What is the common view of Oliver Cromwell in modern British culture? Hero, villan, or more complex view? Any specific groups that either idealize or villanize him, and is he ever used as an emotional symbol the way say Lincoln is often used in American culture?
My own opinion is unprintable, however the official view is that he was a ‘patriot’ and he is unenthusiastically admired by the establishment; whilst a very large, and growing, portion of the populace have never heard of him — I’ve met middle-aged women who’ve never heard of the cavaliers. [ Although they might have a deep and abstruse knowledge of soap operas and reality stars, so they are not illiterate. ] ---- official historians support his side, obviously, but are more likely to discuss the role of women in the protectorate or variations in the cost of barley during the years 1656-57 than burning monks in Ireland or hanging levellers; and they support his side more because they are officially required to detest the royal side than because of great admiration for proto-fascism.
There is a Cromwell society ( to match various pro-Charles I or pro-Stuart groups ) but I suspect it is mainly now aged embittered 1970s graduates of history or social studies and Thatcherite Tories rather than schoolteachers or craftspeople.
It wasn’t always thus: up to the end of the 18th century, most people, republican or not, considered him a crafty old scoundrel — leaving a hatred of Military Rule, but not of hypocrisy — and at his death even old cromwellians didn’t regret his passing. During the 19th century many of the nonconformist and manufacturing elements grew to love him as a symbol, particularly once Carlyle established him as a Hero. But the taste for dictators waned during the 20th century — in Britain at least; abroad his Greatest Admirer of All Time emulated him and discussed him, whilst the communists just thought of him as a transitional figure from feudalism to early modern capitalism.
The parliamentary ( in the strictest sense of the institution itself ) admiration of him is unabated: both Lady Thatcher and Tony Blair following her kept his portrait above their desks to inspire them to whatever it was they thought they were doing.
I think ‘controversial’ would be about right. He’s certainly no poster boy like Lincoln.
There’s a statue of him outside parliament which seems fitting as he’s viewed as a defender of Parliament’s independence from the Monarch, but otherwise, I would say he’s viewed as rather a dogmatic dictator. That’s the trouble with religious fanatics - you really don’t want them in charge.
In Ireland his memory is reviled. He is considered a kind of embodiment of evil.
Yeah, like hibernicus said: genocidal scumbag.
Americans who actually know who Cromwell is tend to have a relatively negative view of him. Undoubtedly this is in large part due to the large number of Americans with Irish ancestry.
As my town was besieged by Roundheads on three separate occasions during the war, it’s somewhat surprising that there’s a Cromwell Road and a Cromwell Mews. They say that he banned football and Christmas.
Puritanical sourpuss and miserable bastard at best, mass murderer and base traitor at worst. There’s a notion that as a republican he’s more of an acceptable face to present to other nations - on QI Fry tells a story about Number 10 (I think) getting rid of a big picture of Queen Vic as imperialistic and replacing it with one of Cromwell. The next delegation in was from Ireland…which he compared with showing a portrait of Eichmann to the Israelis.
Complex, to say the least.
My family seat is just outside Newry (County Down, Northern Ireland.) the area is technically British.
Hate, loathe, despise, revile. . . I don’t seem to have a good enough word for it.
Yeah, my view of the man was largely shaped by Pogues lyrics.
When I visited Scotland, a local drove me around. As we passed a castle with clear cannon scars on the wall, he said, darkly “Cromwell did that.”* They’ve got long memories.
I knew who Cromwell was, but it was mainly because there was a motion picture – Cromwell, that was clearly trying to cash in on the success of films like a Man for All Seasons. Cromwell was played by the Irish actor Richard Harris, which seems an interesting choice, all things considered.
*pronounced “Crom’ll”, with the apostrophe being a glottal stop.
Well, the casting director was just told they wanted a dour old miseryguts.
Actually, fairly near to the pronunciation of the original. Loyal men under the protectorate would make a toast, but before drinking take a piece of bread to swallow, and say: “God send this crumb well down”.
In the context of his time, Cromwell was undoubtedly a progressive man and one of the men who helped ensue England would not fall into the trap of absolute monarchy in fashion in the Continent at the time. His policies toward Ireland was no different than that of any other English ruler or for that matter any other European ruler in general who dealt with rebellions.
Hardly. Absolute monarchy in the UK had been impossible for 350 years at the time of the civil wars, Cromwell was more of an absolutist than either Charles, and set up his son to follow him (hardly something parliamentarians should support), and he failed in his attempt to bring revolution that lasted -thatoccurred 30 years after his death. He was not opposed to tyranny and absolute control, just opposed to it being done by the wrong people.
That’s ignoring the genocide, which was brutal even by the standards of his time.
Point out another ruler of the time, or any time, that reduced the total population of an entire country by 40%. I’m sure it’s a small elite club.
This is an astounding piece of information. With my Irish ancestry, Mr. Cromwell was introduced to me first as a boogeyman and later as a genocidal monster. History seems to prove this out. I would not characterize a religious fanatic who put entire populations to death for the crime of being Irish as ‘progressive’.
Many German states lost that much population during the 30 years war. Some lost 2/3s.
He got a certain way down he path to democracy, very nearly to one person one vote and freedom of religious expression, somehow he failed to heed his advisors.
Complex charactor, and summing him up in one partisan sentence really is not possible.
Is the bolded part a joke, or did you miss the genocide of Catholics?