Cromwellian Conversations 4: Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector

Cromwell is one of the most famous and controversial figures in British history; yet the period in which he was arguably most significant - as Lord Protector and head of state between 1653 and 1658 - is the one that most people know least about.
Cromwell Museum curator Stuart Orme interviews historian Paul Lay (Author of 'Providence Lost: the rise and fall of Cromwell's Protectorate' and editor of 'History Today' magazine) about this fascinating and often overlooked period.

[@victorydaydeepstate]

Cromwell was the Greatest English man ever. The most consequential King was King Charles II because he preserved the dying Monarchy and started the palliative care for the Royal family that has reached reached extinction with Charles III

[@victorydaydeepstate]

Charles III is the Second Coming of Charles I

[@victorydaydeepstate]

Cromwell has been proven the Father of modern Constitutional Democracy...first in England and then in the United States. History has sided with Cromwell

[@theroy7757]

Well Paul, i would say that it's bizarre to you because unlike most people you are using your head instead of having it up one's rear-end, giving one the tunnel-vision that most people seem to suffer from lol.. It's wonderful to hear someone truly insightful speaking of history, great video, thank you :)

[@europhile2658]

Very interesting! What do you see as the difference between "the Common Wealth" and the "Protectorate". The Commonwealth idea lives on with, I think four, US States that still regard themselves as such, e.g. Massachusetts and Virginia. American historians use the term "the English Commonwealth" to describe that period. Yet popularly in English history that period is referred to as "the Protectorate".

[@oggieowen1]

I found this a most interesting and useful video. For me, the hardest part of the whole English Civil War story is trying to understand the different religious groups and how they interacted, and this goes some way to explaining this. Definitely worth a watch.

[@Davehatessocialists]

The theological chasm between Protestants and Catholics is sadly beyond most peoples understanding these days. Simon Schama's take on Cromwell was repulsive. Michael Braddick's books brake down the multitude of competing and changing allegiances throughout the 1600's. It's a complicated century.

[@ballsabout...5065]

Cromwell, as far as we're aware, doesn't have the sex appeal of the Tudors. It goes someway to explaining the periods lack of appeal.