People who eulogise Cromwell as the father of parliamentary freedoms always seem to overlook the fact that he is the only English ruler to impose direct military rule.
Or that in 1653 he staged a coup, clearing the House of Commons at bayonet* point:
* Probably pikes r/than bayonets, tbh. But same effect.
To paraphrase Pratchett (I think): “yes he was a bastard, but he was OUR bastard!”
Dude was a dictator before it was cool… /s
And I’d argue that it wasn’t until the Glorious Revolution that you started to see Parliament taking the lead in the struggle between them and the crown… Anne and William had to agree to concessions before taking the throne, after all.
I blame the Normans myself. And Henry VIII. And James VI.
I’m led to believe that there are Irish objections to calling it the “Glorious” Revolution…
Most of the Normans eventually become more Irish over time.
In the case of Cromwell, this is more like the Faulkner quote, given the history of colonization of Ireland after that. This still have reverberations and is still playing out in North Ireland, too. The past there is never dead, it’s not even past…
His split from the church played a role…
Undoubtedly. The point still stands that the shift to parliament having greater power in the English system doesn’t start with Cromwell, but with this moment, when it’s enshrined in law. 
But whatever.
I’m not Irish, but I was raised Catholic, and the whole “The King is infringing on our rights to persecute Catholics!” bit did sour the “Glorious” Revolution for me somewhat.
Yes. My point about the power dynamic between the crown and parliament still stands, I’d argue. But of course, having a slight more democratic institution (which wasn’t all that representative and democratic at the time) most certainly does not mean that things got better for the Irish (or non-Irish catholics)… at that point we’re still centuries away from a fully formed idea of human rights (which we’re still really fucking bad at, anyways).
I thought they might have been referring to William the Bastard?
Maybe? They could also be trying to make the point that Cromwell is “ancient history” and we shouldn’t care what he did, but I disagree on that point. An accurate picture of Cromwell matters because of how the rest of history between the Irish and English play out and how Cromwell is embraced even today by some of the more bellicose Orangemen in NI, precisely because he was anti-Catholic in the extreme.
Of course, we can go back to William and make connections there as well and obviously the norman conquest matter in the larger scheme of things, but they are not nearly as impactful on current politics, I’d argue. YMMV, of course.
Oh, for sure.
From what I read of Cromwell in general though, it seems his puritanical take on society was not particularly well received by many people however
Better not. The Norman colonisation of the Isles is interesting and has important implications for today.
However, it’s not exactly related to the question if Cromwell should be celebrated in a children’s book. (Even one which is a bit on the old side.)
Or with the Tudors and Stuarts and continued by Cromwell.
Which is where General George Monck came in.
Never said otherwise… I’d argue that Cromwell took it to a new level, in part due to Irish support for the monarchy…
More specifically, the Normans Knights (from France) who first invaded Ireland from Wales. Without them, no Pale and Tudor conquest (Henry VIII), no Cromwell in Ireland, and no Jacobite war in Ireland (possibly). All history reverberates, I guess. Would we slate a children’s book on the Normans that glossed over their same violence?
Based on your exchange with Luther I feel I might be missing something, but according to this timeframe the Ulsters only have another 200 years to go until they’re Irish!
No question. However, there is a more direct line of connection with Cromwell’s policy vs. the Normans. The Norman lords, as they say, became “more Irish than the Irish themselves.” They Gaelicized as it were. Their descendents adopted Irish culture, language, etc, and saw themselves as Irish. The post reformation English most certainly did not and actively suppressed irish catholicism.
Of course, they also use this term to refer to those of us whose relatives emigrated from Ireland.
I mean… they already are? I don’t believe one’s religion defines one’s nationality or at least that it should not. I mean, the entire bloody period of the troubles was based on a fight over the idea of Irish identity… you’d figure that people would be done with all that by now?
But anyway… this old Irish song is still very true…
Can’t play that in the UK - was it this one?
It used to be entirely normal for Northern Irish Unionists to refer to themselves as Irish: Ian Paisley did so for his entire life. Not so much these days.
Yep…
Stupid region lock bullshit…
