did you know that he pronounced it Crummle.