Talk:Richard Cromwell

succession
It seems to me the current succession box

is very bad history. It make it appear that Richard Cromwell was King of England, King of Scots, and King of Ireland (none of which he was); and that he "succeeded" Charles I in some way (a position which no one could reasonably hold). A list that includes the Cromwells is per se not a list of "Kings", though it would be reasonable to call such a list a list of "rulers". The "backdating" of Charles II's reign to the date of his father's death makes him a king (in some sense) from 1649 but it doesn't make him a ruler, which also would solve another "box" problem.

The "de jure" claims, which are a polite historical fiction rather than a reflection of reality, could be dealt with in the text.

This is not perhaps ideal, but I would encourage people to modify it with the goal of finding a solution that does not falsely impose order where there was chaos, and does not imply that a given leader was in power when he was dead or powerless. - 02:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd second this -- but I'd also suggest putting it as "Ruler of Scotland" rather than "Ruler of Scots", since putting "Scots" in there is mostly a reference to the "King of Scots" title. Or maybe put the title in the box for both Cromwells as "Lord Protector", with the link going to List of British Monarchs. In Richard's case, the link to Charles II as successor would go Charles II (as King of England, Scotland, and Ireland) or similar.Silly Dan 02:22, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Scots" was just me not reading carefully enough. I've changed it above, and put a possible "Lord Protector" version below.. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree that the box I added is bad history... but I was striving to create a box that created some sort of consistency with the boxes on Charles I of England and Charles II of England. As I see it, there are six articles that need to have some sort of infobox to cover this period; and it seemed that when one of these was edited, the others were overlooked. All I was doing was editing them all to bring them in line to the edits Lord Emsworth was making to Charles I of England. I must confess that I didn't really think about what the labels were implying, and agree that the "Lord Protector" label makes vastly more sense. I'll amend the article accordingly. - MykReeve 16:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Charles I of England
 * Commonwealth of England
 * The Protectorate
 * Oliver Cromwell
 * Richard Cromwell
 * Charles II of England


 * Much nicer now, I think! There are a lot of series (with boxes) where there are breaks in succession, and the tendency is always to "even them out" in favor of a clean line of succession (skipping regents, interregnums, etc). I think this series, at least avoids that tendency (now if we could do something about the US "Presidents" before George Washington - Nunh-huh 21:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"continent?"
The sentence "He retired to obscurity, going into exile on the Continent under the soubriquet of 'John Clarke', but returning in 1680 to live out the remainder of his life in Britain" must have been written by a Briton. For the rest of us, there exist more than one "Continent." Could you possibly name it or clarify? (I would have changed it, but wasn't sure--I assume you mean continental Europe, but some might assume North America, since people were headed that way in some numbers around that time.)

Thank you!


 * I'm pretty sure it would have been continental Europe (often called "The Continent" in Britain) and have made the appropriate changes. - Zagrebo 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?
"Richard was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge, thus distinguishing him as the only English head of state to have graduated from a university."

I'm sorry, but I believe many subsequent English heads of state have college educations, unless this is some custom that this yank has never heard of66.72.215.225 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware none of our British kings and queens went to university, including our present Queen Liz. The heir apparant - Prince Charles - is the first of the royal lineage to have done so (I think he got a degree in archaeology, which as everybody knows, is a very dossy subject...) Colin4C 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

His father attended Sidney Sussex, Cambridge, so that makes at least two English heads of state who attended university. The use of graduation in this context is also wrong since few undergraduates actually spent a full period at Oxbridge in this period. I would tend to say that this sentence should be removed entirely, or at least trimmed to mention only that he attended Magdalene. Greycap 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Have taken the reference out. Greycap 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Doing some digging on this, Oxford DNB article by Peter Gaunt says RC does not appear to have attended university. I am going to remove this and do a tidying-up/rewrite of the article too. Greycap 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edward VII matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford in 1959 and transferred to Trinity College, Cambridge in 1861. He didn't receive a degree but this was not unusual for the time.TheMathemagician (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Anecdote I heard about Richard
I'm not sure where I read this, so I haven't added it to the article. It has to do with some tour guide showing a now elderly and forgottten Richard round the House of Lords and pointing out the monarch's throne, only to be met with a: 'Yes I know....I used to sit there...', which somewhat took the tour guide aback....Colin4C 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Caveats about this article
Reading Pepy's diary I gather that Richard did not resign willingly (he was pushed rather than jumped); that he was referred to as the 'Protector' even after his resignation; and that there was serious thought of re-instating him as an alternative to Charles II (or rather that Richard, General Monk and Charles were put on a short-list of 3 possible future heads of state just before the Restoration). Colin4C 11:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Will try to pick this up in further amendments to rewrite. Greycap 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For such a rewrite this interesting entry in Pepy's Diary for the 17th Jan 1660 might be worth considering:


 * 'To Whitehall and coming back turned in at Harper's, where Jack Price was, and I drank with him and he told me among other things how much the [ex] Protector [Richard Cromwell] is altered, though he would seem to bear out his trouble very well, yet he is scarce able to talk sense with a man; and how he will say that "Who should a man trust, if he may not trust to a brother and an uncle"; and "How much those men have to answer before God Almighty, for their playing the knave with him as they did." He told me also, that there was £100,000 offered, and would have been taken, for his restitution, had not the Parliament come in as they did again; and that he do believe that the Protector will live to give a testimony of his valour and revenge yet before he dies, and that the Protector will say so himself sometimes.' Colin4C 10:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to take Pepys as an authoritative source on this - having done some research it seems that there were rumours at the time that Richard was to be recalled, but that is all. And it is difficult to know whether he jumped or was pushed given the lack of source material, Richard's only letters from this period are very brief. I've tried to reflect this ambiguity in the article. Greycap 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Major Error?
Was his wife really surnamed 'Maijor' or is that a spelling mistake for 'Major'? Colin4C 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the title! It's how they spelled their name and it's the spelling the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives so I have kept that version. Happy to consider a change to modern spelling though, if that is the consensus. Greycap 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just thinking that there is something odd in the orthography of that name, and the combination of the 'i' and 'j' which I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it's to do with the fact that in Latin script an 'i' and a 'j' were interchangeable and designated by the same letter: 'i' or 'I'. Thus Julius Caesar = IULIUS CAESAR. Maybe 'Maijor' represents a 17th century orthographic/phonetic version of 'Major' or a Latinisation of the same... Dunno..... Colin4C 09:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess it's probably 'i' and 'y' that were interchangeable. Hence Maijor or Mayjor as alternatives to Major. Greycap 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Errors
I have changed the edited the main article to say that Richard Cromwell left England for mainland Europe alone. He sadly, never saw his wife again. Pepys' account of Richard in exile, are pretty much all there is to go on. He was in effect a victim of circumstances. A simple man, who overspent his allowance and had no mind for the politics of the day. He was the first Englishman to own a Grandfather clock, a telling fact really.


 * Your change is inconsistant with the article about his country estate in Hampshire, Hursley, which says RC and his wife Dorothy travelled together to France and then around Europe. Darmot and gilad (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ancestral error
The ancestors box seems to say that Oliver Cromwell, linked to the New Model Army leader and Richard Cromwell's father, is Richard's son. This can't be right; was this article's subject's son also named Oliver? Mm40 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're reading the tree incorrectly. The ancestors go left to right, so the box starts with Richard, and then his two parents (Oliver and wife). The box then shows the four grandparents. Hope that helps. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Date of Reign
the beginning date of reign is wrong, by alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.236.96 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cromwell
The list of his children appears to put his daughter Elizabeth in the wrong order (ahead of her older brother), unless she was actually born in 1640 instead of 1650; I don't know which error has been made. If anyone has a source, can they fix this please? Richard75 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious
This is dubious:
 * the system under the Instrument of Government whereby representation of rotten boroughs was cut in favour of county towns

The Instrument of Government did cut rotten boroughs, but the only county town added was Durham. Additional members went to the county constituencies, not to boroughs which happened to be county towns. jnestorius(talk) 05:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any doubt you are essentially right. The only change required is from 'county towns' to 'counties', and add in your reference. (The current version is unreferenced.) Are you going to do it? GarethAd (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have now made the change. As it is only rather incidentally relevant to Richard himself, I have not referenced it, but references are available in Instrument of Government, particularly the table which makes it clear that a majority of seats are now for counties. This refers to https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1653intrumentgovt.asp, in which the constituencies are fully listed. GarethAd (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Dates as Protector subsection
Am I alone in finding the placement of this subsection clumsy? I think it would be better if it were at the end of the article's content, or simply a paragraph. Matuko (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, ; I quite agree with you. As you suggested, a simple paragraph without a section heading would suffice. Thank you for pointing this out.