John Tyndall Leader Of The Bnp Found Dead

[Guest MaloneFM]

Which begs the question - was Cromwell the legitimate leader of England in the first instance?   But I'll leave someone else to answer that!

←

And also the question. Who gets the thunderbolt up the pooper then?

[Mr Mosquito]

Which begs the question - was Cromwell the legitimate leader of England in the first instance?   But I'll leave someone else to answer that!

←

If you're writing of Oliver Cromwell as legitimate leader - yes he definately was. In time honoured fashion - not viewed through 21st Century specs - Oliver Cromwell helped lead a rebellion/revolution to smash an old order. And just like Napoleon, Lenin, Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, Julius Caesar, Fidel Castro etc - Oliver Cromwell earned his right to govern as legitimate head of state on the battle field and in the minds of the men of his victorious armies.

[annanimo]

If you're writing of Oliver Cromwell as legitimate leader - yes he definately was. In time honoured fashion - not viewed through 21st Century specs - Oliver Cromwell helped lead a rebellion/revolution to smash an old order. And just like Napoleon, Lenin, Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, Julius Caesar, Fidel Castro etc - Oliver Cromwell earned his right to govern as legitimate head of state on the battle field and in the minds of the men of his victorious armies.

←

How did a thread about the BNP turn into a discussion about the great Oliver Cromwell?

I think there is no cut and dry method of determining which historical leaders were "legitimate" and which were not. It is very difficult given that until recently there was no system devised by which "legitimate" rulers could be distinguished from "illegitimate" ones, and even today the line seems to be drawn on the basis of US approval. There was also no comprehension or endorsement of modern democratic processes.

I for one feel Cromwell has been treated unfairly by historians, that he achieved so much politically for which we owe our current freedoms and that he was one of the few heads of state who possessed genuine leadership abilities. But he came from a time of complex poilitical, social and religious unrest which few understood fully at the time and which fewer today are remotely interested in fathoming. Prejudices and misconceptions abounded then, and continue to do so.

I understand your appreciation of Cromwell's achievements, Red Goblin, but I'm not sure they actually demonstrate his legitimacy. Similarly, the execution of Charles I, although arguably necessary, was technically illegal and constituted murder.

Interesting that you consider William the Conqueror to be a legitimate king (despite being rejected by the Witan as such) and Castro in spite of a lack of democratic mandate.

[Mr Mosquito]

How did a thread about the BNP turn into a discussion about the great Oliver Cromwell?

I think there is no cut and dry method of determining which historical leaders were "legitimate" and which were not.  It is very difficult given that until recently there was no system devised by which "legitimate" rulers could be distinguished from "illegitimate" ones, and even today the line seems to be drawn on the basis of US approval.  There was also no comprehension or endorsement of modern democratic processes.

I for one feel Cromwell has been treated unfairly by historians, that he achieved so much politically for which we owe our current freedoms and that he was one of the few heads of state who possessed genuine leadership abilities.  But he came from a time of complex poilitical, social and religious unrest which few understood fully at the time and which fewer today are remotely interested in fathoming.  Prejudices and misconceptions abounded then, and continue to do so. 

I understand your appreciation of Cromwell's achievements, Red Goblin, but I'm not sure they actually demonstrate his legitimacy.  Similarly, the execution of Charles I, although arguably necessary, was technically illegal and constituted murder.

Interesting that you consider William the Conqueror to be a legitimate king (despite being rejected by the Witan as such) and Castro in spite of a lack of democratic mandate.

←

William the Conqueror was a legitimate King of England as I understand he, unlike Harold, was of a bloodline eminating from Alfred the Great. No English monarch can be legitimate without this ancestry. The last legitimate English King was Richard III, all who followed are imposters including the present British Government Queen Elizabeth II as she is not descended from Alfred. Cromwell was a legitimate head of state as he became the recognized leader of the victorious English Republican Army. Castro and Lenin were recognised leaders of successful revolutions of countries that have barely recognised democratic process. Cromwell was also no democrat but recognised the heroes of his revolution such as the Leveller movement leaders (level all rich men's estates ) and the great John Lilburne who were democratic.

I share the view of our ancestors from the English Commonwealth and Protectorate periods that English Royalists are delinquents.

[annanimo]

William the Conqueror was a legitimate King of England as I understand he, unlike Harold, was of a bloodline eminating from Alfred the Great. No English monarch can be legitimate without this ancestry. The last legitimate English King was Richard III, all who followed are imposters including the present British Government Queen Elizabeth II as she is not descended from Alfred. Cromwell was a legitimate head of state as he became the recognized leader of the victorious English Republican Army. Castro and Lenin were recognised leaders of successful revolutions of countries that have barely recognised democratic process. Cromwell was also no democrat but recognised the heroes of his revolution such as the Leveller movement leaders (level all rich men's estates    ) and the great John Lilburne who were democratic.

I share the view of our ancestors from the English Commonwealth and Protectorate periods that English Royalists are delinquents.

←

I think this is an absolutely fantastic discussion, more entertaining and enlightening than any at Uni!

The Levellers were real heroes, I agree. Anyone who believes that socialism emanates from Marx needs to examine the Levellers' efforts and popular appeal. I don't accept that Parliamentarians really accepted them and consider that both sides saw these "agitators" as a threat. They were too forward-thinking for their time.

Royalism is a bizarre philosophy, and I find it highly amusing listening to people advocating it. But ultimately the "legitimacy" of an individual to govern depends on the nation's constitution and therefore I have to accept our current queen is legitimate even though I may not care too much for the concept of monarchy.

William the Conquerer - legitimate? Yes, he was descended from Alfred. So were the Godwins (indirectly). He was, however, an illigitimate son of Robert, Duke of Normandy. And Edward the Confessor had no right to go offering the crown to William, even if William's claim was correct. The Saxon law decreed that it was the Witan (Saxon council) who decided where the crown should go and although this was usually on the basis of hereditary rule this was not always the case. And the Witan voted for Harold. End of argument.

Even before Harold's death there was a man with a better claim to the English throne around - Edgar Atheling. He was decended from Alfred but didn't have the support of the Witan.

Also, in regards Alfred, you say "no English monarch can be legitimate without this ancestry". Why not? Alfred wasn't even King of England - merely of Wessex. Besides, our current queen is decended from Alfred- it's just that there are possibly more direct decendants out there. In the middle ages, as you will know, various rivals fought it out, leading armies to victory and securing the crown for themselves - a bit like Cromwell I suppose. Deciding retrospectively which actually had a better claim to the throne is a bit academic and unnecessary. Especially as they were almost all killed off anyway.

The last legitimate king was Richard III? You're not a member of the Richard III Society are you? I can't see how a man implicated in the murder of the legitimate king can somehow claim legitimacy through his murderous acts. Besides, there are some who would argue the last legitimate monarch was Richard II - an argument that bears more weight.

I personally think Cromwell is the greatest Parliamentarian of all time. But I can't allow my admiration of his achievements to get in the way of some unpleasant facts about his life. And I wouldn't argue the point about legitimacy too hard when it applies to a time when people of all persuasions were beginning to ask themselves "What really makes a ruler legitimate?"

It seems we still don't have the answers.

[Mr Mosquito]

I think this is an absolutely fantastic discussion, more entertaining and enlightening than any at Uni!

←

Oh dear !!!!! when I was at Uni discussion was engineered by our lecturers to be entertaining and enlightening and contentious - probably the best way to learn and remember difficult artistic concepts.

I'll argue that Alfred 'the Great' as King of Wessex is/was a legitimate King of all England and the only English monarch ever to be known as 'Great'. Being Bristolian i.e. born in what is now the principle city of Wessex, 'til death I'll argue that Alfred the Great, as King of Wessex, is the font of all true royal blood. The present British Government 'God' Queen is an imposter and definately not of Alfred the Great's bloodline and so Wessex is now a Republic for this and many other reasons

According to research done by eminent academics for one of Tony Robinson's TV series, a true potential King of England currently resides in Australia and happens to be a staunch Republican

If you're at Bristol Uni studying British history, I suggest you read 'Britain in Revolution' by Austin Woolrych - Oxford University Press 2004. A very good read especially the sections relating to the liberation of Bristol and royalists being relieved of assets and property by the English Republican Army.

PM me and meet me before the Doncaster game if you wish.