"Power to parliament! Down with the monarchy!"

>"Power to parliament! Down with the monarchy!"
>"oh by the way I'm putting myself in charge of the country, giving myself absolute power and my son will succeed me after I die but it's totally not like a monarchy."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cpJD0nSxN94
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>parliament comes into power
>people in parliament immediately start extending terms in office
>the truth dawns on Cromwell
the whole story is depressing as fuck

>Declines

Cromwell was based

>t. protty revolutionary

this.

Whoever supports Stuarts has no idea how much of disgusting degenerate hedonistic libertines they were.

This is what you get for fucking over the levellers and diggers

Diggers are fucking degenerate commies

>puritan
>based

t. landlord

They're fucking legends, mostly for the silliness.

h-hai~

tsk tsk

Read Carlyle, my boy.

>tfw England will never have the murderous hatred for Muslims they had for Catholics
How do we bring it back?

>How do we bring it back?
By Islamizing England. Nobody hates Muslims more than other Muslims. The biggest mass murderer of Muslims in history was Timur.

Genghis khan killed most of persia and central asia when he rolled in. They were muslim

That's only because Charles I got murdered
>one man one vote apart from servants because servants might be bribed into voting but drunkards won't be
If they didn't argue about the instrument of government and the army didn't mutiny he might not have needed o seize power, also Droghadah wasn't a massacre as they didn't surrender

>Down with monarchy

Guess how I know you are just a shitposter

He didn't want absolute power, he wanted a stable executive.

He tried over and over to implement a form of parliament that worked but the corruption of parliament was too strong.

He also had little control over the army which either demanded his intervention or free elections.

He knew he could never hold free elections because royalists would get back in power.

Ultimately he assumed supreme executive power in a direct contradiction of everything he had fought for.

By the time he died I don't think he gave a shit who succeeded him.

>the pretensions of the bishop of new rome to the title of "ecumenical patriarch" are absolutely inexcusable

>the very idea of a universal bishop over all christians is likely a sign of the coming of the antichrist

>btw i am the greatest authority in christendom, the emperor and all bishops owe fealty to me

>That's only because Charles I got murdered
No, he was literally known to whore around.

>

Oliver Cromwell is the reason the English monarchy is fucking nothing today. That and more directly the Not So Glorious Revolution, but it's the ideals and philosophy of Oliver Cromwell that influenced it. The most advanced monarchical system in the world, with the most freedoms, and an established system where kings were subject to law and could not abuse their powers at that.

Those ideals of "liberty" and "freedom" that were so definitive of 17th century England where people didn't want to be subjects of kings actually forced their ancestors, us today, to live under an even more tyrannical system of having one public assembly run the show with no checks at all on their power that weren't established by them.

The Glorious Revolution, often seen as insignificant, shattered England's balanced constitution forever. Parliament overthrew a king under their own terms (set out in the Bill of Rights 1689) and invited two new monarchs to rule consecutively under, again, the new Bill of Rights, then 11 years later came the Act of Settlement 1701 which further eroded the power of the monarch. In 1707 when Queen Anne refused Royal Assent (approval for law) on the Scottish Militia Bill, she was met with outrage. This set the precedent that the monarch was to always pass Royal Assent. I should mention the Bill of Rights established that parliament had the sole right to raise troops in peacetime and not the Crown.

This slow decline, starting during the English Civil War and 1688 and ending at the beginning of Victoria's reign who became the first English monarch to enter the Crown knowing she'd have no real role in government. Nowadays we have a fake Queen whose legal powers theoretically would allow her to dissolve parliament and rule herself, but in reality, she can't even sign Royal Assent in person.

tl;dr: Fuck Cromwell.

Cromwell=/= to the succeeding three decades of Stuart restoration that brought about the Glorious Revolution.

The English Civil War played an equal footing in the dissolution of the English monarchy, the Glorious Revolution more so but the philosphy that drove the Glorious Revolution saw its origins in Early Modern England, the civil war hugely echoed that and helped lay foundation for 1688. The same ideas that movements like the American Revolution were centered on, and much later the French Revolution when these spread to Europe.

The English Civil War also set the precedent that a king could be removed. That can't be overstated enough.

>salty celt detected

What do you think of the theory behind the protectorate form of governence Cromwell tried to impliment?

All countries in Europe lost their monarchies one way or another, was there anyway the English monarchy with the protections you outlined could have been saved?

Hmm, that's a whole different discussion I'm overly passionate about my friend, but let's just say the ""Celts"" of the British Isles after 2500 BC were no different to those that came later.

But no, I'm just a patriot who respects that England is (was) a parliamentary monarch and Oliver Cromwell was a tyrant. His shenanigans in Ireland I'm all but proud of.

Though I am ginger.

>Victoria's reign who became the first English monarch to enter the Crown knowing she'd have no real role in government.
And it was during the Victorian era that the British achieved the largest empire in history, really makes you wonder doesn't it?

>All countries in Europe lost their monarchies one way or another, was there anyway the English monarchy with the protections you outlined could have been saved?
The thing is, all of this still exists in theory under Queen Elizabeth II's Royal Prerogative powers. She still can, in theory, dissolve or prorogue parliament, sign Royal Assent, appoint Prime Ministers, pass secondary legislation and is still Commander in Chief with additional military powers, e.g, troops swear allegiance to her, she can pass declarations of war and decide how the armed forces are used.

All of this was absolutely essential to what is referred to as England's "balanced constitution" in which all assemblies and institutes check each others power. Only nowadays, nobody CAN check parliaments powers and the Queen doesn't even sign Royal Assent in person any more.

In fact, the Monarchy has more power in Australia and Canada. In 1975, the Queen's Governor General fired the Australian PM in response to a government shut down. Had that been done in the U.K., it could've very likely led to the dissolution of the monarchy entirely.

No thanks to Victoria either. The effects of what I'm speaking about weren't in full swing in the Victorian era anyway. It's still highly possible Victoria COULD have used her Royal Prerogative powers and it wouldn't be as badly seen as it is today. Instead, she willingly stopped signing Royal Assent and made the appointment of Prime Ministers a ceremonial thing.

>I'm just a patriot
>Oliver Cromwell was a tyrant
pick 1 la

Lad, he has tyrant written on his grave I bet.
>overthrows a king
>makes himself more powerful than any king in english history
>still not a tyrant

he was the peoples champion

I've always said since I started studying English history that Cromwell would've been the Julius or Octavian Caesar of England had his rule actually worked and didn't end up in complete failure.

There's no question of his greatness, but he was still a tyrant.

>everything gets worse under his rule
the people must be into BDSM

he only protected england for a short while he never wanted to caesar he just wanted gods will to be done and the british went on to do great things after the changes he made

>gets worse
4u

>the british went on to do great things after the changes he made
Like what exactly? I can't think of one good thing to come out of the English Civil War. It was needless bloodshed.

The Glorious Revolution was fucking treasonous behaviour and I've already outlined how it shattered the English monarchy which effects us to this day, but an extremely beneficial aspect of the Glorious Revolution is that it brought Dutch financial institutes to England which saw the founding of the Bank of England as well as the beginnings of the East India Company in India (which more or less belonged to Portugal at the time).

>East India Company in India
My bad lads, it's getting late.

>Like what exactly?
establish the anglosphere

I mean things that happened as a direct result of the English Civil War. The Anglosphere is the greatest achievement in all of human history, but the civil war didn't do that.

Although I will say this, the civil wars influence had a massive effect on the American Revolution. It's those same ideals of liberty and freedom, and all of that rubbish.

were talking about cromwells legacy and his movement pioneered the idea of the bill of rights which the americans themselves expanded upon who also were puritans

Let him curse my name
On these bloodstained pages of misery
Let him call me a tyrant so cruel
Let him curse my name
But remember the truth

>pioneered the idea of the bill of right
I was not aware of that? I consider myself somewhat of an obsessive for English (or British) history so I'm surprised I've not heard that. Either way, the Bill of Rights 1689 which actually came into existence was not to do with Cromwell in any way (directly) & was both an attempt to curb the power of the monarchy and re-establishing rights that were violated by King James.

>which the americans themselves expanded upon
That bits true, but the English Bill of Rights (which again wasn't linked to Cromwell) has nearly all of the amendments in the original U.S. Bill of Rights.

That's one ugly shitskin on that picture

If it wasn't for Cromwell, modern Britain would've been even more degenerate.

That's an interesting theory to say the least. Care to explain?

>
>No thanks to Victoria either. The effects of what I'm speaking about weren't in full swing in the Victorian era anyway. It's still highly possible Victoria COULD have used her Royal Prerogative powers and it wouldn't be as badly seen as it is today. Instead, she willingly stopped signing Royal Assent and made the appointment of Prime Ministers a ceremonial thing.
which was all good, an unelected head of state should have no powers other than ceremony and diplomacy

Simon de Montfort is the reason the English monarchy is fucking nothing today. That and more directly the Second Barons' War, but it's the ideals and philosophy of Simon de Montfort that influenced it. The most advanced monarchical system in the world, with the most freedoms, and an established system where kings were subject to law and could not abuse their powers at that.

Those ideals of "liberty" and "freedom" that were so definitive of 13th century England where people didn't want to be subjects of kings actually forced their ancestors, us today, to live under an even more tyrannical system of having one public assembly run the show with no checks at all on their power that weren't established by them.

The Second Barons' War, often seen as insignificant, shattered England's balanced constitution forever. Parliament overthrew a king under their own terms (set out in the Dictum of Kenilworth 1267) and invited two new monarchs to rule consecutively under, again, the new Dictum of Kenilworth, then 2 months later came the Statute of Marlborough which further eroded the power of the monarch.

This slow decline, starting during the First Barons' War and Second Baron's War and ending at the beginning of Edward I's reign who became the first English monarch to enter the Crown knowing she'd have no real role in government. Nowadays we have a fake King whose legal powers theoretically would allow him to dissolve parliament and rule himself, but in reality, he can't even sign Royal Assent in person.

tl;dr: Fuck Simon de Montfort

If you truly believe that, then the way in which the "unelected head of state" lost their powers allowed parliament to gain supremacy over the monarch and rule without any checks on their power.

If you're English and you believe that, you're also advocating for the overhaul of 1,000 years of political theory in your country which led us to this (now theoretical but once in practice) balanced constitution.

Modern Prime Ministers have more power than any king in history, and they aren't answerable to anybody either since people like you 300 years ago were too immature to actually assess monarchism for what it is.

Nice post.

I'll give you the basic gestalt. Charles I and II were known libertines, which means in social terms 'do as you please', ie fuck whoever you want, sleep with whoever you want. The basic ideals of degeneracy, its even admitted as such by said libertines. Now along with that, Catholicism is known to be even more liberal than Protestantism. It's in Catholic countries that the liberal views of pro faggot heresy propped up in first. The modern Anglican Church is fucking terrible, but imagine how worse it'd be if there was a Papist monarch. It'd be France-tier.

If you want more details, read up Stuarts and Libertinism. Specifically Charles I and Libertines.

>If you want more details, read up Stuarts and Libertinism. Specifically Charles I and Libertines.
Will do lad. Not just saying it either, I'm open to absolutely anything on English history, specifically Early Modern English history.

I think your theories pretty solid. It's no secret that the past times of the aristocracy in England were not exactly as pious.

>The modern Anglican Church is fucking terrible, but imagine how worse it'd be if there was a Papist monarch. It'd be France-tier.
That's true, not to mention the extremely important role the Church plays in our constitution. Though was Cromwell truly apart of this? I think the Glorious Revolution gets credited with smashing any chance of Rome re-entering England. I'm sure your sources mention that and I'll definitely give it a read over.

It still has to be said that Cromwell's other acts can't be justified. Such as attempting to practice Roman Republicanism whilst assuming more power for himself than any king in English history had ever held.

Though looking at modern England, it might be best we have a pious, religious fanatic as Dictator. Even if it was only for a year or two, I imagine they'd run out of bullets.

The problem with unrestricted monarchy is even if you had a good King, who followed Christian values, you have no idea that his son would be equally pious. Active Kings aren't known to have a lot of time on their hands to raise their kids. Cromwell's rule had the exact same problem as you state, as he turned it into a pseudo-monarchy and power went to his kid, he couldn't effectively rule as Cromwell did.

The idea for a parliamentary democracy came that the MPs and Prime Minister would serve in the ideals of Christian society. There also comes a problem with that, the problem being that society itself can be corrupted as we see it right now.

I'm not advocating for an absolute monarchy. England was never an absolute monarchy for as long as it was united, even the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy were not ruled by absolute rulers. The concept of kings having to abide by law is ancient, though it came officially with Magna Carta. Followed up by the Provisions of Oxford and Westminister. In 1381(?) [perhaps, bad memory], Wat Tyler led the Peasant's Revolt against the king. Though eventually slaughtered, he established the precedent of citizens not being defenseless against kings.

By the time of the civil war, the King of England held less power than a modern Prime Minister, was subject to law, s/he could be overthrown and they could not do so much as enter homes without permission ("No matter if it is a shack in the woods, the king of England cannot enter" or something along those lines).

You may be asking, if all of this is true, why is the monarchy even important. The purpose the king of England served is to be the center-piece of our balanced constitution. This means power is balanced between monarch as executive and parliament as legislative, both serving to check the power of one another. Though ultimately, the king was supreme. 1688 usurped this and kept the same system in play but established the supremacy of parliament which led to the decline of the monarchy entirely to the point where it truly is a useless, money-grabbing institute.

I agree with almost everything you said, I think I've just misrepresented by beliefs as an absolutist. What I believe is in balanced constitutionalism, England as a parliamentary monarch under the ancient laws of this land.

>implying there's anything wrong with that
Lmao Virgin Cromwell vs Chad Charlie

Kys beta

They came in 2400-2000 BC In many waves

He wasn't, Charles II was, maybe if Purtians weren't degenerates and suppourters lauds reforms and Charles I lived longer then England could be spiritually cleaner

>"degenerate"
>"spiritually clean"
>"ideal christian society"

it's like I'm really on /pol/

Exactly my point. People misuse the word "Celt", a lingustic term, and use it to refer to an ethnicity. I always ask them to specify, do they mean the Iberian Celts whom built stonehenge and what not in fucking 3000 BC, or the Germanic Celts of the Early Middle Ages? There's 4000 years difference between them for heaven's sake.

Anyway, my point was last night (Survive the Jive), that the Belgians, the Jutes, the Vikings, the Angles, the Celts, the Saxons and the Normans all descended from the same people. This explains near homogeneity for parts of East England, and the North East.

>Cromwell got immortalized, his name is for one of the tanks that won the Brits WW2
>Current royal heir Charles doesn't even want to make his regal name to be Charles III because I and II fucked up so badly

JUST

>Cromwell's "dynasty" is immediately cast aside because he was a complete piece of shit
>bring back playboy adventurer prince to be king and he is universally loved for being likable and caring
How did Charlie II fuck up exactly? Windsor Charlie doesn't deserve his name anyway.

Hey
That's a Blind Guardian reference
I just wanted to appreciate that

>Charles II
Dude was a degenerate. He's half the reason Britain's in this situation.

What situation? What the fuck are you even talking about?

>King is accountable
>Charles 1 literally rules on his own for 11 years when he has enough of parliament

The king could go unaccounted for before the civil war with his prerogative. It took for him to get BTFO by the Scots to make him have to work with parliament.

That was james ii retard. Charles was a decent ruler.

>muh degeneracy
>fun is bad, ban everything
>living in puritan England would have been based cos no liberals xd

>ywn fight for cromwell and slaughter monarchists and catholics

You motherfucker

>18th century uniform

Roundhead? More like brainlethead

>Australia and Canada. In 1975, the Queen's Governor General fired the Australian PM
Thats just what happens in a double dissolution here though. The leading party lost the ability to pass things so another election was needed. But yeah, many people were pissed off with the Gov. Gen, and old mate who lost his PM position had this to say:
youtube.com/watch?v=cpJD0nSxN94
Sure, the Governor General is the Crowns rep, but all he is supposed to do is keep the order and do the above when needed. It wasn't by will of the Queen, but what had to happen thanks to the oppositions blocking the passing of bills.

there's no roundhead wojak

I agree with this opinion

No. Cromwell was fighting all other forces to make the country better. He threw out the parliament only when he realized they wouldn't make the decisions that needed to be made post-Charles
Would you rather have a good tyrant or a bad king? I haven't read up on the commonwealth as yet so cannot comment on his actual rule
Have any recommendations specifically? I've been reading about this for a while but would like any ideas you have
Though was Cromwell truly apart of this?
No, Cromwell was an independent which means he wasn't an Anglican or Presbyterian

Roundheads are coming back.

>fuck you for giving me more representation