Cromwell's Right To Rule...

[Peter Pedant]

Looking at Dan Snow's prog on Naseby.

Everyone kno that Charles I said his right to rule was from God ( = Divine Right ) - and Parliament said no....

but say in 1657... ( near the end of the Republic )
if you asked Cromwell, what right he had to rule ?
what would he have said ?

After the massacre of Drogheda, even he would not have said:
'er the Irish have voted me in....'

Proper hx q , proper answers asked for....

[kvalidir]

Right by conquest I imagine- which is about the oldest right there is.

[ToraToraTora]

He had the right based on the fact he was able to rule. ie he was able to convince enough to follow him, to build an army large enough to take power. The basis of all our civilisations. The same basis as monarchly started, indeed Parliament famously offerred Cromwell the crown and he said "did we cut the head off the king merely to steel his crown?" Cromwell was a reluctant ruler, only taking the reins when his exasperation with the early Commons gave him no choice.

[kvalidir]

Yeah he had no choice but to commit genocide in Ireland either lol- one of the most heinous men in history.

[ToraToraTora]

who mentioned Ireland??? we are discussing the perceived right to rule.

[sandyRoe]

Drogheda's in Ireland and was mentioned in the OP.

[kvalidir]

I'd already answered the initial question, I was addressing your answer.You imply that he was 'reluctant' to rule- people who are reluctant to rule do not then go wading into Ireland on nothing less than a religious crusade and wealth gaining expedition killing 500,000 directly and indirectly and selling and transporting 50,000 others into slavery. He then copied his success in Ireland with a similar project in Scotland killing 50% of the population in Dundee alone. In 1548 he had made sure tat anyone not in cahoots regarding the King's execution was barred from the chamber. He was so popular that his body was exhumed and he was 'ritually executed' after his death. He was effective as a leader to some narrow degree but reluctant he certainly wasn't. His lack of reluctance was the point I was making.

[Hypognosis]

He could have said that it was a coup in reverse: Parliamentary officials, setting up their own army and overthrowing the military establishment - which just happened to have a monarch and the nobility in charge of it.

Right to rule is just gang mentality taken to a higher level, imho. Invoking God to sanctify the ability to bully the less-well armed was just an insult which couldn't go unpunished. Having completed that task, it is understandable that Cromwell was reluctant to be head of the onerous and more mundane tasks involved in the peace, once these became apparent to him and his fellow regicides.

[ToraToraTora]

Cromwell's Irish activities happenned before he was "Lord Protector" - he was then acting for parliament.

[Peter Pedant]

Thanks everyone
food for thought