# Does rejecting Cromwell entail endorsing Stuart monarchy?



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2015)

This comes up in discussions with Covenanters. The monarchist in me wants to say that Cromwwell was wrong--and Covenanters call him "The Usurper." But, does rejecting Cromwell entail endorsing Charles I? Or even worse, Charles II? I just don't see a middle option (kind of like America having to choose between the Girondins and Jacobins, or Mensheviks and Bolsheviks).


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 6, 2015)

I don't think the Scots Presbyterians expected Cromwell to execute their king, who was himself Scottish - remember that although Scotland and England shared a Scottish monarchy, there was not a union of Parliaments and one nation state until 1707 - and among other things this turned them against Cromwell.

Cromwell has had a bad press over the centuries from a strange mixture of Irish Nationalists - many of them Republican - and Anglican Monarchists. A good book which deals with his supposed wrong doing in Ireland is by Tom Reilly from Drogheda where one of the supposed "massacres" is supposed to have taken place.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Cromwell.html?id=0htAPgAACAAJ&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y

Many of the Covenanters would - eventually - have been happy to see the demise of the House of Stuart.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 6, 2015)

Effectively at the time - and the Covenanters who helped Charles II back to the throne learned this - there WAS no real third choice. It was either the godly Cromwell who, though imperfect and not Presbyterian, was a far more able ruler and made numerous improvements in the three nations, or else the tyrannical and Romanizing house of Stewart, whose love of tyranny and pomp was only matched by its thirst for the blood of Reformed Christians of all manner.

I for one think Cromwell should have accepted the crown when offered him, and (one way or the other) should have made Henry rather than Richard his successor. But I am biased as you can guess.


----------



## jambo (Nov 6, 2015)

Cromwell does have a bad name in Ireland after his massacres at both Wexford and Drogheda. I would have said the facts of those massacres were fairly well establishedl. In fact we used to live in a town that was once surrounded by Cromwell and his army (the town of Clonmel in County Tipperary) but it escaped the same brutal massacres that befell those other towns.

There are 4 Baptist churches still in existence today, Cork, Waterford, Grosvener Rd in Dublin and Athlone Baptist, that all go back to the 1640s and 50s and many think they were formed by the soldiers in Cromwell's army. I know certainly the Athlone church was always derogatory referred to as "Cromwells Church" by the local population. The church was always small and struggling this connection was a dead weight upon the church.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 6, 2015)

jambo said:


> Cromwell does have a bad name in Ireland after his massacres at both Wexford and Drogheda. I would have said the facts of those massacres were fairly well establishedl. In fact we used to live in a town that was once surrounded by Cromwell and his army (the town of Clonmel in County Tipperary) but it escaped the same brutal massacres that befell those other towns.
> 
> There are 4 Baptist churches still in existence today, Cork, Waterford, Grosvener Rd in Dublin and Athlone Baptist, that all go back to the 1640s and 50s and many think they were formed by the soldiers in Cromwell's army. I know certainly the Athlone church was always derogatory referred to as "Cromwells Church" by the local population. The church was always small and struggling this connection was a dead weight upon the church.



Good thing historiography changes! When I studied Ireland in a class all about it, this was brought up and shown to be quite different than what the Irish would say.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Nov 6, 2015)

Why do you call yourself a monarchist ReformedReidian? I think the more fundamental question you would have to ask is under what circumstances, if any, regicide is justified. Then ask whether Cromwell acted appropriately. 

This may be a merely rhetorical question, but why not execute Charles?


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2015)

Cromwell was undoubtedly an usurper and a tyrant. The Stuarts were tyrants and often usurped ecclesiastical powers to their eventual downfall. The covenants, however, recognise the civil and legal authority of the king, who at that time was Charles I.; so those who later altered the covenants to suit their theory of political dissent are not "covenanters" in the original sense.


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2015)

Reformed Fox said:


> I think the more fundamental question you would have to ask is under what circumstances, if any, regicide is justified.



Under the system of law at the time, neither the trial nor the execution was legal.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 7, 2015)

Reformed Fox said:


> Why do you call yourself a monarchist ReformedReidian? I think the more fundamental question you would have to ask is under what circumstances, if any, regicide is justified. Then ask whether Cromwell acted appropriately.
> 
> This may be a merely rhetorical question, but why not execute Charles?



My being a monarchist stands or falls independently of Cromwell's actions. 

The Israelites executed Queen Athaliah, so I can envision at least one incident where regicide is justified (whether or not that would apply today). So I differ from the hyper-divine right monarchists.

As a general and a politician, Cromwell was a pure genius. I grant him that. Only Vladimir Putin and Abraham Lincoln could match him in realpolitik. Further, Charles I was simply incompetent. However, Charles died nobly.


----------

