Re-evaluating Cromwell
New research suggests that Oliver Cromwell was more tolerant of alternative religious beliefs than had previously been thought. ANNA WHITELOCK reports on the fall-out from the news
“Has history got it wrong about Oliver Cromwell’s persecution of Catholics?” The question posed in The Guardian’s headline refers to new research claiming that Cromwell was far more committed to religious freedom and equality than previously thought. Taking to Twitter, Paul Lay (@_paullay), author of Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate (2020), noted: “Important this is being said, but it is not new to historians of the period.” “Indeed,” as Arthur_S (@allanholloway) pointed out, “much of it is covered in the 1973 biography of Cromwell by Antonia Fraser, a Catholic herself, who points out that Cromwell was an Independent and believed in the right to dissent and religious observance.”
Nick Anstead (@NickAnstead) was prompted to write: “It is interesting that the anti-Catholic/anti-Irish view of Cromwell is mentioned here as the ‘traditional view’. It is now perhaps the dominant view, but surely it is also a revisionist view, attacking the Victorian admiration of Cromwell.” Lay, whose interventions continued throughout the discussion, replied with “The Victorian admiration of Cromwell was hardly universal, as the controversy over the statue outside parliament demonstrated.” To which Anstead replied: “That is certainly
"Olivere Cromwell was multifaceted, and his faults have resounded down the years"
true, but I think generally we could say their historiography was more positive about him, compared to our own?”
Sir Roger’s Stand (@gdh1959) added that “Cromwell played a big role in our country’s evolution, and one for which we must thank him. But he was multifaceted, and his faults have also resounded down the years.” The response to the original article from Pádraig Barry (@gainline2011) was pithy and pointed: “[It] will start debate this side of the Irish Sea, that’s for sure.” He went on to say that “In this country it is almost a given that Irish people ‘know’ their history. Sadly, this is often untrue.” To which Lay replied: “I suspect every country is like that. But, given centuries of Anglo-Irish relations, the singular bogeyman of Cromwell is of interest in itself – as is, on this side of the Irish Sea, the utter lack of public knowledge of the 17th century and its legacy.”
The Cold Hibernian (@ColdHibernian) asked: “Wouldn’t the IRA and Cromwell have got along? Both Republican groups who used murder and intimidation to coerce the populace?” Lay gave that view short-shrift. “1. He would have put them to the sword, mercilessly. 2. He wasn’t a Republican.” But Gary Hageman (@Troasts3) noted: “I have found it curious that the IRA and the New Model Army both use the same term for their leadership, the Army Council.”
The final word in response to the original headline went to Archie Conington (@Archie Conigton): “Can’t be massively groundbreaking new research lol this was discussed last year in my A-level History module on 1625–1701.” Lol indeed!