WI: Oliver Cromwell chose to become King?

[Uhura's Mazda]

Might as well have a thread about how would history have turned out if Hitler had won the war and put Edward and Mrs Simpson on the throne.

*sigh* This again.

Yes, exactly. We probably do have that exact thread somewhere in the archives. This is because it is an alternate course that history might have taken - an 'alternate history', if you will. Now, starting a thread on that topic, or a more efficient Holocaust, or Black Death killing 100% of the global population - that doesn't mean that the thread starter or participant in that thread would be in any way in favour of such an eventuality in real life, but that they merely have an academic or creative interest in what would occur in such an 'alternate history'. In a TL on this subject, for instance, the writer would presumably make a big deal out of the continued atrocities involved in a prolonged conflict, many of which would occur in Ireland. For God's sake, AH isn't propaganda! We're going after realism, not deification of historical 'Great Men'. Hell's bells, if we took your point to its logical conclusion, then all of the TLs on this board would never have wars in them, because that would open them up to being pro-war hawks with complete disregard for human life; every TL would end up in a Communist utopia where everyone was happy and immortal, because anything else would inspire criticism - "Oh, you've got Liechtenstein as a semi-absolute monarchy; you must be in favour of monarchist tyranny, you monster!".

Tl;dr - positing an AH =/= agreeing totally with the ideology of the subject. Now, please let this thread die.

 

[Strawberry]

Yes, this again. Oliver Cromwell is an evil bastard again.

And yes, let's hope this thread dies again, for that reason.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Yes, this again. Oliver Cromwell is an evil bastard again.

And yes, let's hope this thread dies again, for that reason.

and yet you decided to revive this thread just to post the above

 

[Ameise]

Yes, this again. Oliver Cromwell is an evil bastard again.

And yes, let's hope this thread dies again, for that reason.

I feel as though people are being too descriptive in their responses to you, since you seem to be posting the same thing ad infinitum.

We get it. You think that Oliver Cromwell is an evil bastard. I'm sure most people here think that in some capacity as well. It was and continues to be irrelevant to this topic.

Past that, I suspect that you weren't kicked for your opinion of Oliver Cromwell (however insistent you are to repeat your opinion). I suspect you were kicked because you decided to insult people and went as far as to insinuate that someone was a holocaust denier.

That, or you were kicked for spamming your irrelevant opinion of Oliver Cromwell. I'm not CalBear, I don't know the actual reason, and I don't care.


ASIDE FROM THAT... I don't know if this thread is somehow alive or not... but...

If Cromwell takes the crown, I don't think that changes anything positively for him. He may very well lose some of the support that he did have by taking the crown. As Lord Protector, he at least isn't trouncing on the concept of the throne/crown from the point of view of other monarchs. Is he regicidal? Sure. But if he becomes a 'King', he would be desecrating the title in the eyes of many other European monarchs - he would be an even-more illegitimate ruler in their viewpoint. From the standpoint of England, I don't see why it would help him. He wasn't particularly popular, and his surviving son (which would be his legal heir) Richard wasn't exactly a skilled ruler. Oliver didn't have the support of the nobility, didn't really have the support of Parliament... he had the support of just the army. Richard didn't even have that.

 

[Hotpoint]

Yes, this again. Oliver Cromwell is an evil bastard again.

I assume you didn't bother to investigate Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy as I suggested earlier in the thread.

Seriously, you've bought into a centuries old smear campaign not backed by the historical evidence.

 

[Strawberry]

Oh please. Don't give me your equivalent to Holocaust denial, its just insulting.

Cromwell was a genocidal maniac, and his victims were the Irish. Full stop.

 

[Saphroneth]

Oh please. Don't give me your equivalent to Holocaust denial, its just insulting.

Cromwell was a genocidal maniac, and his victims were the Irish. Full stop.

Very well, then. Please provide the minutes of the equivalent to the Wannasee conference. Provide the evidence that Cromwell directly and for many years pursued a policy, and had rhetoric, and took actions, which had as their direct goal the obliteration of the Irish as a people.
Like, say, directly killing Irish women and children who were not resisting. And not just in one town which had suffered a wall breach, say - under the then laws and customs of war, that would be okay.

If you want to make Hitler comparisons, then you have to provide Hitler-scale evidence. It is not enough to say that the policy led to the deaths of many Irishmen, it is required to show that the policy had that as a direct goal.

The Holocaust is especially nasty in human history for reasons like that.

To take another example, one somewhat less directly emotionally charged - the Holodomor.
The Holodomor was a man-made famine, basically. And it is an open question as to whether it qualifies as "genocide" (the US recognizes it as such, but neither the UK nor the ROI do).
A genocide is a very specific thing.

 

[Will Lucky]

Might be a couple of ways to allow him to take the throne and then hold it and somehow prevent the Stuarts from taking it back, well at least for a time.

Lets say hypothetically during the Civil War when Scotland had crowned Charles II dies at the battle of Worchester in an even larger rout for parliament. Then you'd have to deal with James II who could die abroad as he served on the continent or somehow get him to Scotland to die as well with Charles but that seems even more unlikely. The last chain is Henry, however he was actually captured by Parliament if I recall and himself could very well have served as a puppet king in the event of the deaths of Charles II and James, but that seems unlikely and is a timeline for another day. Either way he is under Parliaments authority.

First Olivers succession, not too sure myself but I remember a teacher of mine saying that Henry Cromwell would have been a better successor than Richard as Lord Protector. I believe he had a longer career in Politics and also governed Ireland in a Military capacity. He might very well have the experience to guide him better. As someone stated if Oliver becomes King then Richard would become the heir and get the advisors and support necessary to become King as heir. However you could also have him somehow die and have Henry succeed as heir who may prove to have far more capability to hold down the Cromwell regime given his experiences and likely support from the Army.

As for getting Oliver to accept the crown itself he was offered it by Parliament with the Humble Petition as Stolen Good said and he did think about it for a long time. So get him to accept that and keep the Army on side and he should be able to hold it.

 

[Strawberry]

Very well, then. Please provide the minutes of the equivalent to the Wannasee conference. Provide the evidence that Cromwell directly and for many years pursued a policy, and had rhetoric, and took actions, which had as their direct goal the obliteration of the Irish as a people.
Like, say, directly killing Irish women and children who were not resisting. And not just in one town which had suffered a wall breach, say - under the then laws and customs of war, that would be okay.

If you want to make Hitler comparisons, then you have to provide Hitler-scale evidence. It is not enough to say that the policy led to the deaths of many Irishmen, it is required to show that the policy had that as a direct goal.

The Holocaust is especially nasty in human history for reasons like that.

To take another example, one somewhat less directly emotionally charged - the Holodomor.
The Holodomor was a man-made famine, basically. And it is an open question as to whether it qualifies as "genocide" (the US recognizes it as such, but neither the UK nor the ROI do).
A genocide is a very specific thing.

A genocide is indeed a specific thing. A direct genocide was attempted against the Irish people by Oliver Cromwell and his troops. An indirect genocide happened later against the Irish, but that's another story.

I'm sick of this nonsense where Cromwell is treated as if he was a respectable historical figure. He was nothing but the Hitler of his day, even by the standards of his own day and age.

If we could all just admit that, then maybe we could move on.

 

[Hotpoint]

Cromwell was a genocidal maniac, and his victims were the Irish. Full stop.

Towns like New Ross that didn't resist were spared. Indeed Cromwell hanged his own men when they looted from Irish people that accepted terms and surrendered. Does that sound like a genocidal maniac to you?

Honestly, you're badly misinformed on this issue.

Incidentally the author of the book I'm asking you to read is from Drogheda, and my own family is from Wexford for that matter, it's not English disinformation, in fact much of the abuse directed at Cromwell is the result of a very successful propaganda effort by the British Crown after Charles II returned from exile and took the throne.

 

[Strawberry]

Towns like New Ross that didn't resist were spared. Indeed Cromwell hanged his own men when they looted from Irish people that accepted terms and surrendered. Does that sound like a genocidal maniac to you?

Honestly, you're badly misinformed on this issue.

Incidentally the author of the book I'm asking you to read is from Drogheda, and my own family is from Wexford for that matter, it's not English disinformation, in fact much of the abuse directed at Cromwell is the result of a very successful propaganda effort by the British Crown after Charles II returned from exile and took the throne.

Town like New Ross were spared were they? Apart from all the people who were butchered and eaten.

Its not me who is misinformed here, its you.

 

[assasin]

Town like New Ross were spared were they? Apart from all the people who were butchered and eaten.

Its not me who is misinformed here, its you.

You know if you don't stop this rant you're going to get banned.

Also; "people who were butchered and eaten." Cromwell was a devout Christian, not even an idiot would believe he'd sanction cannibalism.

 

[Hotpoint]

Town like New Ross were spared were they? Apart from all the people who were butchered and eaten.
Its not me who is misinformed here, its you.

Oh please cite your sources on that.

 

[Strawberry]

You know if you don't stop this rant you're going to get banned.

Also; "people who were butchered and eaten." Cromwell was a devout Christian, not even an idiot would believe he'd sanction cannibalism.

]

I'm trying to stop this thread, not rant about it. And, sorry, but Cromwell's soldiers practised cannabilism in Ireland. Mostly against children.


Can we drop this thread now?

 

[Will Lucky]

Can we carry on with the discussion of Cromwell becoming King and drop this nonsense?

I do find the scenario to be facsinating given the numerous variables of how to get a house of Cromwell to hold.

 

[Hotpoint]

And, sorry, but Cromwell's soldiers practised cannabilism in Ireland. Mostly against children.

Source please.

 

[Morty Vicar]

I feel as though people are being too descriptive in their responses to you, since you seem to be posting the same thing ad infinitum.

We get it. You think that Oliver Cromwell is an evil bastard. I'm sure most people here think that in some capacity as well. It was and continues to be irrelevant to this topic.

Past that, I suspect that you weren't kicked for your opinion of Oliver Cromwell (however insistent you are to repeat your opinion). I suspect you were kicked because you decided to insult people and went as far as to insinuate that someone was a holocaust denier.

That, or you were kicked for spamming your irrelevant opinion of Oliver Cromwell. I'm not CalBear, I don't know the actual reason, and I don't care.

Just ignore him, don't let him derail the thread.

ASIDE FROM THAT... I don't know if this thread is somehow alive or not... but...

If Cromwell takes the crown, I don't think that changes anything positively for him. He may very well lose some of the support that he did have by taking the crown. As Lord Protector, he at least isn't trouncing on the concept of the throne/crown from the point of view of other monarchs. Is he regicidal? Sure. But if he becomes a 'King', he would be desecrating the title in the eyes of many other European monarchs - he would be an even-more illegitimate ruler in their viewpoint. From the standpoint of England, I don't see why it would help him. He wasn't particularly popular, and his surviving son (which would be his legal heir) Richard wasn't exactly a skilled ruler. Oliver didn't have the support of the nobility, didn't really have the support of Parliament... he had the support of just the army. Richard didn't even have that.

If he declares himself King I suspect it will kick off another Civil War, only this one will be shorter-lived because a lot of his former allies will turn against him and IMO he will ultimately be defeated. The interesting question then is whether the monarchy is reinstated or they elect a new parliament.

I assume you didn't bother to investigate Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy as I suggested earlier in the thread.

Seriously, you've bought into a centuries old smear campaign not backed by the historical evidence.

I get the feeling that he won't, the confirmation bias is strong in this one.

 

[Maponus]

Source please.

Knowing the period it's probably an engraving.

Please stop supporting the genocidal Irish Confederates, Strawberry. They wanted to wipe out Protestantism, full stop.

 

[Strawberry]

Firstly, I'm a woman so please stop referring to me as him. Secondly, I will go and find sources, but I also resent having to.

Why are we even talking about this psychopath? Where is the thread about how Adolf Hitler could have become King?

 

[Will Lucky]

If he declares himself King I suspect it will kick off another Civil War, only this one will be shorter-lived because a lot of his former allies will turn against him and IMO he will ultimately be defeated. The interesting question then is whether the monarchy is reinstated or they elect a new parliament.

Indeed, I would make that his top opposition. The New Model Army might not welcome him as King. Certain elements will obviously but a Civil War is going to emerge out of that unless he can somehow solve the problem. Which of course might involve Charles II making a landing and having another attempt at getting the throne back.