The Devil's Whore

[Christina]

What an utterly bizarre series :rolleyes:! Set in the middle of the English Civil War, it is the most trite piece of work imaginable.
The usual bodice-ripping yarn with ridiculous lines like, "Will you swim naked with with Madam?" - said from a kind of servant to the eponymous heroine - and the non-sequitur of her being one minute down-and-out in London, mistaken for a prostitute - and 'accidentally' murdering a would-be client - followed by a swift return to her riches...with occasional glimpses of the devil (complete with horns) luring her away. Then, some strange and ill-thought-out political speeches that seem to be aimed at today "redistribution of wealth...no one can have more than X amount of money....etc. etc." Utterly bizarre!! :confused:

What I do find quite objectionable, though, is the portrayal of Charles I as a completely bombastic idiot. The 'real' men are the 'revolutionaries' fired up by their dreams. The others just cling to power...Without making this political...funny how the 'revolutionaries' who seized power from the kings (who loved their countries and their people) were in love with their own egos and the desire to force everyone else to fit their view of the world, far more than people like Charles I ever did! :mad:

"The Devil's Whore" is really a lot of slapdash nonsense and I wonder if anyone else can make any sense of it??

[Vanessa]

I've been watching it but I don't watch it as if it's a true representation of that era, just a drama really. It's what I would call a romp. Total tish tosh! LOL. However, I'm quite enjoying it for what it is.

[Perdita]

There are a few glitches in it.. some things are left unexplained, such as how Sexby managed to get a job as a hangman so he could save Angelica. Charles was a hideous character in TDW but I don't think any of the characters are being portrayed as perfect. Oliver Cromwell comes across as a complete backstabber and the massacre in Ireland wasn't watered down.
I'm really enjoying it, even with all its devil weirdness!

[Madeleine]

I'm just watching it as a drama as well, I am finding the "history" a bit confusing so have just decided to go with the story - I think the writers made it clear that it's not historically accurate (in some of the interviews I've read in the TV guides) and Angelica didn't exist as an actual person, and Sexby did exist but wasn't the same as the way he's portrayed in the show, so I think they intended it to be viewed as a drama with that period of history as its background.

[Carla]

I haven't seen it (buried in work) - but from what I've heard I think I can bear the disappointment :-)

Does anyone remember a TV series from years ago called By the Sword Divided? It covered most of the English Civil War from the point of view of a fictional family - one sister was a staunch Royalist, and the other was married to a Parliamentarian. I seem to remember it was quite good, but that might be only nostalgia :-)

[Leo62]

Well...I like it :D

It is kind of nuts, and pretty confusing at times. I think they tried to cover too much in too short a time. Shame - cos it's a fascinating period.


And - I thought Charles I *was* a bombastic idiot - wasn't he? :eek:

[boswellbaxter]

I haven't seen it (buried in work) - but from what I've heard I think I can bear the disappointment :-)

Does anyone remember a TV series from years ago called By the Sword Divided? It covered most of the English Civil War from the point of view of a fictional family - one sister was a staunch Royalist, and the other was married to a Parliamentarian. I seem to remember it was quite good, but that might be only nostalgia :-)

I remember watching it and enjoying it. I knew nil about the history behind it at the time I saw it, though.

[Christina]

And - I thought Charles I *was* a bombastic idiot - wasn't he? :eek:

Oh :p :)...I like him. I know he was bombastic and believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but he wasn't an idiot - he was intellectually far more gifted than he is given credit for, I think. And, in spite of what is generally written, the main objection that horribly nasty Oliver Cromwell :mad: had to him was religious rather than any concern for the people.

Well, I accept the programme as a drama (albeit an odd one :confused: with the strange devil appearing) but a rather mediocre one compared to so many others. I think I remember 'By the Sword Dividied' but I might be confusing it with another old series that I really enjoyed, also set during the Civil War: "Children of the New Forest."

(And speaking of civil wars...on a completely different subject and on a different continent...I also really enjoyed Gettysburg - in spite of the false beards!!)

[Madeleine]

There are some good beards in DW as well! I vaguely remember By the Sword but don't think I watched it. Must admit I'm a bit bemused by the Devil's appearances too but perhaps he represents how superstitious people were in those days?

Perdita - I don't think Sexby got the job as hangman, my impression was that he killed the proper hangman, as when he went into the hut you saw a pair of legs hanging, so I'm assuming he bumped off the hangman so that he could take his place to save Angelica.

[Perdita]

Perdita - I don't think Sexby got the job as hangman, my impression was that he killed the proper hangman, as when he went into the hut you saw a pair of legs hanging, so I'm assuming he bumped off the hangman so that he could take his place to save Angelica.[/QUOTE]

Oh right, that bit confused me! So that was the proper hangman, thanks :)

Sexby is so sweet, I really want Angelica to change her mind about him in the final episode

[Leo62]

Oh :p :)...I like him. I know he was bombastic and believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but he wasn't an idiot - he was intellectually far more gifted than he is given credit for, I think. And, in spite of what is generally written, the main objection that horribly nasty Oliver Cromwell :mad: had to him was religious rather than any concern for the people. continent...I also really enjoyed Gettysburg - in spite of the false beards!!)

LOL :D I always rather liked Oliver Cromwell, but then I'm not Irish ;) I think its because I saw the movie "Cromwell" at an impressionable age, and I've always had a bit of a thing for Richard Harris :eek: And Alec Guinness will always be Charles I in my eyes!

The Devil thing - people were forever seeing devils lurking around in the 17th Century - I think they're trying to bring in a sense of the fervent religiosity of the era. But I agree it does seem odd and jarring. The whole thing feels rushed to me, as if it were originally meant to be about 10 episodes and they had to squash it down into 4.

[Christina]

The Devil thing - people were forever seeing devils lurking around in the 17th Century .

Huge :D!!! Must have been an excess of meade or something!! Ah ha! So Richard Harris is to blame! I'm afraid I simply cannot stand a man who banned doing anything on a Sunday except reading the Bible (totally contrary to what it actually says in the Bible!!); who banned Maypole dancing (which, happily we still do today); who banned Christmas...and basically banned anything that was fun...:eek:

I must confess, too, that part of my liking for Charles, is simply that I liked the look of the Cavaliers' flashy clothes more than the Roundheads' :D - and Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, Vicky, the brilliant, brilliant Empress Frederick of Germany, was such a huge fan of Charles I, that she quite persuaded me (not personally! I mean reading her letters) to see him from her point of view.

[Leo62]

Huge :D!!! Must have been an excess of meade or something!! Ah ha! So Richard Harris is to blame! I'm afraid I simply cannot stand a man who banned doing anything on a Sunday except reading the Bible (totally contrary to what it actually says in the Bible!!); who banned Maypole dancing (which, happily we still do today); who banned Christmas...and basically banned anything that was fun...:eek:

Did he really do that? I thought a lot of that stuff was myth, or Restoration propaganda ;)

I must confess, too, that part of my liking for Charles, is simply that I liked the look of the Cavaliers' flashy clothes more than the Roundheads' :D
LOL it always seems to come down to the clothes doesn't it? ;)

In the hairy 70's I was bored stiff by anything to do with the 17th Century cos they all looked like beardy hippies to me. Today, now that shorn looks are the thing, those flowing locks and cool hats are starting to look rather good. :cool:

[Christina]

Well, I must confess it's a weakness! I love men with long hair (well, I don't mean aging pop stars with grey pony tails - I mean Cavalier-type locks!!) and that dashing cad appearance - so much more attractive than miserable Puritan Roundheads.

I think Cromwell was a nasty man and he I think he did ban Maypoles etc. as Pagan and I am not completely sure about that. The biggest bugbear about it all is that I feel whenever a king has been overthrown, it is nearly always by a dictator who proved to be far more of a tyrant than the so-called tyrant he was overthrowing. (Lenin the prime example of that along with the horrors of the French Revolution and The Terror). If Cromwell had been 'okay', we wouldn't have got the king back...and unlike many of our neighbours, we've kept a monarch ever since - the experience of Cromwell was so bad, we didn't want a repeat of it. (Though, with the present government, we're pretty much heading the same way...Couldn't believe my ears when I heard Gordon Brown compare himself to Heathcliffe -err????????? yeah right!! Bonkers and haunted by the past - the comparison stops there!! LOL)

[Vanessa]

Couldn't believe my ears when I heard Gordon Brown compare himself to Heathcliffe -err????????? yeah right!! Bonkers and haunted by the past - the comparison stops there!! LOL)

:eek::eek::eek: Well, I suppose Heathcliffe wasn't a very nice character.... but he did know exactly what he was doing....... unlike GB!

[Madeleine]

I always thought Heathcliff was a bit of a psycho myself!

[Vanessa]

So perhaps there's some truth in it?????

[Leo62]

[QUOTE=Christina;14349Gordon Brown compare himself to Heathcliffe [/QUOTE]

He...did...what? :eek:


Does that make Alastair Darling Cathy? :D

[Volgadon]

Huge :D!!! Must have been an excess of meade or something!! Ah ha! So Richard Harris is to blame! I'm afraid I simply cannot stand a man who banned doing anything on a Sunday except reading the Bible (totally contrary to what it actually says in the Bible!!); who banned Maypole dancing (which, happily we still do today); who banned Christmas...and basically banned anything that was fun...:eek:

I must confess, too, that part of my liking for Charles, is simply that I liked the look of the Cavaliers' flashy clothes more than the Roundheads' :D - and Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, Vicky, the brilliant, brilliant Empress Frederick of Germany, was such a huge fan of Charles I, that she quite persuaded me (not personally! I mean reading her letters) to see him from her point of view.

That is a bit of a myth. Cromwell didn't ban Christmas. The Long Parliament abolished the feasts on Christmas and several other major ones. To compensate they did declare the 2nd Teusday of every month a secular holiday, much like modern bank holidays. The objection to the Christmas feast was twofold. One, it was seen as a Roman Catholic practice and two, it was wasteful, extravagant and full of drunkeness and lewd behaviour. Rather like the carnival in Rio de Janeiro, but with less decorum.
The ban wasn't very effective anyway.
He didn't ban maypoles either!!
Cromwell was not against fun, that is a myth. He was against drunkeness and rioting. Most of his actions were actually very pragmatic. The sort of thing which went on in theatres, pubs (the wilder sort) and racecourses wasn't good for the public order, but even worse than that they were often a hotbed of Royalist conspiracies. By clamping down on those places, Cromwell was dealing with a major threat. He wasn't against drinking, he was against drinking to excess, he wasn't against dancing, he was against the loose morals. He loved music and practical jokes.

Not all Parliamentarians were Puritans and not all Royalists were Cavaliers, in fact there were many Puritans among them. Not all Puritans were roundheads either. Cavalier had less to do with court fashions and more to do with your political outlooks. Fashions on both sides were pretty similar.

[Perdita]

Cromwell did close down the theatres and he made England a pretty joyless place to be. What's wrong with a bit of drunkeness and rioting?!!

[Leo62]

That is a bit of a myth. Cromwell didn't ban Christmas. The Long Parliament abolished the feasts on Christmas and several other major ones. To compensate they did declare the 2nd Teusday of every month a secular holiday, much like modern bank holidays. The objection to the Christmas feast was twofold. One, it was seen as a Roman Catholic practice and two, it was wasteful, extravagant and full of drunkeness and lewd behaviour. Rather like the carnival in Rio de Janeiro, but with less decorum.
The ban wasn't very effective anyway.
He didn't ban maypoles either!!
Cromwell was not against fun, that is a myth. He was against drunkeness and rioting. Most of his actions were actually very pragmatic. The sort of thing which went on in theatres, pubs (the wilder sort) and racecourses wasn't good for the public order, but even worse than that they were often a hotbed of Royalist conspiracies. By clamping down on those places, Cromwell was dealing with a major threat. He wasn't against drinking, he was against drinking to excess, he wasn't against dancing, he was against the loose morals. He loved music and practical jokes.

Not all Parliamentarians were Puritans and not all Royalists were Cavaliers, in fact there were many Puritans among them. Not all Puritans were roundheads either. Cavalier had less to do with court fashions and more to do with your political outlooks. Fashions on both sides were pretty similar.

Thank-you :)

There is SO much mythology about this period. I had no idea until I started reading some of the real history - which is much more interesting.

[Volgadon]

I'm actually rather sceptical of Cromwell turning England joyless.

[Perdita]

He did some good as well, like promoting religious tolerance (for everyone except Catholics!)
I just have the image of England being a bit grey and miserable during the Cromwell years then springling back into life with the Restoration. Having said that, I haven't done much reading on the subject lately but this is the angle that was taught at my school

[alice]

I'm watching TDW, and it is a bit barmy, but in a good way. I also remember BTSD. I used to love Sunday nights with that preceded by Ever Decreasing Circles, when my children were small, ah happy days :)!

I actually agree with Volgadon and Leo. Cromwell wasn't the killjoy he's painted as. And for all the "glamour" and the nice clothes etc. of the Stuarts, you couldn't trust them as far as you could throw them. Cromwell was in fact a lot more tolerant than he's portrayed, regarding other religions. He lifted the ban on Jews which Richard 1 had implemented, and allowed them back into the country. I believe his best friend was a Catholic too. You have to remember where lots of the anti-Cromwell stuff comes from. The Stuarts returned, and history is always written by the victors, and most historians, whether they admit it or not, will have their own bias. The Restoration happened because Cromwell died and his son wasn't up to the job, leaving the way clear for C11 to return. We have a parliamentary democracy now, where the monarchy are just figureheads and cannot play fast and loose with the public, as C1 so obviously did, hence his demise. We have a lot to thank Cromwell for, as whether you like the government or not, you can change them. Not every country can say the same.

[Perdita]

It's true, we're usually taught to take the victor's side which is why even now we generalise about the Puritans being dour and the Cavaliers being fun and glamourous. Of course it wasn't that simple.. both sides were right and wrong in their different ways. I admire Cromwell for allowing the Jews back into the country and for his progressive attitude to women but despise him for what he did in Ireland. And for allegedly banning Christmas, mince pies and the theatre!! Is that really a myth? I had always believed that he banned those things?

[Vanessa]

Here (http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs4.htm) you go. I also found this (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cromwell_england.htm). It looks like Christmas was banned but not personally by Cromwell.

However, I'm glad Christmas was reinstated!!!!:D And I can't actually get my head round (no pun intended) the fact that we executed a king. I know it's about power, etc, but I still find it bizarre.

[Perdita]

Fascinating articles, thanks Vanessa :) The Cromwell Society's article said that December 25th was a day of 'fasting and humiliation.' :eek:
The other article said that puritan soldiers went around scrubbing make-up off women in the street! I don't think I'd have enjoyed living under Cromwell's regime...

[Vanessa]

Nor would I. I am a bit of a royalist, though.:D

[Perdita]

Me too! I just love all the tradition that goes with the Royal Family, it's camp and funny. Give me Queen Elizabeth over Gordon Brown any day :)

[Madeleine]

There was an article in one of the Sunday papers about Cromwell's head! Apparently there is a new book out which traces its' adventures; it was put on display for a while until someone took it and stuffed it up his chimney for several years, then after that it travelled around for a while, but it finally ended up somehow back in Cambridge where it was buried in the grounds of one of the colleges as recently as 1960 - only a few people know its' whereabouts in case, presumably, someone digs it up and it goes off on its' travels again!

[Leo62]

Blimey :eek:


I'm amazed at how much we're all getting excited and taking sides over this whole issue...show it's still a live one I guess, even after 400 years :D

[Perdita]

Yep, Cromwell's a Marmite kind of guy - you either love him or hate him! The book about his head sounds interesting, it's certainly had some adventures

[Volgadon]

It's true, we're usually taught to take the victor's side which is why even now we generalise about the Puritans being dour and the Cavaliers being fun and glamourous. Of course it wasn't that simple.. both sides were right and wrong in their different ways. I admire Cromwell for allowing the Jews back into the country and for his progressive attitude to women but despise him for what he did in Ireland. And for allegedly banning Christmas, mince pies and the theatre!! Is that really a myth? I had always believed that he banned those things?

Right but revolting vs. wrong but wromantic. Like most cliches it gets tedious.
In my first post I pointed out that the Christmas partying was abolished for a little while, but not by Cromwell.
Mince pies as such were not banned, it was the practice of having baked dough figurines of the Christ Child which was found objectionable. Far too close to Catholic customs and imagery for their liking. Catholicism was the threat which loomed largest in their minds, much like the fear of anything Muslim in 2001 but even worse.
Theatres were frequently shut down, by the Stuarts as much as by Cromwell.
If the accounts of soldiers wiping makeup off of women's faces is true, then I think you'll find that relates to fighting prostitution as much as anything.
For the record I neither hate nor love Ollie but I like to get past the myths.

[Perdita]

It's exactly that rabid anti-Catholic prejudice that puts me off him, Volgadon. I can't help it, I'm Catholic myself so I'm naturally not going to like the man. I don't think that most ordinary people in the street would have found baked dough figurines of Jesus offensive - more than likely it was just part of the celebrations. Remember that England had been a Catholic country until about 100 years previously. Old traditions die hard. And who elected Cromwell to be the spokesman for our national sensibilities anyway? :confused: He was just an egomaniac usurper.
OK, I'll calm down now! :)

[Volgadon]

Of course they were part of the celebrations, but it was percieved as a Catholic habit, worrisome because if the people clung to old habits of that sort Catholicism had a foot in the door. I'm not justifiying the unjustifiable, but we need to understand what drove people. The Catholic Church posed a major threat (from their POV) to their way of life, to something which they had devoted their lives to.
I wouldn't have found his anti-catholicism pleasent, far from it.

[Christina]

This is not really 'my' era so I don't speak with any authority at all and am happy to have learned from so many other posts. What I really object to - and this comes so often from those who seize thrones from kings! - is that idea of knowing better than everyone else how they should live. If people want to get drunk and squander fortunes gambling or paying for prostitutes, what business is it of the government? People like Cromwell assume the divine right to know what's best for everyone else, more than those who claim the divine right of kings.
Oh those endless wars of religion are too, too, too ridiculous!! They had nothing whatsoever to do with faith/beliefs and everything to do with power. If someone wants to eat a Jesus-shaped cake, so what? Like Jesus would care!! If someone wants to have stained-glass windows and statues, what's it got to do with anyone else? Power...power...power - that's what it's all about. The sheer arrogance of men like Cromwell (and dozens of others throughout history) is so mind-blowing. The weirdest thing is that so many people just accept/accepted that 'someone else knows best'.

Oh Leo...Alistair Darling is Cathy!! LOL. Actually I think the two of them (Darling and Brown) would be better appearing in panto as the ugly sisters!! Oh no they wouldn't! Oh yes they would!

[Vanessa]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

I agree with you about each to their own.

[Perdita]

This is not really 'my' era so I don't speak with any authority at all and am happy to have learned from so many other posts. What I really object to - and this comes so often from those who seize thrones from kings! - is that idea of knowing better than everyone else how they should live. If people want to get drunk and squander fortunes gambling or paying for prostitutes, what business is it of the government? People like Cromwell assume the divine right to know what's best for everyone else, more than those who claim the divine right of kings.
Oh those endless wars of religion are too, too, too ridiculous!! They had nothing whatsoever to do with faith/beliefs and everything to do with power. If someone wants to eat a Jesus-shaped cake, so what? Like Jesus would care!! If someone wants to have stained-glass windows and statues, what's it got to do with anyone else? Power...power...power - that's what it's all about. The sheer arrogance of men like Cromwell (and dozens of others throughout history) is so mind-blowing. The weirdest thing is that so many people just accept/accepted that 'someone else knows best'.

Oh Leo...Alistair Darling is Cathy!! LOL. Actually I think the two of them (Darling and Brown) would be better appearing in panto as the ugly sisters!! Oh no they wouldn't! Oh yes they would!

Hear, hear to that! And the cheek of the man to assume that women wearing makeup were prostitiutes. Lots of women wore makeup - didn't make them prostitutes. I think the final episode of TDW drove home what a total d**khead he was.

Anyway, Gordon and Alistair have saved the world! :D

[Volgadon]

Heavily made up women on the street were almost invariably prostitutes.
Honestly, I'm not to sure about Cromwell being some sort of super-egotisitical power-hungry usurper. One has to bear in mind that he was an elected official, that he had been involved in politics for years, had been looking out for his community for years before that and had fought a war for the rights of the community (as far as the concept extended in the 1600s). Then, as the leader of nation he is meant to make decisions to look after the public welfare and I would say that he took that a lot more seriously than the Stuarts, whose concept of government was the nation is meant to look after their welfare first and foremost. Government, any government, is usually based on someone else knowing best, unless of course you are the leader.
If Cromwell was that power hungry why did he wait several years before seizing power? It is not as if he lacked the ability to do so.
A strong case could be made for his being misguided, but a power hungry nut? I'm not sure the evidence justifies the conclusion.

[alice]

Heavily made up women on the street were almost invariably prostitutes.
Honestly, I'm not to sure about Cromwell being some sort of super-egotisitical power-hungry usurper. One has to bear in mind that he was an elected official, that he had been involved in politics for years, had been looking out for his community for years before that and had fought a war for the rights of the community (as far as the concept extended in the 1600s). Then, as the leader of nation he is meant to make decisions to look after the public welfare and I would say that he took that a lot more seriously than the Stuarts, whose concept of government was the nation is meant to look after their welfare first and foremost. Government, any government, is usually based on someone else knowing best, unless of course you are the leader.
If Cromwell was that power hungry why did he wait several years before seizing power? It is not as if he lacked the ability to do so.
A strong case could be made for his being misguided, but a power hungry nut? I'm not sure the evidence justifies the conclusion.

I agree. When he "seized power" wasn't he taking control over a parliament which had become lazy and self-serving, and was behaving in its own interests, making a mockery of everything that had happened previously? If he hadn't, then everything would have slipped back to how it had been, and what would have been the point of deposing a king? If we look further than the anti-Cromwellian myth which has been perpetrated down the centuries, and read between the lines of history, he was not the monster he is portrayed as. What happened in Ireland is a stain on his reputation, but again, we need to be certain of the facts, as there is some dispute about what took place there. I am not defending him if he did commit horrific murder on woman and children, but wasn't the "witness" far from an unbiased observer? I will have to check back, but I studied this in my degree, and I'm sure there was some dispute about the incident. I could be wrong, but I'm trying to be fair, and not just believe the "anti" side without questioning.

[Christina]

Ultimately, it's not - as I wrote before - my era but the fact is that, after killing a king, he must have created a worse society or why else did we want our king again? I just can't be doing with those who claim to act for our good. Kings and queens - in my limited experience - don't do that. Kings and queens represent us (not always as a true picture but as all we aspire to be). Those politicians who take over, claim to care more about us and simply impose some kind of paternal welfare onto us as though we are in need of that, simply stifle individual aspirations and freedom and impose their own views. This is, perhaps, why I love the monarchy in Britain and so dislike the person who - in himself might have been a perfectly okay guy till he took up government - decided to rule rather than to represent. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..." so the saying goes - but those who are born to power seldom want it; those who seek power, always, in my view misuse it.
Why not have no power handed to others? A constitutional monarch (like our lovely Queen :-)) and no ridiculous Cromwell-type politicians telling us what's best for us as though we are imbeciles?
I just think those whole idea of someone coming in, killing a king, and being so self-righteous is abhorrent. If he had spoken for what people really wanted, we would still be a republic today. We don't work that way (in spite of what the 'ugly sisters' who 'saved the world' would have us believe). Socialism/communism/puritanism (in fact any -ism) has never worked in any culture or country anywhere because it deprives people of their individuality.

[Vanessa]

I agree with you, Christina.

[Leo62]

Ultimately, it's not - as I wrote before - my era but the fact is that, after killing a king, he must have created a worse society or why else did we want our king again? I just can't be doing with those who claim to act for our good. Kings and queens - in my limited experience - don't do that. Kings and queens represent us (not always as a true picture but as all we aspire to be). Those politicians who take over, claim to care more about us and simply impose some kind of paternal welfare onto us as though we are in need of that, simply stifle individual aspirations and freedom and impose their own views. This is, perhaps, why I love the monarchy in Britain and so dislike the person who - in himself might have been a perfectly okay guy till he took up government - decided to rule rather than to represent. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..." so the saying goes - but those who are born to power seldom want it; those who seek power, always, in my view misuse it.
Why not have no power handed to others? A constitutional monarch (like our lovely Queen :-)) and no ridiculous Cromwell-type politicians telling us what's best for us as though we are imbeciles?
I just think those whole idea of someone coming in, killing a king, and being so self-righteous is abhorrent. If he had spoken for what people really wanted, we would still be a republic today. We don't work that way (in spite of what the 'ugly sisters' who 'saved the world' would have us believe). Socialism/communism/puritanism (in fact any -ism) has never worked in any culture or country anywhere because it deprives people of their individuality.

Don't forget, you are able to say that because we have a monarch as a figurehead without any real power. If we had a monarchy where the King/Queen had (or tried to have) absolute power, like the Stuarts, then it might well be a different matter. There are plenty of examples of despotic and oppressive monarchs in our history - often they are not remembered as such because they had absolute control over the cultural discourse of their times so no-one dared criticise them (just like modern dictators).

[Perdita]

But in the end Oliver Cromwell wasn't any different - he didn't tolerate criticism of any kind either. Nobody elected Oliver. Although this isn't really my era, I get the feeling it was something like a military dictatorship.

[Volgadon]

Umm, puritanism WAS about individualism. Not only did they encourage personal study of the Bible and personal interaction with God, but they also worked on education and tried to give the congregation a say in church government. This all rested in the hands of the bishops, which were used by the king to control the people on a local and pretty intrusive level.

The biggest reason I think that people welcomed the monarchy back was because there had been a king for centuries upon centuries. People are creatures of habit, they go with the familiar.
It is worth bearing in mind that before executing Chas, a few years had gone by with increasing attempts by Charles to seize back his throne, little things like arranging an invasion of England by the covenanters.

Charles's reign was far more oppresive than Cromwell's (though neither would be wonderful to live under). I can't think of a single reform carried out with the public interest in mind. Parliament and the people were there to serve the king. Charles resurected many outdated laws and statutes aimed at tightening his grip and extracting money for his own ends.
Military dictatorship? How about Charles's use of the star chamber to crush opposition, the star chamber being a court subject only to the king, which he usualy convened in secret, with no chance of appeal or effective defence (if any at all).
Extensive censorship and severe punishment meted out to those who didn't comply, fines for those who didn't attend church, need I go on.

not sure how this is seen as somehow better because of pretty clothes and splendid boozeups.

Cromwell had his faults, I am far more sympathetic to Lilburne, but I do get the impression that Cromwell acted with the nation's interests at heart. If you are in such a position for a while it is natural that you begin thinking that nobody else would be able to handle it without making a pig's breakfast of things.

I would say that the only way in which he resembled Charles was that they both held power. Pretty superficial conclusion, the comparative reigns need to be looked at in depth.