Talk:English Interregnum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
English Interregnum was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on March 5, 2006.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. |
[edit] Republican?
The wikipedia entry on republic has "a republic is a state whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or electorate constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and sovereignty." This is a reasonable description of the Commonwealth before Pride's purge and, at a stretch, even of the Commonwealth as a whole - but surely not the Protecorate which was essentially an autocracy. I have changed it to say "parliamentary and military" but that still doesn't really cover the Protectorate of Richard Cromwell should rightly be called a heriditary monarchA Geek Tragedy 16:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can't believe I didn't notice this. Thanks. Juppiter 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fifth Monarchist
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Interregnum&diff=83551572&oldid=83508054 This revert is absolutely right, but for the avoidance of any doubt, the issue isn't whether Fifth Monarchist means anything - it does, it's a term that refers to a nonconformist sect that took an apocalyptic view of Revelation and believed Christ's kingdon on earth was imminent. However, Cromwell was not a Fifth Monarchist. Although his faith displays certain millenarian tendencies his views never drifted to this extreme and he was certainly never directly associated with the Fifth Monarchists. Greycap 06:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] English Interregnum?
Well that is a bit rich. Charles I of Scotland was murdered in 1649 and the Scots had a de facto interregnum until we could crown Charles II at Scone in 1651 and then again because of Cromwell we were forced to put up with another load of it until 1660. More Anglocentricity using Stuart monarchs here. Always good to remember that the Kings of England had to be provided from the Kingdom of Scots, both Plantagenet and Tudor did not seem to have the right bed-skills to secure their successions. There are still plenty of Royal Stuarts around, even if they had to suffer the ignominy of deposition by 18th c. puritanism, at least their fertility has never been in question. :-) Brendandh 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
