Eames Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 How do you feel? Indifference, hostility, and willful if not quite gleeful ignorance -- is that about the score here? I just hope you English have a better attitude about Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell is a funny one. Over threw a monarchy to become monarch in all but name when he realised that for a King/Supreme Head of state/whatever that Parliaments and rule by consent are a pain in the arse. He was just as autocratic as the autocrats he overthrew. Is that what they meant by 'rump' parliament? Much like today there is always an arsehole in the middle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 23, 2015 Author VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2015 How do you feel? Indifference, hostility, and willful if not quite gleeful ignorance -- is that about the score here? I just hope you English have a better attitude about Oliver Cromwell. Not if they understand how he turned himself into a dictator in the end and the atrocities he committed in Ireland. The parallels between him and Napoleon are uncomfortably similar, to say the least. His example put the English/British off the idea of a republic and is probably one of the reasons we didn't have a revolution like the rest of Europe in 1848. Sorry, just teasing ... Did Cromwell's negative example have a long-term stabilsing role that lasted that long? interesting ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 23, 2015 Author VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2015 Better ask the Irish what they think of the great democrat Cromwell. yes, I am aware. He would be before the international tribunal in the Hague today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StefanAVFC Posted March 23, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 23, 2015 A child killer. Murdered his own nephews. But hey, he's royal, so that's okay then. Butchers the lot of them. The sort of Royal scumbag who reaffirms my belief in a modern Republic. Using the events of 600 years ago to support your belief in a republican system is absolutely and utterly mental. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 How do you feel? Indifference, hostility, and willful if not quite gleeful ignorance -- is that about the score here? I just hope you English have a better attitude about Oliver Cromwell. Not if they understand how he turned himself into a dictator in the end and the atrocities he committed in Ireland. The parallels between him and Napoleon are uncomfortably similar, to say the least. His example put the English/British off the idea of a republic and is probably one of the reasons we didn't have a revolution like the rest of Europe in 1848. Sorry, just teasing ... Did Cromwell's negative example have a long-term stabilsing role that lasted that long? interesting ... There is no definitive answer to that but it is usually examined as an historical question as to why England chose reform (voting reform 1832 etc) and Europeans had revolution. I think it is a reasonable assumption to explain the sort of muddle and compromise which is UK politics. Our aristocrats were very adept at just offering enough to quell the mob while keeping their privileges and heads. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 23, 2015 Author VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2015 A child killer. Murdered his own nephews. But hey, he's royal, so that's okay then. Butchers the lot of them. The sort of Royal scumbag who reaffirms my belief in a modern Republic. Using the events of 600 years ago to support your belief in a republican system is absolutely and utterly mental. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Looking forward to Cumberbatch playing him in the next round of BBC's 'Hollow Crown' series. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) How do you feel? Indifference, hostility, and willful if not quite gleeful ignorance -- is that about the score here? I just hope you English have a better attitude about Oliver Cromwell.arguably one of the greatest Englishman to have walked this earth The Irish slaughter often gets trotted out but only by people that haven't taken the trouble to fully read the events of the time I.e the lack of evidence to the slaughters ( indeed the actual evidence contradicts any suggestion of a slaughter ) there were a few revenge killings ( the Irish had butchered the english soldiers after a previous battle ) but the soldiers responsible were stripped of rank and deported to the West Indies ( sounds great now but it wasn't back then ) There is more to Cromwell than just the bloke who cancelled Christmas But kinda off topic Edited March 23, 2015 by tonyh29 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packoman Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The civilians in Wexford and Drogheda must have killed themselves so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 23, 2015 Author VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) One of the things that most strikes me about the wounds on Richard III's skull is that he seems to have truly been in the thick of battle -- indeed, charging into it, possibly losing his helmet, which proved disastrous. The idea of a king only 500 years ago actually going toe-to-armored-toe in battle blows my mind! Edited March 23, 2015 by Plastic Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The civilians in Wexford and Drogheda must have killed themselves so Well you proved my point exactly so I guess I should be thanking you They were at war and yes people were killed but there wasn't any slaughter , Drogheda’s municipal records of 1649 is a good place to start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) A child killer. Murdered his own nephews. But hey, he's royal, so that's okay then. Butchers the lot of them. The sort of Royal scumbag who reaffirms my belief in a modern Republic. Using the events of 600 years ago to support your belief in a republican system is absolutely and utterly mental. I said the lot of them. Historically you can read the butchers bill right into the 20th century. The first world war, was little more than a murderous royal spat between the Kaiser and his royal cousins. There are very few monarchs indeed who haven't got blood on their hands. The difference with a republic, is we can vote them out. And this particular specimen, is still a child killer. Edited March 23, 2015 by meregreen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Ask the North Korean's or the Chinese how their "republics" are working for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 A child killer. Murdered his own nephews. But hey, he's royal, so that's okay then. Butchers the lot of them. The sort of Royal scumbag who reaffirms my belief in a modern Republic. Using the events of 600 years ago to support your belief in a republican system is absolutely and utterly mental. I said the lot of them. Historically you can read the butchers bill right into the 20th century. The first world war, was little more than a murderous royal spat between the Kaiser and his royal cousins. There are very few monarchs indeed who haven't got blood on their hands. The difference with a republic, is we can vote them out. You can indeed but as Bush showed in 2000 you can still win even when you lose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 On a more serious point the monarchy is nothing more than a tourist attraction these days and has been for over 100 years. Yes in theory HM the Q can veto legislation but she never will. There are also a fair few elected politicians with more than a little blood on their hands as well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Ask the North Korean's or the Chinese how their "republics" are working for them. They are not Republics. They are one party dictatorships. Simply calling yourself a Republic, doesn't make you one. Indeed, North Korea is closer to an hereditary monarchy than a Republic. Edited March 23, 2015 by meregreen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 On a more serious point the monarchy is nothing more than a tourist attraction these days and has been for over 100 years. Yes in theory HM the Q can veto legislation but she never will. There are also a fair few elected politicians with more than a little blood on their hands as well. Agreed. But we can vote them out. Don't know of any PM that has murdered his own nephews though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 A child killer. Murdered his own nephews. But hey, he's royal, so that's okay then. Butchers the lot of them. The sort of Royal scumbag who reaffirms my belief in a modern Republic. Using the events of 600 years ago to support your belief in a republican system is absolutely and utterly mental. I said the lot of them. Historically you can read the butchers bill right into the 20th century. The first world war, was little more than a murderous royal spat between the Kaiser and his royal cousins. There are very few monarchs indeed who haven't got blood on their hands. The difference with a republic, is we can vote them out. You can indeed but as Bush showed in 2000 you can still win even when you lose That would be King George II of America. From the Royal House of Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Ask the North Korean's or the Chinese how their "republics" are working for them. I'm sure they'd both tell you it was working wonderfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Ask the North Korean's or the Chinese how their "republics" are working for them. I'm sure they'd both tell you it was working wonderfully. Interestingly the DPRK is having a little flirt with capitalism and new factories have been springing up that aren't government owned * ... Indeed a large chunk of "made in China " items are now being made in the DPRK *Where it currently falls a little flat is that whilst not government owned the factories do have to pay a big chunk to the state , but there is also talk of independent business starting to open up in Pyongyang as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts