#i hate oliver cromwell | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

racefortheironthrone · 1 year

Text

Why People Are Wrong About the Puritans of the English Civil War and New England

Oh well, if you all insist, I suppose I can write something.

(oh good, my subtle scheme is working...)

Introduction:

So the Puritans of the English Civil War is something I studied in graduate school and found endlessly fascinating in its rich cultural complexity, but it's also a subject that is popularly wildly misunderstood because it's caught in the jaws of a pair of distorted propagandistic images.

On the one hand, because the Puritans settled colonial New England, since the late 19th century they've been wrapped up with this nationalist narrative of American exceptionalism (that provides a handy excuse for schoolteachers to avoid talking about colonial Virginia and the centrality of slavery to the origins of the United States). If you went to public school in the United States, you're familiar with the old story: the United States was founded by a people fleeing religious persecution and seeking their freedom, who founded a society based on social contracts and the idea that in the New World they were building a city on a hill blah blah America is an exceptional and perfect country that's meant to be an example to the world, and in more conservative areas the whole idea that America was founded as an explicitly Christian country and society. Then on the other hand, you have (and this is the kind of thing that you see a lot of on Tumblr) what I call the Matt Damon-in-Good-Will-Hunting, "I just read Zinn's People's History of the United States in U.S History 101 and I'm home for my first Thanksgiving since I left for colleg and I'm going to share My Opinions with Uncle Burt" approach. In this version, everything in the above nationalist narrative is revealed as a hideous lie: the Puritans are the source of everything wrong with American society, a bunch of evangelical fanatics who came to New England because they wanted to build a theocracy where they could oppress all other religions and they're the reason that abortion-banning, homophobic and transphobic evangelical Christians are running the country, they were all dour killjoys who were all hopelessly sexually repressed freaks who hated women, and the Salem Witch Trials were a thing, right?

And if anyone spares a thought to examine the role that Puritans played in the English Civil War, it basically short-hands to Oliver Cromwell is history's greatest monster, and didn't they ban Christmas?

Here's the thing, though: as I hope I've gotten across in my posts about Jan Hus, John Knox, and John Calvin, the era of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion that convulsed the Early Modern period were a time of very big personalities who were complicated and not very easy for modern audiences to understand, because of the somewhat oblique way that Early Modern people interpreted and really believed in the cultural politics of religious symbolism. So what I want to do with this post is to bust a few myths and tease out some of the complications behind the actual history of the Puritans.

Did the Puritans Experience Religious Persecution?

Yes, but that wasn't the reason they came to New England, or at the very least the two periods were divided by some decades. To start at the beginning, Puritans were pretty much just straightforward Calvinists who wanted the Church of England to be a Calvinist Church. This was a fairly mainstream position within the Anglican Church, but the "hotter sort of Protestant" who started to organize into active groups during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I were particularly sensitive to religious symbolism they (like the Hussites) felt smacked of Catholicism and especially the idea of a hierarchy where clergy were a better class of person than the laity.

So for example, Puritans really first start to emerge during the Vestments Controversy in the reign of Edward VI where Bishop Hooper got very mad that Anglican priests were wearing the cope and surplice, which he thought were Catholic ritual garments that sought to enhance priestly status and that went against the simplicity of the early Christian Church. Likewise, during the run-up to the English Civil War, the Puritans were extremely sensitive to the installation of altar rails which separated the congregation from the altar - they considered this to be once again a veneration of the clergy, but also a symbolic affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

At the same time, they were not the only religious faction within the Anglican Church - and this is where the religious persecution thing kicks in, although it should be noted that this was a fairly brief but very emotionally intense period. Archbishop William Laud was a leading High Church Episcopalian who led a faction in the Church that would become known as Laudians, and he was just as intense about his religious views as the Puritans were about his. A favorite of Charles I and a first advocate of absolutist monarchy, Laud was appointed Archbishop of Canturbury in 1630 and acted quickly to impose religious uniformity of Laudian beliefs and practices - ultimately culminating in the disastrous decision to try imposing Episcopalianism on Scotland that set off the Bishop's Wars. The Puritans were a special target of Laud's wrath: in addition to ordering the clergy to do various things offensive to Puritans that he used as a shibboleth to root out clergy with Puritan sympathies and fire them from their positions in the Church, he established official religious censors who went after Puritan writers like William Prynne for seditious libel and tortured them for their criticisms of his actions, cropping their ears and branding them with the letters SL on their faces. Bringing together the powers of Church and State, Laud used the Court of Star Chamber (a royal criminal court with no system of due process) to go after anyone who he viewed as having Puritan sympathies, imposing sentences of judicial torture along the way.

It was here that the Puritans began to make their first connections to the growing democratic movement in England that was forming in opposition to Charles I, when John Liliburne the founder of the Levellers was targeted by Laud for importing religious texts that criticized Laudianism - Laud had him repeatedly flogged for challenging the constitutionality of the Star Chamber court, and "freeborn John" became a martyr-hero to the Puritans.

When the Long Parliament met in 1640, Puritans were elected in huge numbers, motivated as they were by a combination of resistance to the absolutist monarchism of Charles I and the religious policies of Archbishop Laud - who Parliament was able to impeach and imprison in the Tower of the London in 1641. This relatively brief period of official persecution that powerfully shaped the Puritan mindset was nevertheless disconnected from the phenomena of migration to New England - which had started a decade before Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury and continued decades after his impeachment.

The Puritans Just Wanted to Oppress Everyone Else's Religion:

This is the very short-hand Howard Zinn-esque critique we often see of the Puritan project in the discourse, and while there is a grain of truth to it - in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Congregational Church was the official state religion, no other church could be established without permission from the Congregational Church, all residents were required to pay taxes to support the Congregational Church, and only Puritans could vote. Moreover, there were several infamous incidents where the Puritan establishment put Anne Hutchinson on trial and banished her, expelled Roger Williams, and hanged Quakers.

Here's the thing, though: during the Early Modern period, every single side of every single religious conflict wanted to establish religious uniformity and oppress the heretics: the Catholics did it to the Protestants where they could mobilize the power of the Holy Roman Emperor against the Protestant Princes, the Protestants did it right back to the Catholics when Gustavus Adolphus' armies rolled through town, the Lutherans and the Catholics did it to the Calvinists, and everybody did it to the Anabaptists.

That New England was founded as a Calvinist colony is pretty unremarkable, in the final analysis. (By the by, both Hutchinson and Williams were devout if schismatic Puritans who were firmly of the belief that the Anglican Church was a false church.) What's more interesting is how quickly the whole religious project broke down and evolved into something completely different.

Essentially, New England became a bunch of little religious communes that were all tax-funded, which is even more the case because the Congregationalist Church was a "gathered church" where the full members of the Church (who were the only people allowed to vote on matters involving the church, and were the only ones who were allowed to be given baptism and Communion, which had all kinds of knock-on effects on important social practices like marriages and burials) and were made up of people who had experienced a conversion where they can gained an assurance of salvation that they were definitely of the Elect. You became a full member by publicly sharing your story of conversion (which had a certain cultural schema of steps that were supposed to be followed) and having the other full members accept it as genuine.

This is a system that works really well to bind together a bunch of people living in a commune in the wilderness into a tight-knit community, but it broke down almost immediately in the next generation, leading to a crisis called the Half-Way Covenant.

The problem was that the second generation of Puritans - all men and women who had been baptized and raised in the Congrgeationalist Church - weren't becoming converted. Either they never had the religious awakening that their parents had had, or their narratives weren't accepted as genuine by the first generation of commune members. This meant that they couldn't hold church office or vote, and more crucially it meant that they couldn't receive the sacrament or have their own children baptized.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and ultimately it kind of broke the authority of the Congregationalist Church and led to its eventual dis-establishment.

The Puritans are the Reason America is So Evangelical:

This is another area where there's a grain of truth, but ultimately the real history is way more complicated.

Almost immediately from the founding of the colony, the Puritans begin to undergo mutation from their European counterparts - to begin with, while English Puritans were Calvinists and thus believed in a Presbyterian form of church government (indeed, a faction of Puritans during the English Civil War would attempt to impose a Presbyterian Church on England.), New England Puritans almost immediately adopted a congregationalist system where each town's faithful would sign a local religious constitution, elect their own ministers, and decide on local governance issues at town meetings.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and accusing one another of being witches. (More on that in a bit.)

And then the Great Awakening - which to be fair, was a major evangelical effort by the Puritan Congregationalist Church, so it's not like there's no link between evangelical - which was supposed to promote Congregational piety ended up dividing the Church and pretty soon the Congregationalist Church is dis-established and it's safe to be a Quaker or even a Catholic on the streets of Boston.

But here's the thing - if we look at which denominations in the United States can draw a direct line from themselves to the Congregationalist Church of the Puritans, it's the modern Congregationalists who are entirely mainstream Protestants whose churches are pretty solidly liberal in their politics, the United Church of Christ which is extremely cultural liberal, and it's the Unitarian Universalists who are practically issued DSA memberships. (I say this with love as a fellow comrade.)

By contrast, modern evangelical Christianity (although there's a complicated distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist that I don't have time to get into) in the United States is made up of an entirely different set of denominations - here, we're talking Baptists, Pentacostalists, Methodists, non-denominational churches, and sometimes Presbyterians.

The Puritans Were Dour Killjoys Who Hated Sex:

This one owes a lot to Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter.

The reality is actually the opposite - for their time, the Puritans were a bunch of weird hippies. At a time when most major religious institutions tended to emphasize the sinful nature of sex and Catholicism in particular tended to emphasize the moral superiority of virginity, the Puritans stressed that sexual pleasure was a gift from God, that married couples had an obligation to not just have children but to get each other off, and both men and women could be taken to court and fined for failing to fulfill their maritial obligations.

The Puritans also didn't have much of a problem with pre-marital sex. As long as there was an absolute agreement that you were going to get married if and when someone ended up pregnant, Puritan elders were perfectly happy to let young people be young people. Indeed, despite the objection of Jonathan Edwards and others there was an (oddly similar to modern Scandinavian customs) old New England custom of "bundling," whereby a young couple would be put into bed together by their parents with a sack or bundle tied between them as a putative modesty shield, but where everyone involved knew that the young couple would remove the bundle as soon as the lights were turned out.

One of my favorite little social circumlocutions is that there was a custom of pretending that a child clearly born out of wedlock was actually just born prematurely to a bride who was clearly nine months along, leading to a rash of surprisingly large and healthy premature births being recorded in the diary of Puritan midwife Martha Ballard. Historians have even applied statistical modeling to show that about 30-40% of births in colonial America were pre-mature.

But what about non-sexual dourness? Well, here we have to understand that, while they were concerned about public morality, the Puritans were simultaneously very strict when it came to matters of religion and otherwise normal people who liked having fun. So if you go down the long list of things that Puritans banned that has landed them with a reputation as a bunch of killjoys, they usually hide some sort of religious motivation.

So for example, let's take the Puritan iconoclastic tendency to smash stained glass windows, whitewash church walls, and smash church organs during the English Civil War - all of these things have to do with a rejection of Catholicism, and in the case of church organs a belief that the only kind of music that should be allowed in church is the congregation singing psalms as an expression of social equality. At the same time, Puritans enjoyed art in a secular context and often had portraits of themselves made and paintings hung on their walls, and they owned musical instruments in their homes.

What about the wearing nothing but black clothing? See, in our time wearing nothing but black is considered rather staid (or Goth), but in the Early Modern period the dyes that were needed to produce pure black cloth were incredibly expensive - so wearing all black was a sign of status and wealth, hence why the Hapsburgs started emphasizing wearing all-black in the same period. However, your ordinary Puritan couldn't afford an all-black attire and would have worn quite colorful (but much cheaper) browns and blues and greens.

What about booze and gambling and sports and the theater and other sinful pursuits? Well, the Puritans were mostly ok with booze - every New England village had its tavern - but they did regulate how much they could serve, again because they were worried that drunkenness would lead to blasphemy. Likewise, the Puritans were mostly ok with gambling, and they didn't mind people playing sports - except that they went absolutely beserk about drinking, gambling, and sports if they happened on the Sabbath because the Puritans really cared about the Sabbath and Charles I had a habit of poking them about that issue. They were against the theater because of its association with prostitution and cross-dressing, though, I can't deny that. On the other hand, the Puritans were also morally opposed to bloodsports like bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and bare-knuckle boxing because of the violence it did to God's creatures, which I guess makes them some of the first animal rights activsts?

They Banned Christmas:

Again, this comes down to a religious thing, not a hatred of presents and trees - keep in mind that the whole presents-and-trees paradigm of Christmas didn't really exist until the 19th century and Dickens' Christmas Carol, so what we're really talking about here is a conflict over religious holidays - so what people were complaining about was not going to church an extra day in the year. I don't get it, personally.

See, the thing is that Puritans were known for being extremely close Bible readers, and one of the things that you discover almost immediately if you even cursorily read the New Testament is that Christ was clearly not born on December 25th. Which meant that the whole December 25th thing was a false religious holiday, which is why they banned it.

The Puritans Were Democrats:

One thing that I don't think Puritans get enough credit for is that, at a time when pretty much the whole of European society was some form of monarchist, the Puritans were some of the few people out there who really committed themselves to democratic principles.

As I've already said, this process starts when John Liliburne, an activist and pamphleteer who promoted the concept of universal human rights (what he called "freeborn rights"), took up the anti-Laudian cause and it continued through the mobilization of large numbers of Puritans to campaign for election to the Long Parliament.

There, not only did the Puritans vote to revenge themselves on their old enemy William Laud, but they also took part in a gradual process of Parliamentary radicalization, starting with the impeachment of Strafford as the architect of arbitrary rule, the passage of the Triennal Acts, the re-statement that non-Parliamentary taxation was illegal, the Grand Remonstrance, and the Militia Ordinance.

Then over the course of the war, Puritans served with distinction in the Parliamentary army, especially and disproportionately in the New Model Army where they beat the living hell out of the aristocratic armies of Charles I, while defying both the expectations and active interference of the House of Lords.

At this point, I should mention that during this period the Puritans divided into two main factions - Presbyterians, who developed a close political and religious alliance with the Scottish Covenanters who had secured the Presbyterian Church in Scotland during the Bishops' Wars and who were quite interested in extending an established Presbyterian Church; and Independents, who advocated local congregationalism (sound familiar) and opposed the concept of established churches.

Finally, we have the coming together of the Independents of the New Model Army and the Leveller movement - during the war, John Liliburne had served with bravery and distinction at Edgehill and Marston Moore, and personally capturing Tickhill Castle without firing a shot. His fellow Leveller Thomas Rainsborough proved a decisive cavalry commander at Naseby, Leicester, the Western Campaign, and Langport, a gifted siege commander at Bridgwater, Bristol, Berkeley Castle, Oxford, and Worcester. Thus, when it came time to hold the Putney Debates, the Independent/Leveller bloc had both credibility within the New Model Army and the only political program out there. Their proposal:

redistricting of Parliament on the basis of equal population; i.e one man, one vote.

the election of a Parliament every two years.

freedom of conscience.

equality under the law.

In the context of the 17th century, this was dangerously radical stuff and it prompted Cromwell and Fairfax into paroxyms of fear that the propertied were in danger of being swamped by democratic enthusiasm - leading to the imprisonment of Lilburne and the other Leveller leaders and ultimately the violent suppression of the Leveller rank-and-file.

As for Cromwell, well - even the Quakers produced Richard Nixon.

#history #puritans #calvinism #english civil war #oliver cromwell #the stupid meme about christmas #new england #protestantism

422 notes · View notes

inky-duchess · 1 year

Note

5-10 people you hate in history and why?

Queen Victoria - watched my people starve to death in a completely preventable famine which decimated our population, destroyed our language and culture

Margaret Thatcher - for crimes against my people (the Irish and the gays)

Winston Churchill - various atrocities against India and Ireland

Hitler - do I need to explain why?

Oliver Cromwell - violently invaded my country and insulted my county

Rasputin - I just want to hit that man

Henry VIII - He knows what he did

Ronald Reagan - Crimes against the gays

George I - what he did to his wife

Dan Benioff and DB Weiss - THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DID

#ask answered

41 notes · View notes

natequarter · 23 days

Text

richard i ruined england's finances with a tithe to go on crusade and, later, a ransom to free him from the clutches of leopold of austria, only to die aged just forty-one after a wound got infected. he fucking hated england and spent most of his adult life rebelling against his father, henry ii, or fighting philip ii for his french territories. richard ii was deposed and probably starved to death aged just thirty-three, having ruled since the age of ten. richard iii likely murdered his pre-teen nephews to gain the throne and was brutally killed himself at the battle of bosworth, aged just thirty-two. richard cromwell, named lord protector by his father oliver cromwell, governed england for less than a year before he pretty much just gave up. parliament promised to pay his debts and provide a pension and after that he fucked off to mainland europe. he died aged eighty-five. he was, as wikipedia puts it, longest-lived british head of state for three centuries, exceeding even the long-lived and far longer-reigning george iii and queen victoria. is there a lesson to be learnt here about the corruption, dangers, and failure of monarchy as a system? probably!

#🗡️

5 notes · View notes

werewolfetone · 11 months

Text

Oliver Cromwell writing his will: & btw make sure that the ideology I stood for is given over to the most radical and also insensitive people in Britain & Ireland for like 250 years but if they mess up and don't get what they want at the end of that period let the same people have my legacy but make sure that rather than doing the whole 'religious freedom and death to monarchs' thing in a somewhat odd way that they only *think* I would have liked they go ham on the hating catholics and British nationalism while playing down the anti monarchism and become my heirs not in what they consider to be in spirit but in, like, the way that I would tell them to if I was there. tell them to put me on banners if that happens too

His advisors, sobbing: lord protector what the FUCK does this mean

#this doesn't deserve an english history tag #jory.txt

11 notes · View notes

hitchell-mope · 1 year

Text

I think it’s completely in character

People are really having a fuss over Kermit and Miss Piggy being at the coronation concert. “It’s out of character”. “They’ve massacred my boy”. “They would not fucking do that”. Yada yada yada. But like. They would. They absolutely would. And do you know why?

Because Piggy is a literal fame hog who will suck up to anyone if it’ll get her airtime. This woman has flirted with Jim Nabors for crying out loud. As for Kermit. He’s a nice guy. He’s also a public figure. And knowing Piggy. He probably didn’t have much of a choice.

Plus. The original muppet show was filmed in London. That’s why they had to pass Bruce Forsyth off as an international superstar. They only got really popular when Rudolph Nureyev asked if he could guest star. Before then I think that the crew had to ask their friends to appear on the show or something until they got more notability.

As for “Piggy being Team Diana”. No she wouldn’t. She really, really wouldn’t. Piggy’s fucking bloodthirsty. Diana had a chance to be future queen. And stuffed it all up? Piggy would laugh. She would call Diana weak. And then she worm her way into Charles’s heart medicine.

You can be anti monarchist as much as you like. I’m not so crazy about them either. I just think they’re a necessary evil so we don’t get a a repeat of Oliver Cromwell. But it is completely in character for stars like the muppets to be at an event like the coronation concert.

TL;DR: many, many people may hate the monarchy for various, and let’s be honest, some pretty damn good, reasons. But it’s not in any way “out of character” for Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy to make an appearance on a sketch at the coronation concert.

#the muppets #kermit the frog #miss piggy #kermiggy #coronation concert

15 notes · View notes

eirxair · 4 months

Text

its not that i cant do maths its just that sometime the numbers jump about in my head and physically do not want to sit still so i have to count them while the traitorous bastards leap around like their the slimy little snakes ik they are.

#maths #maths is stupid and so am i #i hate oliver cromwell #i hate king louis xiv #i hate dolphins #i hate tories #i hate pope francis #i hate the outfits on paisean faisean #numbers

11 notes · View notes

houseofbrat · 1 year

Note

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11921479/amp/It-big-mistake-Queen-Consort-Camilla-reject-ivory-sceptre-Coronation.html

Lookie here - our favorite Pearl clutcher in Chief was WRONG again (just like when he exclusively told us the Coronation was in June). His speculation caused so much vile comments towards Queen Camilla from “royalists” and fed the “KC3 is too woke” trolls.

Meanwhile since Eden was proved wrong, the Daily Mail has a new article out to drag Camilla for using the ivory sceptre, which will no doubt keep the hate train going.

The Fleet Street circus rolls on 🎪

There's Richard's pearl clutching article, above.

Camilla will be crowned alongside her husband the King on May 6, during an ancient ceremony at Westminster Abbey featuring deeply symbolic objects representing the royal duties and responsibilities of the sovereign.

It has now emerged that she will hold two sceptres, will court controversy by using one made with ivory.

[...]

But despite the Prince's vehement position, Buckingham Palace confirmed on Sunday that the sceptre would be among the regalia used at the coronation.

The ivory sceptre is part of the crown jewels and regalia held in trust by the monarch for the nation.

The crown jewels form part of the Royal Collection and have traditionally been held at the Tower of London which is managed by Historic Royal Palaces.

Kathryn Jones, senior curator of decorative arts, at the Royal Collection Trust, speaking about previous coronation ceremonies, said: 'The Queen is also presented with two sceptres... this is again this symbol of temporal power - so with the cross.

'And the second sceptre, like the King's sceptre, has the dove on the top, (and is) symbolic of equity and mercy.

And this one the wings are folded, rather than spread, it has the same symbolism - so it's the Holy Spirit.'

The original coronation regalia was destroyed by order of parliament after King Charles I was executed after the Civil War, briefly leading to a republic with Oliver Cromwell as the head of state.

The regalia was broken up and melted down into gold coins and the jewels were sold.

The ivory staff which Camilla will use was made in 1685 by Sir Robert Vyner for Queen Mary of Modena, the wife of James II.

She was the first Queen Consort to participate in a coronation ceremony following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

Symbolic of the monarch's spiritual power, it is topped with a distinctive enamelled dove with spread wings.

The three-foot-seven-inch-long staff cost £440 in 1661 and is encircled in four places with jewelled colours.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: 'As with any historical collection of its size, it is to be expected that the Royal Collection includes items that contain ivory as this reflected the taste at the time.'

The use of the sceptre was confirmed as part of an announcement from the palace on the regalia that will feature at the service, including the Sovereign's Ring and St Edward's Crown.

I swear that Richard gets paid to pearl clutch every week. He wouldn't have anything else to say otherwise.

We may need to fetch that man some smelling salts if his belt is on too tight and he faints.

#ask #The Circus Generating Machine also known as Fleet Street #Daily Mail #Richard Eden #pearl clutching #Madeleine Ross #operation golden orb #queen camilla #ivory

13 notes · View notes

atarahderek · 1 year

Text

Song of the Sea: A Criticism of Bronagh

Bronagh is probably my second least favorite character in the entire Irish Folklore Trilogy by Cartoon Saloon (nothing can beat Oliver Cromwell, but at least him we're supposed to hate). It's not that I hate her, but I do think she's a terrible person who didn't deserve her family, because the only reason she had them was to use and lose them. So in this essay I will explain how Blue Diamond pulled a Pink, but in Ireland and with pinnipeds.*

Who is Bronagh? A Recap

For those unfamiliar with Cartoon Saloon's Song of the Sea, Bronagh is the mother of Ben and Saoirse, the protagonist and deuteragonist of the film respectively. She is a selkie, which is basically the Celtic version of a mermaid. She can shift between a seal and human form, and is considered to be part of the fairy (or fae) race. She wears her seal coat at all times, which allows her to move between land and sea at will.

On the night her second child, Saoirse, is born, Bronagh falls ill while in labor and is forced to permanently return to the sea, allowing her newborn to wash ashore for her father, Conor, to find. Bronagh's departure traumatizes both Conor and Ben. Conor believes his wife has abandoned him and has no idea why, and he's left in deep depression, especially on Saoirse's birthday. Meanwhile, Ben develops aquaphobia because he believes his mother drowned at sea. He wears a lifejacket wherever he goes for this reason.

Bronagh remains absent for six years, until one Halloween night when Saoirse, embracing her selkie heritage, sings the titular Song of the Sea, opening a pathway for all fairy kind to travel to Tír na nÓg, the land they originally came from. Bronagh does not stay long, however, and bids her family farewell for the final time, taking Saoirse's seal coat so that the girl can stay with her human family. They never see Bronagh again, and are honestly happier for it.

As they should be. Because frankly, Bronagh is a grifter.

Selkies

The legends surrounding selkies typically involve either humans or selkies seducing one another (usually men of either species seducing women of the other species), resulting in an inter-species marriage. If a selkie woman marries a man, this is usually because the man found and hid her seal coat, preventing her from transforming back into a seal. When she finally finds the coat, she returns to the sea forever. In one legend, a selkie maiden willingly takes a human husband, and when he goes out to sea in a storm against her warnings, she's forced to rescue him. But because of the specific rules established in her legend, she is then unable to transform back into her human form, and has to remain at sea, separated from her family. In some forms of the legend, the selkie is able to hide their identity from their lover, out of fear they will lose their seal coat and be trapped on land forever. But in these legends, the selkie is always forced to return to the sea by one circumstance or another, thus having to abandon their lover.

The gist of all this is that selkie-human marriages always end in a broken family. And the selkie frequently leaves behind children.

Bronagh's Secrets

Now, in SotS, it's established that Bronagh and Conor are happily married, with seemingly no coercion from either party. Bronagh is free to wear her seal coat all she likes, and Conor knows she's a selkie. It's only when Saoirse is born that Conor makes a habit of hiding away the seal coat for fear of losing her like he did her mother, resulting in Saoirse becoming mute without it. It comes as a shock to Conor when Bronagh returns permanently to the sea, abandoning him and their children. Obviously he was previously unaware that Bronagh could not continue living both on land and at sea, and that she would eventually have to return to the sea.

But this isn't the only secret Bronagh kept from Conor. As one party in selkie-human marriages is wont to do, Bronagh was using Conor for her own gains.

We learn from a group of fairies that a selkie is needed to open the way to Tír na nÓg by way of her singing. Saoirse specifically seems to be the selkie required to do this. Because Saoirse is half human, she thus represents a connection--a bridge--between the human realm and the fairy realm. Ben did not inherit Bronagh's selkie magic, so even though he is technically half selkie himself, he's unable to become that bridge. There's also an implication that Bronagh knew that in order to assure that Saoirse had selkie magic, she would have to birth her at the expense of her life on land. Saoirse is the product of Bronagh's real goal; to create a bridge and open a pathway for her kind to their realm. For this she needed herself a patsy.

Enter Conor.

The Grift

Conor is a gentle lighthouse keeper. He is strongly introverted, has a love of the sea and doesn't let his overbearing mother dictate his life. He is well aware of the legends of selkies and is determined to not be that kind of husband. But he doesn't know everything he needs to know about them, and that suits Bronagh just fine. What he doesn't know can't hurt her, right? So Bronagh tells him all about where she's from, and together they dream up an idyllic life split between sea and shore. But what she doesn't tell him is that she wants him for his DNA, and once she gets what she wants, she's outta there. She leaves him bereaved and confused, with two children to raise on his own, both of whom can be read as having special needs because of their trauma and/or the circumstances of their birth. And one of those children she only produced to be a tool, just like Conor.

All this, of course, leaves poor Ben in the painful and unfair position of having to repair his entire family practically by himself at ten years old.

While I can understand that Bronagh would be hesitant to tell Conor exactly what her mission was, the fact is that by not telling him, she was exploiting him and their children. Conor was just a cog in Bronagh's machinations. She didn't marry him out of love, and she basically captured him and held him captive. Which makes her no different from any other selkie legend, except this time it's the wife doing the exploitation rather than the husband.

Basically, Bronagh is not a good person.

Consequences and Conclusion

If Conor had known the truth about Bronagh's mission, there's certainly a decent chance that he would've opted out. But what if he hadn't? What if he was so in love with this seal maiden that he agreed to help all her people? Had that been the case, he could've better prepared his children for not only the day Bronagh had to leave, but also for the day Saoirse would fulfill her purpose and open the path to Tír na nÓg. And he would've been better prepared himself. Bronagh could not have foreseen that her actions would ultimately lead to the main antagonist Macha's redemption, and the fairies whom Macha had turned to stone being set free after Ben was forced to confront his own trauma and the emotions that came with it. So Bronagh pretty much just traumatized her son because she wanted to keep her secrets. The trouble and pain she caused did ultimately have a greater good come out of them, but that was certainly not her doing.

Now, while I don't think Bronagh is a good person, I do think she is an effective character. As I said, her actions ultimately lead to all of the fairies being freed and Macha being redeemed and reunited with her son MacLir. Had Conor been completely on board with Bronagh's plans, there might not have been as important of an impact on Ben, and he wouldn't have been in a position to help Macha. So from a story writing perspective, Bronagh works quite well. But as a wife and mother, Bronagh fails utterly. As a selkie, she's so typical it hurts.

Moral of the story: Don't marry a selkie unless the contract includes an ironclad absolutely-no-secrets clause. Or just...don't marry a selkie, period. Save yourself the heartbreak.

#Cartoon Saloon #Song of the Sea #Bronagh #selkie #Ben #Saoirse #Irish Folklore Trilogy #*Go look up Bronagh's voice actress #Steven Universe

14 notes · View notes

mosertone · 1 year

Text

I’m Not a Man by Harold Norse (July 6, 1916 – June 8, 2009)

I’m not a man, I can’t earn a living, buy new things for my family.

I have acne and a small peter.

I’m not a man. I don’t like football, boxing and cars.

I like to express my feeling. I even like to put an arm

around my friend’s shoulder.

I’m not a man. I won’t play the role assigned to me -- the role created by Madison Avenue, Playboy, Hollywood, and Oliver Cromwell.

Television does not dictate my behavior.

I’m not a man. Once when I shot a squirrel I swore that I would never kill again. I gave up meat. The sight of blood makes me sick. I like flowers.

I’m not a man. I went to prison resisting the draft. I do not fight when real men beat me up and call me queer. I dislike violence.

I’m not a man. I have never raped a woman. I don’t hate blacks. I do not get emotional when the flag is waved. I do not think I should love America or leave it. I think I should laugh at it.

I’m not a man. I have never had the clap.

I’m not a man. Playboy is not my favorite magazine.

I’m not a man. I cry when I’m unhappy.

I’m not a man. I do not feel superior to women.

I’m not a man. I don’t wear a jockstrap.

I’m not a man. I write poetry.

I’m not a man. I meditate on peace and love.

I’m not a man. I don’t want to destroy you.

San Francisco, 1972

9 notes · View notes

aurora-by-jacqui-natla · 10 months

Text

23. PRE-BATTLE BONFIRE

AS THE SNOW FELL AROUND US, we set up a camp in the woods. The nomads stood still as Jacob brought some wood from the fallen trees and dropped it on the ground. I did help him out by making sure no snow was touching the woods. When I got up, I spotted Ben with his index finger up and a little flame emerged on his fingertip. I gave him a smirk before his whole hand turned into a flame and threw it into the woods.

The fire rose, gleaming with the warm yellowish orange and bright white among it. I could imagine the warmth surrounding the cold winter night in the woods. I knew that the fire would destroy me yet I still admired its majesty and beauty. I never knew that something that could hurt you turned out to be beautiful.

"That's what I'm talkin' about," Jacob said, smiling at Ben, and walked to a log. "Little pre-battle bonfire. Telling war stories."

Jacob sat next to Ben and I sat beside him. He looked across the fire and sees the other vampires standing still. Zafrina and Senna held hands as they stared at each other. Maybe she was showing visuals to her sister as a coping mechanism before the war.

"Or just standing there like frickin' statues," Jacob commented which somehow made Ben chuckle.

I let out a sigh. "We could entertain ourselves while we wait," I suggested.

"Like what?" Ben asked.

Suddenly, before I could answer him, Garrett spun in and sat next to us by the fire. He must have heard us from afar.

"Name any American battle," Garrett told us. "I was there."

Is any American battle? Well, crap. There goes my knowledge of American history. And thankfully, Jacob thought of one.

"Little Bighorn," he replied.

Little Bighorn? I never heard of it. Or maybe it was and I wasn't paying attention.

"I came this close to biting Custer," Garrett answered, his finger and thumb barely touching each other. "But the Indians got him first."

Just then, Kate spun in and sat on Garrett's knee.

"Try Oleg's assault on Constantinople," Kate added. "He didn't win that one on his own."

"If you're talking battles," I heard Liam speaking and his coven sat next to him. "You're talking about the Eleven Years' war. No one does rebellion like the Irish."

"You lost the Eleven Years' war," Garrett commented.

"Aye. But it was one hell of a rebellion."

"Woah, okay," I said. "I seriously need to know. What happened at Little Bighorn and the Eleven Years' war?"

"It marked the most decisive Native American victory and the worst U.S. Army defeat in the long Plains Indian War," Jacob explained. "The demise of Custer and his men outraged many white Americans and confirmed their image of the Indians as wild and bloodthirsty."

"The Eleven Years' war was the Irish theatre of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, a series of civil wars in the kingdoms of Ireland, England and Scotland," Siobhan then explained. "All ruled by Charles the First."

A few other vampires - the rest of the Denali and Peter and Charlotte - started to come over to the campfire.

"It has changed Ireland forever," she continued. "The long-term causes of the war were colonisation and religious conflict there but the short-term cause was the destabilisation of English politics. The rebellion saw massacres of both Protestants and Catholic civilians."

"You better be not talking about Oliver Cromwell," I heard Joseph yelling and I saw him coming over. "I hated that pratt."

"I was just about to mention him," Siobhan replied with a stern look. "With his involvement with the invasion of Ireland."

For some reason, that name rang a bell. I think I read about him in a history book. I turned my gaze to him.

"Was he the guy who banned everything and took over Britain?" I asked him.

"That's why I hated him," Joseph replied bitterly, his gold eyes staring at the fire, and looking at me. "Hence I was a Cavalier."

"Really?" I asked, shocked, and he nodded.

"It was two years after I was turned when I joined," Joseph explained. "Of course, I did use a fake name. Henry Gabriel. The first name is after my brother, and the surname is after the man who gives me a second chance to live."

"Didn't the Cavaliers lose to the Roundheads?" Liam questioned.

Joseph's face turned stern and slowly moved his head to Liam. He pointed at the Irish vampire. "Shut up," he muttered, making Liam chuckle.

Then, Ethan came over and sat between me and Joseph.

"You guys talking about wars?" Ethan asked and I nodded. "You know, I was in a war. The Second World War."

I snickered and shook my head. There was no way in hell that Ethan could be in the Second World War.

"Yeah, Ethan," I said through my laughter. "Nice try getting in the conversation but it has to be more realistic than that."

Ethan's face sternly stiffened. Then, Joseph tapped on my shoulder and I looked at him.

"He was in the Second World War," Joseph replied.

I smirked but it slowly disappeared when I stared at his serious face. Then, I eyed Ethan.

"You were really in the Second World War?" I said astonishingly.

"Yep." Ethan nodded. "I was around fifteen when it started and it wasn't until three years later was when I joined. That's when I discovered my family are vampires."

My eyes widened as the rest of them sat around the campfire.

"We decided to join," Simon said. "Mostly because of Alana's paranoia."

"You can't blame me," Alana spoke. "I'm his mum."

"Technically, Gabriel, Joseph and Simon went to war," Mum jumped in. "While Alana and myself were back in London keeping it going."

I turned my head to Rhona. "Where were you at?" I asked her.

"Feeding humans and trying not to get noticed," she replied. "Not an exciting life compared to them."

"At least I had a story to impress you," Joseph smirked at her.

"Or showed me," Rhona laughed, hugging his arm.

I thought about Ethan's human time at the war. Simon told me about him turning his stepson when Ethan was twenty-one.

"Hey, Ethan," I said and he looked at me with his gold eyes. "How did you become a vampire?"

"Well, I was in his office informing the general that I had done my mission," he began. "Must have been around ten-thirty at least. I was heading out when I spotted a man attacking a woman. He was saying something in German so I didn't quite make out what he was saying. Then, I saw their symbol."

He said with disgust in his voice. "He was dragging her into a van and I ran with great speed. I pulled the man off him and started punching him. Then I felt a sharp pain in my stomach and I pressed my hand against it, only to see my blood coming out."

I blinked and pursed my lips together.

"I couldn't recall exactly what happened but I just remembered waking up three days later as a vampire," Ethan ended.

Then, I turned my head over to a tent where Bella was caressing her daughter's hair as Renesmee slept in her sleeping bag. They looked so peaceful together. It must be so unfair for them to have your forever starting only to possibly end it all in a heartbeat.

As more vampires — and a few shapeshifters — gathered around the fire, I decided to leave and climbed up a tree. I sat on a branch and saw the sun rising. The orange light pierced the sky with its sunlight and I could see little glitter sparkling on my hand. The little diamonds embedded in my pale cold skin. I returned my gold eyes to the sun.

"Aurora," I heard Simon speaking next to me.

I flinched, his presence caught me off guard. "What?" I asked him, confused.

"Aurora," he repeated himself and turned his head to me. "It's my way of saying dawn. And it's breaking the night."

I smiled and looked back at the sun. Breaking dawn approached us. It was my first time seeing the sun rising.

And it could be my last.

Continue to 24. CONFRONTED

3 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 10 months

Note

After Oliver Cromwell's death was the Commonwealth doomed, because of structural factors, or a republic like the United Provinces could have survived but it failed because of contingency and individuals' actions? How guilty is Cromwell for not setting solid foundations for the continuity of the Commonwealth?

Yes, the Commonwealth was doomed after Cromwell's death, but the reason why is both structural factors and contingency/agency - because the actions of a few individuals (including but not limited to Cromwell) set those structural factors in motion.

In term's of Cromwell's guilt, I would say that he bears ultimate responsbility for the institutional weaknesses of the Commonwealth. To be totally fair, he did try to fix those weaknesses repeatedly - but because of the actions he took at the beginning that set up the structural factors in question, those efforts came to naught.

That's the TLDR, I'll do the specific explanation below the cut, because it's going to go long.

Background

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page: in 1640, Charles I is forced to call Parliament even though he hates doing it. He dissolves Parliament after three weeks. (Hence why it's called the Short Parliament.) He's then forced to call Parliament again, and this Parliament is the Long Parliament. The Long Parliament enacts a whole series of legislation that Charles I hates, and then in 1642 the conflict between King and Parliament breaks out into the First English Civil War (1642-1646).

During this first phase of the conflict, it takes a while for Parliament and the Parliamentary generals to get their act together. Things begin to turn around in 1644 when the Scottish Covenanters join the war on Parliament's side and they win the Battle of Marston Moor - which gives Parliament control of the North of England and is the first battle where Cromwell plays a major role. The next year, Parliament gets rid of the original Parliamentary generals through the Self-Denying Ordinance, forms the New Model Army under Fairfax and Cromwell (the one guy specifically exempted form the Self-Denying Ordinance), and Fairfax and Cromwell go on to completely destroy the Royalist armies at Nasby and Langport.

Charles hangs on for a bit, but is eventually captured in 1646 and the first Civil War ends. The question is now: what do we do, now that Parliament has won?

The Putney Debates

Once the fighting was over, the political fighting could begin and it was quite complicated. You had the Long Parliament, which was dominated by the moderate "Presbyterian" faction who had been locked out of military power by the Self-Denying Ordinance. You had the New Model Army, which was religiously Puritan but split politically (more on this in a second). You had the Scots, politically constituted by the Scottish Parliament and militarily represented by the Covenanter armies, who wanted Presbyterianism to be extended throughout Britain. And then you had the Royalists and Charles I, who were usually but not always the same faction.

I'm going to focus here on the part of this conflict that involved the Long Parliament and the New Model Army. The Long Parliament wants to do a deal with Charles I - although the problem is that Charles is stretching out negotiations in the hopes that if everything collapses into anarchy he might get himself back on the throne - it wants a unified British Presbyterian Church established (because it had kind of agreed to set one up as the cost of getting Scottish support during the war), and it wants to get rid of the New Model Army which it views as dangerously radical and way too powerful.

The New Model Army isn't sure what it wants, because it's split between the Agitators (i.e, the Levellers) and the Grandees (the senior officers of the Army, led by Cromwell and Fairfax) - although the one thing both sides agree on is that they're not going to accept a single established Presbyterian Church and that they aren't going anywhere until they get their back pay and some sort of reforms happen that justify four years of civil war.

In the mean-time, everyone's getting very testy. First, the Long Parliament orders the New Model Army to disband in early 1647. The New Model Army refuses to disband. Then the New Model Army takes control of the prisoner Charles I in early June. In late June, a pro-Presbyterian mob invades Parliament calling for an established Presbyterian Church and for Charles I to be brought to London, causing all of the Independent (i.e, Puritan) MPs and the Speaker to flee the city and seek the protection of the New Model Army. Then in August, the New Model Army marches on London, and forces Parliament to enact a Null and Void Ordinance undoing everything the Long Parliament had done since June, which causes the Presbyterian MPs to withdraw from Parliament (temporarily), which means the Independents are now in the majority.

All of this is very confusing, and no one in the New Model Army is sure what to do now that they hold all the cards. So the New Model Army decides to have a public debate at Putney in late October in order to hash out what the Army's position is going to be.

At Putney, both sides put forward manifestos for what the Army should stand for. The Agitators put forward the "Agreement of the People," which calls for:

the Long Parliament to be dissolved and elections to be held for a new Parliament.

these elections to be held after a reapportionment of Parliament to establish equal districts on the basis of one-man-one-vote.

elections for a new Parliament every two years.

the electorate to be made up of "all men of the age of one and twenty years and upwards (not being servants, or receiving alms, or having served in the late King in Arms or voluntary Contributions)." (i.e, fairly universal male suffrage).

Parliament is to have full Executive and Legislative authority, except that the people shall have liberty of conscience, freedom from conscription, equality before the law, and there shall be amnesty for anything done or said during the Civil War.

The Grandees, who freaked the fuck out when they heard these terms and started immediately calling the Agitators "Levellers" (i.e, 17th century for "commie bastards"), put forward the "Heads of Proposals," which calls for:

the Long Parliament to be dissolved and elections to be held for a new Parliament.

these elections to be held after Parliament decides on "some rule of equality of proportion...to the respective rates they bear in the common charges and burdens of the kingdom," or on the basis of some other rule that will make the Commons "as near as may be" to equally proportioned.

for the next ten years, Parliament and not the King has authority over the military, finances, and the bureaucracy.

for the next five years, Royalists aren't allowed to run for elected office or hold appointed public offices.

the Church of England will continue to exist, but you don't have to read the Book of Common Prayer if you don't want to, you don't get fined for not going to CoE services or attending other services, and there will be no imposition of a Presbyterian Covenant.

You can see that there are some overlapping areas (no more Long Parliament, elections every two years, some form of reapportionment, some form of liberty of conscience) but there are some really significant differences - a republic versus a constitutional monarchy, a unicameral Parliament versus retaining the House of Lords, and universal suffrage versus property requirements.

During the Putney Debates, Cromwell flatly refuses to accept anything other than a constitutional monarchy, Ireton (Cromwell's son-in-law) refuses to accept universal suffrage, but the two sides agree that a committee will work out a compromise on the basis of everything else from the "Agreement" as long as the Agitators agree to go back to their regiments.

Then the King escapes from captivity and everyone panics. Cromwell and Fairfax scramble a new manifesto together and try to get the New Model Army to approve that manifesto along with everyone taking a loyalty oath to Fairfax and the General Council of the Army, the Agitators see this as a stab in the back and start up a mutiny, and Cromwell and Fairfax crush the mutiny and arrest the Agitator leadership. In late November 1647, Charles I, who has been recaptured by this point, signs a secret agreement with the Scots to invade England and restore Charles to the throne in return for Presbyterianism being established in England.

The Second Civil War

Things slow down for a bit, because the Scots are actually quite divided about this agreement - the Kirk actually condemns it as "sinful" - and it takes until April for the pro-agreement faction (known as the "Engagers") to get a majority in the Scottish Parliament.

In May 1648, Royalist uprisings break out across the kingdom, with South Wales, Kent, Essex, and Cumberland being particular centers of Royalist strength, and the Scottish Covenanter army crosses the border and invades England. Unfortunately for Charles, the Royalists, the English Presbyterians, and the Scots, they completely fail to coordinate their actions and the New Model Army is able to completely crush the uprisings one-by-one and then turns its attention to the Scots.

At the Battle of Preston in August 1648, the New Model Army under Cromwell wins another one of its ridiculously lopsided victories that make his emerging belief that he had been chosen by God somewhat understanable, and the formidable Covenanter army is crushed.

By this point, Cromwell and the rest of the Grandees are convinced of two things: one, no more negotiating with the King. As the Army Council put it rather ominously, it was their duty "to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to an account for that blood he had shed, and mischief he had done." Two, the (English) Presbyterians could not be trusted. They had conspired with the King and their Scottish co-religionists to overthrow the government and abolish religious liberty, and thus they had to go.

Thus, in December 1648, Pride's Purge is carried out, in which a detachment of troops acting under orders from Ireton (and thus from Cromwell) bar 140 MPs from taking their seat and arrest 45 of them. This effectively ends the Long Parliament, and the remaining 156 MPs continue to sit as the Rump Parliament. In the New Year, the Rump Parliament then votes to put the King on trial for treason and then afterwards establishes the Commonwealth as a unicameral Republic.

What Comes Next?

You'll note a couple things at this point: first, Cromwell's political positions are fairly fluid and change with events, so that he goes from being a staunch constitutional monarchist in late 1647 to a determined regicide by January 1649. Second, even though it's been a few years since the Putney Debates, Cromwell and the Grandees haven't implemented the "Heads of Proposals" - most crucially, they haven't dissolved Parliament and called for new elections, nor has a new Constitution been established.

Initially, one might say that Cromwell was distracted by his campaign to crush the Confederate-Royalist coalition in Ireland and then to crush the alliance between the Covenanters and Charles II. But by 1651, he's back in England and there's still no election and still no Constitution. Cromwell tries to get the Rump Parliament to call for new elections, establish a new Constitution that incorporates Ireland and Scotland now that they've been conquered, and finds some sort of religious settlement.

For two years, the Rump Parliament deadlocks on practically everything except the religious settlement, where it manages to piss off everyone by keeping the Church of England and its tithes, but also getting rid of the Act of Uniformity and allowing Independents to worship openly, but also passing all kinds of Puritan moral regulations. In April of 1653, Cromwell proposes that the Rump Parliament establish a caretaker government that will deal with the Constitution and new elections, but the Rump deadlocks on that too. This causes Cromwell to completely lose it and dissolve the Rump Parliament by force, culminating in one hell of a speech:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

Now there's no more Parliament and Cromwell and the Council are running the country on their own, but they don't have a plan for what to do next. A Fifth Monarchist member of the Council proposes appointing a "sanhedrin of saints" on the basis of religious credentials who will set up a godly commonwealth and bring about the imminent return of Christ. That doesn't happen, but the Council does like the idea of an appointed (rather than elected) body called the Nominated Assembly, which becomes known as Barebone's Parliament. This Parliament doesn't make it a year because of how badly it's divided between moderate republicans who want a functioning government and Fifth Monarchists who believe that Jesus Christ is coming back to Earth any day now, so why bother? Ultimately, Barebone's Parliament dissolves itself.

This then leads the Council to pass the Instruments of Government, which was essentially an adapted version of the original "Heads of Proposals." Under the Instrument, Executive power would be held by the Lord Protector who would serve for life, Legislative power would be held by a Parliament elected every three years, and then there would be a Council of State appointed by Parliament which would advise and elect the Lord Protector upon the death of the previous occupant. Thus, the Protectorate is born.

In 1654, Cromwell finally manages to get the First Protectorate Parliament elected...and it only lasts a single term, agrees to none of the 84 bills that Cromwell and the Council of State, and is promptly dissolved as soon as the Instruments would allow. And so on it went through the Second and Third Protectorate Parliaments, and then Cromwell died and the rest is history.

Conclusion

Coming back to what I mentioned at the very beginning about the interplay between structural factors and individual actions, I think we can see a kind of ratchet effect whereby decisions taken early on that foreclosed certain options compound on each other over time, leading to structural factors that weakened the Commonwealth.

The crucial turning point(s) to me are the decision to reject the Agreement of the People in 1647 and then the failure to enact the Heads of Proposals in 1647 after the Putney debates, or in 1648 or 1649 after Pride's Purge.

With the Agreement, you could have had a small-d democratic republic which would have offered ordinary working people new political rights and protections and the opportunity to buy-in to the new regime through an election for a new Parliament. With the Heads of Proposals, you could have had a more conservative republic that would have offered much the same to the traditional landed political class, which would have then granted their consent to the new regime by both standing for election and voting in that election for a new Parliament.

That kind of legitimacy was absolutely necessary in order to ensure the long-term allegiance of the population to the new regime in the face of Royalist revanchism, let alone the kind of radical changes (putting the king on trial, declaring a republic, establishing a religious settlement) that Cromwell and the Grandees saw as essential.

#history #english history #oliver cromwell #english commonwealth #english civil war #wars of three kingdoms #early modern history

72 notes · View notes