Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them. Winstanley said, “Cromwell was the English monster who tried to destroy our monarchy.” William Winstanley, a writer and diarist, was a strong Royalist. He was also known as “The Man Who Saved Christmas”. His opinion could be thought of as biased because he was a Royalist the opposite of Cromwell, the Parliamentarian. This would mean he had beliefs completely different. He experienced life under Cromwell’s power, lived through the civil war and would have witnessed how harsh Cromwell could be. This would of course taint any view he had of the man. Winstanley came from a wealthy family and would not have suffered the same as poor people and with being a Royalist this meant that he risked getting on the wrong side of Cromwell. Another factor was that Cromwell cancelled Christmas for 18 years so was a real life Scrooge and it was not celebrated again till after Cromwell’s death. Winstanley continued celebrating the holiday and it is probably due to him that Christmas is not just another frosty day. The monarchy had only just been reformed in 1660 so when Winstanley made this statement, little time had passed. However, with Cromwell being heavily involved in the trial and ex... ... middle of paper ... ... understand that side of Cromwell. Winstanley is a partly dependable resource as he lived at the time of Cromwell. His differing view from Cromwell must have influenced his opinion but his statement is for the most part based in truth, other than the personal insult of calling Cromwell ‘the English monster’. Roseberry is possibly the least believable as he was writing over 200 years after the matter and his opinions were tainted by the things happening at the time i.e. the Boer War, etc. He was a Liberal and well educated and this could hint that he was capable of analysing the evidence well, so it is difficult to know how accurate his statement is and he could be using Cromwell’s previous success to influence current matters. It is important to understand the background of the person doing the reporting of events as it can influence what they think and say.
The first of these is Religion. Charles came under attack from, in simple terms, the Protestants and the Catholics. He had this attack on him for many different reasons. He was resented by the Catholics, because he was a protestant. To be more precise, he was an Arminian, which was a sector from the protestant side of Christianity. On the other side of the spectrum, he is resented by the puritans, as they see him as too close in his religious views to Catholicism. Furthermore, he is disliked by the puritans as he put restrictions on their preaching and themselves. The puritans were a well organised opposition to Personal rule. The top puritans, linked through family and friends, organised a network of potential opposition to the king and his personal rule. This ‘Godly party’ as they became known, was made up of gentry, traders, lawyers and even lords. This group of powerful and extremely influential people was the most well organised opposition to Charles’ personal rule.
The claim that Thomas Cromwell carried out a revolution in Tudor government was generated by the historian Elton, the success of Cromwell as minister in his aims of sovereignty, Parliament and bureaucracy under King Henry VIII. Elton’s claims are met with many sceptic opponents such as Starkey and Guy, criticising that Cromwell’s work up to 1540 was anything but revolution, it was a mere pragmatic approach to fulfilling the king’s wishes which led to his escalation of power and a lucky set of consequential changes in government. The criticisms seem plausible when taking into consideration that Cromwell’s reformations within the Tudor government were not permanent, his work was quickly undone after his death. The work of Cromwell in government was hardly a revolutionary movement as it failed to deeply imprint itself upon England but it is undeniable that he made significant changes to England at the peak of his professional career.
He accused Bacon of being an Atheist and a Rebel who tried to rid the Colony of “Religion and Laws”(Governor William Berkely on Bacon's Rebellion 19 May 1676.). According to Berkeley, Bacon thought that the laws were beneath him and has constantly “dishonor[ed] the English Nation” (Governor William Berkely on Bacon's Rebellion 19 May 1676.). William Berkeley did all that he could to tarnish Bacon and his accusations.
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
That is not to say there was no opposition to the reformation, for it was rife and potentially serious. The opposition came from both the upper and lower classes, from the monks and nuns and from foreign European powers. This opposition however, was cleverly minimised from the outset, Cromwell’s master plan ensured court opposition was minimal and new acts, oaths and decrees prevented groups and individuals from publicly voicing their dissatisfaction. Those who continued to counter such policies were ruthlessly and swiftly dealt with, often by execution, and used as examples to discourage others. Henry’s desire for a nation free of foreign religious intervention, total sovereign independence, a yearning of church wealth and the desire for a divorce sewed the seeds for reform.
Howgill lifts these choice words as an allusion to Proverbs. The allusion is made to exhibit how Cromwell is now wicked and does not know the consequences that he will stumble upon from persecuting Quakers and turning his back on God. Howgill makes another allusion to II Timothy: “Them who suffer with him shall reign with him.” (903). The allusion used is Howgill’s attempt to foreshadow that Quakers will reap reward in the long run and illuminates that Cromwell’s glory will be short-lived by God’s divine call.
In the book Letters of Horace Walpole, the author Toynbee placed together a collection of letters Horace Walpole the Fourth Earl of Orford, wrote. In this volume Walpole writes to many acquaintances ranging from Reverends to Dukes during the time period 1771 to 1774. Horace Walpole, a man of letters and Whig politician is the son of the first Prime Minister Robert Walpole (Langford). He is most famous for his correspondences he wrote at his house Strawberry Hill (Langford). In this document Walpole is writing to the Earl of Strafford. The Earl of Strafford with the name William Wentworth is an English nobleman during the 1700s. In this message to the Earl of Strafford Horace Walpole gives an in depth look into the thoughts and ideals of Englishman during the Eighteenth Century.
London and the English Civil War: A Lecture by Professor Barry Coward of Birkbeck College given to the Friends of Senate House Library, 7 March 2005
...h the freedom to choose religion), and the Presbyterians (who wanted a strict Calvinist system controlled by a strong central power). The Independents dominated the war with their New Model Army, and became an unstoppable force in England. They were led by the influential and militant Oliver Cromwell (whose nickname became "Lord Protector")of the House of Commons, and captured Charles, removed the House of Lords and the Presbyterians from Parliament, and executed the "holy anointed."
Oliver Cromwell was a prominent leader during the civil war. Cromwell played a leading role in capturing Charles I to trial and execution. During the civil war, Cromwell’s military abilities commit highly to the parliamentary victory which made him appointed as the new model army leader. Also, the parliaments determined that he would end the civil war as the powerful man in England. In the selection, Edmund Ludlow criticize about the new models of government. Cromwell dislikes the idea of new models of government because he feel the new models of government would destroy the power. Also, Ludlow criticizes about Cromwell’s power is being abused too much, so he feels that the nation should governed by its own. Cromwell’s responded that the government
After King Charles I’s execution in January 1649, Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) became Lord Protector of the country. Oliver Cromwell was ruler of the country, with assistant of parliament from 25 December 1653, until his death, when his son Richard Cromwell took power. Cromwell wasn’t the king of the three kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland), but he had similar power. Over history it has been disputed whether he was a heroic, powerful saviour for the country, or an evil psychopath who took what they wanted. I have been looking at which one I believe that Cromwell was; a hero or a villain.
After our study of many accounts of the English Civil War and Charles I’s trial and execution, it is clear that discovering historical truth and writing a satisfying history are two very separate, difficult tasks, and that finding among many accounts a single “best” story is complex, if not impossible. In order to compare the job each historian did in explaining what’s important about this conflict, the following criteria can be helpful for identifying a satisfying history.
By More dying, he proved a point to himself and the public. That he was honorable and not going to succumb to the deceitful thinking of Cromwell and the King. “I have not disobeyed my sovereign. I truly believe no man in England is safer than myself.” (pg. 40)
...I interpreted what a person of the time would most likely take from the story. Overall this story had both fact and fiction. Although one could argue that The Worchester Story is indeed fact, it is more than likely an attempt by Christians of the time to strengthen and grow their religion. Modern historians should always take into account the factor of human error and human interest. Winston Churchill once said “History is written by the victors”. Although Thomas was not the victor of the duel, his story long outlasted that of George making Thomas the clear victor.
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...