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

no, I just thought it was a very well known term from when I first encountered it years ago and people thought it odd I didn;t know. No insult or condescension was meant

We use fenestrate and defenestrate in prosthetics quite a lot.

Isn't chucking people's replacement limbs out of the window a bit cruel?

To add/remove air holes in a socket.

Close Mr Dreadful, actually I use it because he's a favourite baddy of mine in Nethack which is a roleplaying computer game.
Same demon though.

I'd dispute the idea that the republican regimes (both the Commonwealth of which Cromwell was not the head of state and the Protectorate of which he was) were worse than the monarchy of Charles I. Certainly weren't for Jews or Protestant religious dissenters. The monarchy that returned to power was not as powerful as it had previously been as James II found out.

Nethack...

*Goes all misty eyed*

Re: Differences between Oliver Cromwell and Adolf Hitler.

Cromwell had warts and Hitler had a little moustache and one testicle.

Any help?

Cromwell had a better hairstyle than Hitler as well.

Here's an interesting link for those who think the regime of Cromwell was lovely...

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cromwell_england.htm

I think it is generally fair although it does claim that he "banned" christmas which is a little over the top from what I've read elsewhere, certainly he didn't 'personally' ban it. It also is at odds with what others have said above regarding the Irish massacres.

Contrast with Charles I's regime in which there appears to be little of the boorish nature of the puritan's regime. Mostly it appears that Charles was, as so eloquently put earlier, an arse. It was largely his insistence on 'do as I say' and his poor man management skills that were to blame for the hole he got himself into than any out and out tyranny in the style of Saddam Hussein.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/personality_charles_01.shtml

Surely Charles I had the best hairstyle of all

<<Certainly weren't for Jews or Protestant religious dissenters. <<

Fair point but then the Protestant religious dissenters were in power under Cromwell so it would be better for them would it not. I believe they had a penchant for religious persecution the other way though.

>>The monarchy that returned to power was not as powerful as it had previously been as James II found out.<<

Indeed but it took until James the II and the glorious revolution for the reforms to really come about. If the Puritans had led a more liberal and tolerant regime then maybe it would have happened in their lifetime rather than taking another 40 years.
James II didn't help matters by playing the religion card once more, an arse, like his father

I wouldn't claim the republican regime was particularly liberal or tolerant but the monarchy didn't return to power by popular demand (any more than the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was actually a revolution). These were disputes within the upper-classes about who really ruled the country.

<>

I think Blackberry was maybe referring to the Diggers and the Levellers - politically radical protstant groups suppressed fter the civil war.

Noggin

How much was religion a factor in the Levellers and Diggers?

I wasn't specifically referring to the Levellers and Diggers. After all Cromwell suppressed the Levellers.
Hard to tell how important religion was to them. Religion was such an important part of life that even political debate was full of religious references.

The only history I've read of this was in 'The Isles' by Norman Davies a year or two ago. Certainly Cromwell doesn't come out of it smelling of roses. I was absolutely gobsmacked by the religious hatred for Catholics by Protestants, and vice versa. Cromwell was a sectarian bigot, no two ways about it. It was a disgraceful period in British history, with massacres in Ireland and Scotland (see header).

I think calling it The War of the Three Kingdoms gives a better idea of what really happened, after all, Charles WAS still the king of Scotland and Ireland when he was killed.

Both Cromwell and Charles I were by the standards of the time tolerant in religious matters, just of different groups of people.

That's an interesting point pedro, and no doubt it's often overlooked.

On Cromwell being a sectarian bigot don't forget this was happening just after the 30 Years War in Germany. Catholicism was as intolerant of Protestantism as any Protestant was of Catholicism.

As for the massacres in Ireland 1 consisted of executing a garrision that refused to surrender, normal practice for the period, and the other was a case of soldiers getting out of control and running riot in a town whose defenders were wearing civilian clothing.

You're judging Cromwell by modern standards. Try comparing him to his contemporaries before you judge.

Hmm, I thought I'd made it clear what I thought of all of them, you know, the 'gobsmacked' bit?

I liked the book I mentioned, on this period anyway. I really was sickened by the zealotry by all sides, it's not the 'we'll muddle through' attitude that seems to prevail in British history.


Dubya would've felt quite at home there, except maybe he'd have run off to France while the actual fighting was going on...