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
Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The Devil's Whore
[quote=""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?[/quote]
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.
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.
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? 
He was just an egomaniac usurper.
OK, I'll calm down now!
He was just an egomaniac usurper.OK, I'll calm down now!
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.
I wouldn't have found his anti-catholicism pleasent, far from it.
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!
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
- Bibliomaniac
- Posts: 4326
- Joined: August 2008
- Currently reading: The Farm at the Edge of the World by Sarah Vaughan
- Interest in HF: The first historical novel I read was Katherine by Anya Seton and this sparked off my interest in this genre.
- Favourite HF book: Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell!
- Preferred HF: Any
- Location: North Yorkshire, UK
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
I agree with you about each to their own.
I agree with you about each to their own.
currently reading: My Books on Goodreads
Books are mirrors, you only see in them what you already have inside you ~ The Shadow of the Wind
Books are mirrors, you only see in them what you already have inside you ~ The Shadow of the Wind
[quote=""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![/quote]
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!
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![/quote]
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!
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.
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.
[quote=""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.[/quote]
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.
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.[/quote]
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.