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.

The Devil's Whore

User avatar
Christina
Reader
Posts: 167
Joined: November 2008
Location: Yorkshire, England
Contact:

Post by Christina » Mon December 15th, 2008, 1:03 am

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.

User avatar
Vanessa
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4272
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

Post by Vanessa » Mon December 15th, 2008, 9:41 am

I agree with you, Christina.
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

User avatar
Leo62
Bibliophile
Posts: 1027
Joined: December 2008
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Leo62 » Mon December 15th, 2008, 11:16 am

[quote=""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.[/quote]

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).

User avatar
Perdita
Reader
Posts: 146
Joined: August 2008
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Perdita » Mon December 15th, 2008, 4:54 pm

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.

User avatar
Volgadon
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 654
Joined: September 2008
Location: Israel
Contact:

Post by Volgadon » Tue December 16th, 2008, 1:00 am

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.
Last edited by Volgadon on Tue December 16th, 2008, 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Movies, Television, Radio, and Music”