Opinion of Oliver Cromwell

[Maistre]

[Oakvale]

Genocidal maniac (sane, normal, blah blah).

[The Mikado]

Genocidal maniac (sane, normal, blah blah).

Not sure about the maniac part.

Cromwell has a number of issues, even setting aside the elephant in the room that is Ireland. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Managed to be even more deplorable than the Stuart dynasty.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Managed to be even more deplorable than the Stuart dynasty.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Freedom Fighter, obviously.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Managed to be even more deplorable than the Stuart dynasty.

Hey now. Religious liberty so long as you weren't a Catholic, but hey, that wasn't a policy change is hardly a bad thing

[tpfkaw]

Managed to be even more deplorable than the Stuart dynasty.

Explain, in your own words, what exactly was so particularly "deplorable" about the Stuart dynasty. If your answer includes the words or phrases "tyranny," "they believed in the divine right of kings," "they believed in absolute monarchy," or "they tried to usurp the powers of Parliament," I will, as your 10th-grade/5th-form history teacher, give you a check-plus and a gold star sticker.

[tpfkaw]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why would I go into detail when you've already covered the bases? (I would add, "James I filling his court with cronies", the "execution of Walter Raleigh", being "completely financially incapable", and a couple more, but you catch my drift)

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's an interesting and highly original reading of the situation...

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Both.

[Mr. Illini]

Piss on his grave; Erinn Forever!

[DemPGH]

Things didn't turn out as planned, but an easy FF. Also preferable to several of the Tudors and certainly the Stuarts. He cannot be faulted for opposing the bishops, and I wonder if the intrigues and the extremes that he found himself in the middle of undermined a lot of the good intentions. Probably.

[windjammer]

HP (catholic)

[The Mikado]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

Attempting to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland was a "limited measure of religious freedom?" 

[tpfkaw]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

Attempting to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland was a "limited measure of religious freedom?" 

Yes, because unlike the Dissenters the Anglicans were not (or at least not nearly as much) in favor of running the country as a hellish theocracy where any deviationist religious views, or anything fun for that matter, was met by being tortured to death, as evidenced by their views on such matters as "we don't like your book, so let's go kill 300,000 people." If the Dissenters had their way we wouldn't have had Shakespeare.

[The Mikado]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

Attempting to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland was a "limited measure of religious freedom?" 

Yes, because unlike the Dissenters the Anglicans were not (or at least not nearly as much) in favor of running the country as a hellish theocracy where any deviationist religious views, or anything fun for that matter, was met by being tortured to death, as evidenced by their views on such matters as "we don't like your book, so let's go kill 300,000 people." If the Dissenters had their way we wouldn't have had Shakespeare.

I'm seriously drawing a blank at how imposing episcopacy and Anglican prayers on a deeply Calvinist Presbyterian Scotland to which those things were deeply hateful is an act of religious toleration and liberty.  I fail to see how William Laud's scheme to impose the Church of England upon a Scotland that was not at all ready to receive it, to the point of having Charles invade his own kingdom of Scotland at gunpoint to enforce this situation, has anything to do with toleration.

[H. Ross Peron]

Things didn't turn out as planned, but an easy FF. Also preferable to several of the Tudors and certainly the Stuarts. He cannot be faulted for opposing the bishops, and I wonder if the intrigues and the extremes that he found himself in the middle of undermined a lot of the good intentions. Probably.

[New_Conservative]

I rated him as a 3rd best ruler in England's pre-WWI history, but hes a HP.

[traininthedistance]

The Ayatollah to the Stuarts' Shah Pahlavi.

Obviously both are thoroughgoing HPs; that Cromwell turned out to be even worse should not be taken as any sort of endorsement of his predecessors.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

OK, probably should have said "almost" as bad as the Stuarts :/ They really were a rotten lot thinking about it.

[Colbert]

a son of a b**** , ancestor of all liberal-wings. Long live to cavaliers !

[tpfkaw]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

Attempting to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland was a "limited measure of religious freedom?" 

Yes, because unlike the Dissenters the Anglicans were not (or at least not nearly as much) in favor of running the country as a hellish theocracy where any deviationist religious views, or anything fun for that matter, was met by being tortured to death, as evidenced by their views on such matters as "we don't like your book, so let's go kill 300,000 people." If the Dissenters had their way we wouldn't have had Shakespeare.

I'm seriously drawing a blank at how imposing episcopacy and Anglican prayers on a deeply Calvinist Presbyterian Scotland to which those things were deeply hateful is an act of religious toleration and liberty.  I fail to see how William Laud's scheme to impose the Church of England upon a Scotland that was not at all ready to receive it, to the point of having Charles invade his own kingdom of Scotland at gunpoint to enforce this situation, has anything to do with toleration.

"All churches that receive government funding have to share certain doctrinal similarities with our denomination, although they don't necessarily have to be part of our denomination per se. Government funding for churches comes from a tithe, which everyone has to pay, even if they don't belong to a government-funded church. Nobody can hold public office who doesn't belong to a government-funded church. If you disagree with this state of affairs, bummer."

"Anyone who deviates in even the slightest way from our Taliban-esque sect will be tortured to death. No drinking, no music, no sex, no theatre, no colorful clothing, no luxuries, no non-work or religion-related activities whatsoever. If you disagree with this state of affairs, you'll be tortured to death."

Which of these seems to you to be closer to a state of religious freedom?

[The Mikado]

It's a false choice, given that Charles I was actively moving away from the de facto tolerance of Elizabeth I's reign and even his father's in attempting a more uniform and less varied church and in trying to extend that church's reach to Scotland, where it had never held sway before.  I don't see how you can interpret the monarchy's moves in the 1630s as anything other than a move against religious tolerance and diversity of tolerated opinion within the three kingdoms.

EDIT: You do remember that Charles called Parliament into session in order to vote him the money he needed to forcibly convert Scotland at gunpoint, right?

EDIT 2: I really don't get how anyone could look at the career of Charles I and go "Here's a friend of religious diversity."  Right from the beginning he was plotting with Bishop Laud to harmonize every Anglican Church and crush the regional diversity within it as an institution and to extend its hegemony north of the border into Scotland where it had never held sway before.  That's, like, the opposite of tolerance of religious diversity.