A discussion forum for history enthusiasts everywhere
 
HomeHome  Recent ActivityRecent Activity  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  SearchSearch  

Share | 
 

 Rump parliament democratic?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2776
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Rump parliament democratic?   Tue 19 Jun 2018, 22:34

From my thread: "Amercan revolution a revolution" I discussed with Tim the "Rump parliament" and promised to start a new thread.







@Tim of Aclea wrote:

'I wanted to come with the abolition of the king with Cromwell, but that was rather changing the king with a dictatorship?'

Charles I was executed in 1649, Cromwell did not seize power until 1653.  Before that power lay in theory with the Rump Parliament of which Cromwell was a member.  During 1649, 1650 and 1651 Cromwell was heavily engaged in first the war in Ireland and then the war with Scotland.

Tim,

you are right with your Rump Parliament, but that seems, found after some research, considering itself as an interim government preparing for an elected government? But as I found out the Rump Parliament had its merits and was perhaps to compare with the Staten-Generaal of the Dutch Republic. Perhaps the Rump Parliament had the authority, recognized by the people, but the power was in the hand of Cromwell's army?...(nordmann?), Not so in the Dutch Republic, where the recognized authority lay in the hands of the Staten-Generaal and the power was also in their hands...although there was always tension with William of Orange (the later William III of Britain) who wanted a primordial role for the Stadholdership...especially in the period without Stadholder, that came to an end after the "Annus Horribilis"...the rule of the mob and the murder of the brothers de Witt, perhaps on the instigation of William, who wanted to be rid of all those republicans...but the Orangists had to wait till after the defeat of Napoleon to have a king in the Netherlands, and with the goodwill of Britain as it was with the Belgian secession...

But that is too complicated to discuss overhere and I will start a new thread, although it has to do with the authority of the new American States and what its authority was...?


PS some entries I read for my new thread:
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/first-civil-war/long-parliament
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-commonwealth/rump-parliament
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-commonwealth/nominated-assembly
From the nominated assembly I couldn't resist...
"Following the expulsion of the Rump Parliament in April 1653, the Council of Officers was reluctant to authorise free elections because of the possibility that Presbyterians and even Royalist sympathisers might be returned. Two constitutional schemes were discussed to replace the discredited Parliament. Major-General John Lambert proposed a body similar to the Council of State, with powers limited by a written constitution. Lambert's rival, Major-General Thomas Harrison called for a ruling body based upon the Old Testament Sanhedrin of 70 selected "Saints". Harrison's proposal was influenced by his Fifth Monarchist belief that the rule of the Saints would be a prelude to the reign of Christ on Earth."
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-commonwealth/first-anglo-dutch-war



 

Kind regards from Paul.
Back to top Go down
 

Rump parliament democratic?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Res Historica History Forum :: The history of people ... :: Civilisation and Community-