Oliver CromwellTo what extent can Oliver Cromwell be described as King in all but name between the years 1649 – 1658? Oliver Cromwell was and still is one of the most famous Britains ever to walk this earth. Born to humble origins he rose through the army, led through civil war and dethroned a King to claim his place as the first constitutional ruler of Great Britain. This essay was written by me and took over 100 hours of research, reading and planning before bieng typed out in one 3 hour exam. If history is your thing then I really hope you find this an interesting read. The protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, as dictated by the terms of the Humble Petition and Advice was without doubt a position with monarchical foundations. Whilst the role of Lord Protector was felt to be much less permanent than the title of King, after the civil wars and the defeat of the royalist army, the title of King was also no longer a position of positive connotation. Cromwell himself admits ‘though he had no desire to be King in name, he knew he would be King in fact.’ After all he was the head of the army, leader of the government with the right to rule by decree and in this sense he was the fundamental ruler. Whilst in the past the role of a King was seen as a god given one, and a protector was just there to instruct the true monarchical ruler, in Cromwell’s case the circumstances in which he ruled were different. England was without leadership, facing the threat of further revolution and perhaps even civil war from Muggletonians and Levellers. In this essay by looking at Cromwell’s position in direct comparison to other monarchs of the era, and the traditional role of a King the question of whether Cromwell was ‘King in all but name’ will be assessed. Of course it is impossible to prove that the roles of Protector and of King were exactly the same, after all ‘The title of lord protector was felt to be much less permanent than a King.’ When looking historically at previous protectorates, namely the protectorate of Somerset during Edward VI rule, it can be seen that traditionally protectorates were very much limited. The fact that Somerset was overthrown suggests that his position was one of very little personal power as he didn’t even hold the authority to influence his own fate. However the Cromwellian protectorate was not on behalf of another monarch, and in fact it would have been impossible to do so due to the result of the civil war and the abolition of the title ‘King.’ ‘It was hardly plausible to see the new lord protectorate as a regent for a Stuart prince.’ Cromwell’s protectorate followed the basic principles of the previous monarchy of Charles I and such it would appear that Cromwell was ruling in a position similar to that of a King, albeit under a different title. That is not to say the Crown itself was not offered to Cromwell, as it was in 1647, however due to the result of the civil war and Cromwell’s relationship with the army, it was impossible for him to accept such an offer. Cromwell did not want to appear self motivated and lose the support of the army, however he did proclaim ‘What if one should take it upon himself to be King?’ signifying Cromwell’s acceptance that the position of Lord Protector would still see him ruling as a King under a veiled name. ‘Cromwell’s argument had been why should the person in which supreme authority resides be any less a King simply because his style is spelled protector.’ An argument that historians such as Richard Wilkinson often propose to suggest that Cromwell could not have been King was his lack of royal blood and divine right. This cannot be denied, his humble origins stretched back to a small family house in Huntingdon to a middle class family. However Cromwell felt that this should not be a limiting factor, proposing that divine right was not important and didn’t even exist. This argument can be furthered by suggesting that Cromwell’s role in the execution of Charles was ‘an act of regicide.’ This would make Cromwell a criminal guilty of the most heinous crime known in the land, and in no way a plausible candidate to be the next monarchical ruler. The trial itself was flawed in Charles eyes who felt ‘A King cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth.’ Whilst these points may hold some validity, they cannot be seen as a reasonable basis to completely deny Cromwell’s position outright. Cromwell led the army that defeated the previous King. ‘The right of conquest was seen as a legal basis for a claim to the throne,’ so by defeating Charles technically Cromwell was the only man who had any rightful claim to the throne. Whilst this may be seen as a tenuous link, by looking into history, and the accession of Henry II again we can see a tenuous link in this case based of illegitimate lineage. Henry ‘Mustered enough support to win the crown for himself,’ much in the same way that Cromwell had proven himself and gained a position through a legally binding document in the Humble petition and Advice, that he was the next legitimate ruler. Whilst Charles may have felt that ‘He was responsible to God alone for his actions,’ Cromwell did win the ‘throne’ through a historically accepted method, and even if Cromwell lacked the title of King, he most certainly embodied the nature of a monarchical ruler. The historian Tomlinson defines this such that ‘Kingship be not a title, but a name that runs through the law, yet is not so ratione nominis, from the reason of the name, but from what is signified.’ In essence it was not his title that made Cromwell a King, but they way he earned his position and what his rule signified. A direct comparison between Oliver Cromwell and King Charles I highlights many comparable features of their rule. Both held the loyalty of the army, the controlling influence over parliament, access to money with which to run the country and even the right to name their own successor. Just as Charles had been during his reign, Cromwell ‘Was to be known as his highness,’ and lived in a royal place with his own personal entourage of chefs, doctors, surgeons, advisors and friends. Oliver Cromwell signed all official documentation ‘Oliver P,’ the P for protector mirroring the R for Regina that Charles adopted. In fact to some extent Cromwell was treated better than Charles, after all Charles faced a humiliating execution in front of his people, where as Cromwell received a state funeral ‘where he was buried in Westminster abbey in a ceremony based off King James I.’ In fact just to draw an even closer connection, just as Charles faced execution at the end of the civil war, when the protectorate collapsed after Cromwell’s death, his body was exhumed and executed as a sign that the period of revolution was over. This shows that both men were figureheads of their own personal eras and neither of them in death were treated with the respect of a traditional King. Perhaps the most symbolic ceremony of the traditional monarchy was the coronation, and once again Cromwell’s coronation bore many parallels with the Kings of old. His service, just as those before him was conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury where he was presented the sword and sceptre of office. Charles’ coronation also had these features, and in fact the only real difference was Charles own personal choice to take a full coronation where the oils and comb offered made him feel he had ‘washed away the mere human in him, leaving him purely, indefeasibly and absolutely a King.’ Cromwell of course not believing in the divine right of Kings felt this was unnecessary for his ceremony. In terms of Cromwell’s position as a King in all but name, many more similarities than differences can be drawn between Cromwell and Charles. Cromwell may not have been formally known as King Oliver; however he still left his coronation to cheers of ‘God Save the Lord Protector,’ so in that respect Cromwell was just as much a ‘King’ as Charles or any other previous monarch. Cromwell of course as has already been stated had neither the right nor the ability to claim the throne by right of succession. He was very unlikely to marry into a royal bloodline and such his accession had to come from other means. Cromwell’s relationship with the army was to prove the key, the new model army to be precise which allowed Cromwell to exercise power and leverage to get into power. The oath of loyalty of an army was a monarchical privilege, hence why Cromwell was so keen to keep the support of the army even if it meant having to forgo personal success such as claiming the title of King. Where Charles had suffered mainly was from the loss of loyalty of the army, and in turn the loss of a fundamental right of the monarchy. Perhaps one of Cromwell’s greatest success’s was his own personal use of the army to firstly win the civil war, and then continue to use it in dissolving parliaments and the establishment of the major general programme to further his spread of influence. David Sharp goes as far as to suggest that ‘Cromwell’s power rested on bayonets,’ a statement that would suggest Cromwell used the army as his first port of call in all cases. Considering the degree of influence that not only Cromwell had over the army, but that the army actually had over Cromwell this is an unfair assumption to make. Cromwell was forced to reject the initial humble petition and advice on the knowledge that if he didn’t he would lose the support of the army. Equally without the army Cromwell had very little power or influence and if you took away the army then there was no way that Cromwell could have ever been monarch, however it is also important to remember that any favour held by Cromwell over the army was self earned. The main role of the army was to remove the old tyrannical King and the corrupt nature of the monarchy, replacing it with an unprecedented constitutional system with a figurehead the army could trust. In essence Cromwell was King in all but name, however not a King as had been known in the past. He was still a monarch however his position was far more limited than that of the preceding Kings and Queens, an unprecedented position in the country. Not forgetting of course the state of Britain at this time, particularly England and Wales. Still reeling from the Civil war that had ripped apart families and torn through the country the one thing the country lacked without a King or monarch was a sense of leadership. Cromwell offered the country a beacon of hope, offering to protect (as Lord Protector) the people from the risk of revolution from the Levellers during what has been described by many historians including Sherwood as a ‘crisis of power.’ The reaction of Cromwell was that he was installing some sense of order, and the reaction of the people was that Cromwell was trying to regain control of the country. Cromwell of course could not rule as King for the simple fact that ‘the soldiers particularly objected to the idea of another King.’ The removal of the title King after the civil war meant that to be a traditional monarch was impossible, and that Cromwell would have to re-invent and set new precedent avoiding the name that carried such negative connotations. Richard Wilkinson suggests that ‘He knocked down parliaments in a way no Stuart King ever attempted. Levellers and Royalists were suppressed and his power rested on the new model army. He was a military dictator.’ The facts of this assumption are undeniable, Cromwell used his position to wipe away any of the paraphernalia of the old monarchy, however the opinion that he was a military dictator is harsh. Cromwell in reality just held a tight grip over the army in an unstable country ever at the treat of revolution, a tactic that any ruler under threat would be likely to use. Cromwell was indeed the leader of the country and for this reason deserved the loyalty that the previous leaders had enjoyed, however it cannot be denied that Cromwell relied too heavily on the army in that his actions were always influenced by the fear of losing their support. If they had wanted the army could have just as easily overthrown Cromwell as they did dissolve Parliaments on his order. In terms of his position as King in all but name, Cromwell was still undeniably a leader however the actual power he held was not on the same level as the previous Kings. By now both the military and Parliament had the power to overthrow him if they so wished however in an unprecedented era, with a new constitution Cromwell’s power was unlikely to be of a comparable level to his predecessors. Continuing this idea of Cromwell and Parliament it is clear to see just how limited he was. For the first time in British history the power of the King was less than the power of Parliament with Cromwell suffering limitations imposed in the constitution. This was not traditional in any way for a monarchy. Cromwell answered to parliament and with his protectorate already considered a constitutional monarchy; it just went to show just how restricted he was; only allowed to rule within the parameters of the Humble Petition and Advice. It is important to note however that like other preceding Kings Cromwell could rule by decree in what he considered a state of emergency. The most important parliament of the protectorate was the purged parliament, often known as the rump parliament. As a result of Pride’s purge of the long parliament in December 1648 the remaining politicians declared themselves ‘the supreme power in this nation.’ This was a major blow to Cromwell’s position as it forced him to accept that just as he was in a unique position ‘The Purged Parliament had unprecedented executive and legislative powers.’ In reality this meant that Cromwell was ruling the country in a much less prestigious position, with far fewer powers than those leaders who had come before him making him more of a token leader than an actual King and leaving him devoid of one of the fundamental rights of monarchy. Even in a democratic monarchy the King had always some provision to legislate autocratically as the supreme law maker in the country. Cromwell lacked this. The final point to consider is Cromwell’s Kingdom, the area which his power extended to as Lord Protector. In reality this area was fairly small, limited to only England and Wales rather than the Ruler of the British Isles and Empire as Charles had been. A full account of territorial holdings confirms this. ‘In 1649, Parliament controlled only England and Wales; Scotland declared its allegiance to Charles II and most of Ireland was in Royalist hands. Colonial settlements in Virginia, Maryland and Barbados remained Royalist; the Scillies, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were used as bases for Royalist privateers to prey upon Commonwealth shipping, and a privateering squadron commanded by Prince Rupert began operating from Kinsale in southern Ireland in February 1649.’ Cromwell had very limited control over an equally limited area of land, lacking the true authority to rule over the entire Kingdom. The fact that Ireland and Scotland remained Royalist strongholds seriously undermined the power of the protectorate and left Cromwell in a position of little authority. Even King Charles I, the tyrannical King who bought his country into civil war on two occasions had full control over the British Isles and empires, showing that in this respect Cromwell lacked the overall authority of a King. To conclude, Cromwell cannot be described as a King for the simple fact that the monarchy under which all predeceasing Kings had ruled had been abolished as a result of the civil war. However whilst Cromwell was ‘lacking in crown,’ his position did embody many of the fundamental rights of Kingship. His coronation, the ceremonial acceptance of a King was very similar to that of Charles I. He had some power to legislate without Parliament and even to dissolve Parliaments which of course he did use. He also had the control and respect of the army, the right to name his successor, and by influencing the terms of the Humble Petition and Advice in many respects he controlled the extent to which he would be bound to rule the country. Cromwell agreed with Charles statement that the crown was ‘corruptible,’ and chose to rule the country with a policy of ‘little patronage or corruption.’ Cromwell was a new type of monarch, operating in a new fashion. Although he was only in control of a fairly small Kingdom, this was because the Kingdom of old was lost with the removal of the traditional monarchy. The title of Lord Protector may have been new, but the responsibility of the role was equal hence why ‘the scene in which Cromwell formally accepted the title of Lord Protector was as ritualised as anything seen in the age of Kings.’ And of course this was no longer the age of Kings, it was a new age embodying new principles and a different style of leadership. Although at the time Cromwell was seen as a traitor after his death and the fall of the protectorate, perhaps the most fitting example to show the acceptance of Cromwell as a monarch came in 1899. 250 years after the death of Cromwell, a statue was erected in Westminster amongst all of the other Kings, showing that Parliament themselves had finally accepted Cromwell as a monarch. Cromwell never wanted to be a King in name, and although he faced some limitations he embodied the true nature of a monarchy hence why Cromwell was not just a stop gap between two Stuart monarchs, but a monarch in his own right. Cromwell was a King in all but name. Sources Edited By: Dr Henry Coded By: Dark Paladin |