Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

dunnkw t1_j1iw4j3 wrote

All I know about him really was that he was Born in 1599, died 1658. September.

28

Any-Assist6732 t1_j1iwris wrote

It was his religious fanatics that helped founder American

39

NoXion604 t1_j1j0kur wrote

Nah, he was too busy butchering the Irish.

22

woodrax t1_j1j0ujk wrote

Pretty sure it was the Sheriff of Nottingham you are thinking of. He also banned merciful beheadings, and table scraps for lepers and orphans.

96

paul_is_on_reddit t1_j1j9s3s wrote

I'll save you a click:

"For all the things we can throw at Cromwell’s feet, the banning of Christmas in England and Wales is not really one of them."

So, the answer to OP's question is, no.

Edit: I counted, the answer to OP's question is FOURTEEN lengthy paragraphs down the article.

506

Briglin t1_j1jbtim wrote

Good question OP - YES he did! - and everyone hated him for it. He was a PURITAN. Remember the episode in Blackadder Great Boo's Up? They were Puritans.

I will explain: Cromwell thought Christmas should be spent in quiet contemplation of the scriptures, not getting pissed and having fun. The general populace disagreed - they liked getting pissed. Soldiers roamed the streets - any women with a painted face was grabbed and had her make up removed with a dirty rag. Anyone cooking goose would get their doors kicked in and it taken away.

After the Restoration of the monarchy the King had Cromwell's body dug up and he was hanged. He had been dead a few years so it must have been difficult. I think he was buried at Thyburn? Marble Arch - where they hanged common criminals. His body is in the middle of the road. Not sure ? And I seem to remember his head went missing? Someone please confirm

History is so much fun.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS!

http://www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/what-happened-to-cromwell-after-his-death/

11

NovelCandid t1_j1jg190 wrote

I, an Irish American, consistently root against English soccer teams on the international stage bc of Cromwell. My friends think it’s weird but I’ve been on a binge researching him, the Long Parliament, colonization of Ireland, Murder of ancestors,etc. A god-besotted dictator, what our “conservatives” wish for this country.

−29

smon696 t1_j1jj6bw wrote

Don't know but he banned the Irish, sadly.

3

JayneLut t1_j1jougl wrote

Replying to paul_is_on_reddit (#1,043,987)

Which is odd, because he effectively banned all the fun things about Christmas... Like singing and getting merry. He didn't ban going to church (though no special services!) or quietly reading the Bible on the day.

42

pollok112 t1_j1jtzf6 wrote

No but Scotland did ban it in the 1500's and despite the ban being lifted in the 1700's it wasn't a holiday until 1958

It's only in the last 50 years it has become a bigger event than new year in Scotland

215

Briglin t1_j1jva1d wrote

Replying to PolymerSledge (#1,045,291)

Bah you are nit-picking, he was Lord Protector and upheld the ban. He was in charge and Christmas was banned.

Officially, the ban on Christmas would be enforced throughout the rest of the reign of Charles I, and into the Protectorate and the Commonwealth. On more than one occasion, soldiers would patrol towns and cities, confiscating food and drink which was believed to be prepared for Christmas. But from here on, public celebrations of Christmas were usually suppressed by the authorities, but behind closed doors Christmas would continue to be celebrated. With the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660, followed the restoration of Christmas in England and Wales.

16

BarcodeBellend t1_j1jybt1 wrote

Replying to CucumberBoy00 (#1,044,006)

Not a Cromwell supporter by any means, and I don't think any sane person would argue he was a good person....

But what he actually did at the time wasn't considered terribly brutal.

Basically he just killed everyone who didn't surrender.

It's actually a really common thing if you look at siege warfare. Soldiers just went nuts and we're extremely brutal to sieges where the people did not surrender.

There's a lot to blame him for.... However his sieges are basically par for the course...

Look at the siege of szigetvar, a few of the mongol sieges, etc. There are baseline genocidal sieges throughout history.

Looked at by the lens of today naturally it's absolutely horrible, but yeah at the time....Completely normal.

I'd honestly blame religion and royalists for it all far more than Cromwell.

Here's some reading for you.

https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/research/spotlight-research/why-did-oliver-cromwell-end-ireland-first-place

https://www.history.co.uk/shows/al-murray-why-does-everyone-hate-the-english/articles/oliver-cromwell-the-most-hated-man-in

21

Upshot12 t1_j1k4k7u wrote

But he did exile my relatives to the new world.

4

cionn t1_j1k9qg5 wrote

Replying to BarcodeBellend (#1,046,020)

You're right, and i think there are more to blame such as Henry Ireton for the brutality caused in Ireland but lets not downplay the brutality of Cromwell.

The 1640s campaign was the latest in a 100 year campaign of genocide of Irish culture and people that expands beyond arguments of contemporary tactics.

The Tudor reconquest had a particular aim to destroy Gaelic culture, outlined in great detail in works by Lord Camden and Edmund Spencer, including tactics of scorched earth and how best to kill an displace Irish from the land. This ending in the flight of the earls was the major hammer blow tpogaelic civilisation.

Its was still surviving afterwards for the following years but Cromwell firmly put the secular gaelic order in its grave. By the time of William of Oranges wars a few decades late all that was left was its religious distinction until the gaelic revival of the late 19th century.

So in relation to destroying Irish heritage Cromwell was by no means the only the only vicious agent of it, but was undoubtedly the head of the most brutal. It just theres more blame to go around

12

BarcodeBellend t1_j1kfkwu wrote

Replying to cionn (#1,047,096)

Sorry I didn't respond to your rather well delivered comment with something more interesting, but it is Christmas(happy Christmas btw),and trust me I have no love for the Tudors either as a welshman hahaha.

0

Jestersage t1_j1kg8kn wrote

Replying to MicahBurke (#1,046,209)

Look on the brightside: You ain't the only group of Protestants that acts contrarians. In fact, sometimes I feel many traditions, habit, and "culture" are due to being contrarian.

34

logosloki t1_j1kjuz5 wrote

Replying to JayneLut (#1,045,212)

Because Oliver Cromwell was a Puritan. Christmas was to them a day of observation and everything else was either Pagan or Papism (which to a Puritan is one and the same).

26

roguetrick t1_j1kk873 wrote

Replying to Jestersage (#1,048,020)

It's almost like it's in the name that they need to protest everything.

Edit: On a more serious note, what you're describing is general ingroup/outgroup mechanics. If too many people conform to the ingroup, they need to create new rules in order to maintain an outgroup.

28

DaddyCatALSO t1_j1ksras wrote

Purtians obsevred Christmas as a serious-minded church observance. They did have holidays (like the origina Plymouth Thanksgiving,) but not on church festivals. Even into th emid-1800s, Christmas observances in ?New England tended to be very subdued, unlike in areas with large German, Dutch, and to some extent Northern Irish ethnic populations,

6

coredweller1785 t1_j1ktlb4 wrote

Revolutions podcast covers this too. It was the puritans who wanted to and they def tried to ban the partying and drinking part. But they were so unsuccessful and many people freaked out when they kept pushing.

Don't think Cromwell was behind it bc he seemed to want to flex as little power as possible.

2

wolfie379 t1_j1kv07n wrote

Replying to peteroh9 (#1,049,815)

Standard practice. Have you ever heard anyone referring to Britain’s second longest serving monarch as Victoria I? No, because there has not yet been a Victoria II, so she is referred to as Queen Victoria. “The first” is only added when there is a need to distinguish them from “the second”.

4

Jestersage t1_j1l1sk3 wrote

Replying to roguetrick (#1,048,514)

I know you laugh about that, but somehow I suspect Catholic hate on socialism (there's actual Papal letters/document abotu why Socialism is always communism) and Orthodox stating non recognizing Immaculate Conception after Catholic proclaim it as infallible (so I heard) are all example of such.

Everything is good until someone you dislike agree to it - then it's not.

17

77096 t1_j1lhue1 wrote

Replying to y0m0tha (#1,044,656)

I love to read a good debunking of some theory or lore I've never heard before. The history they never taught us in school...because it never happened.

3

Intvis t1_j1ljenh wrote

Lots of people in these comments who haven't read the article. Classic reddit

1

DaveN202 t1_j1lzrvb wrote

Replying to JayneLut (#1,045,212)

He himself didn’t say he banned Christmas, however his political party did ban Christmas (1647) at the time albeit unsuccessfully (nobody listened to them). There’s no evidence an order came from him but still it was banned by the puritans, of which he was one.

5

whakahere t1_j1m12m3 wrote

In conclusion, while Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan government that he led did not outright ban the celebration of Christmas, they did take steps to regulate and suppress its celebration, as part of their efforts to promote a more austere and religious lifestyle. These efforts were eventually reversed after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, and Christmas and other holidays once again became widely celebrated in England.

0

silverfang789 t1_j1m7urt wrote

Thanks for that tidbit. I still hate his guts, but will do so for actual reasons.

1

AmericanJelly t1_j1ml2p6 wrote

So the first "war on Christmas" was really the result of religious zealotry? Ironic.

1

ThatGIRLkimT t1_j1oo03y wrote

I never heard about this before. How was it?

1

RobertoSantaClara t1_j1qgknk wrote

Replying to Famous-Software3432 (#1,054,003)

Kind of winter solstice-y. In Scotland the New Year's was the main celebration, they call it Hogmanay. It's just a local Scottish traditions, not Scythian or anything lol.

Traditions associated with it likely have influences from Scandinavians too, e.g. blond people (i.e Norwegian and Danish vikings coming to fuck your day up) are not allowed to enter the house first, because that's bad luck.

2

RobertoSantaClara t1_j1qhis9 wrote

Replying to Physical_Magazine_33 (#1,047,081)

In Scotland, quite a lot of that destroying was actually done by the Presbyterian Scots themselves, in a similar iconoclasm to that which happened in the Netherlands when they began destroying Catholic "idols".

For instance, many Anglo-Saxon (southern Scotland included the old kingdom of Northumbria) crucifixes located in church graveyards were smashed and destroyed, because they contained "pagan" elements in them. The Ruthwell Cross is a surviving example of these crosses.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthwell_Cross

2

RobertoSantaClara t1_j1qhts1 wrote

Replying to Any-Assist6732 (#1,042,771)

*founded one part of America

New England isn't the whole USA, that'd be like saying all of Germany is Swabia. Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, not Puritans, while Virginia and the other Southern colonies were largely Anglican and had nothing to do with Puritanism. Then of course we have Maryland, which was founded by Catholics, the arch-nemesis of Puritans.

Boston likes to claim a sort of monopoly on American Independence War history, but lets not buy into their cheeky attempts to portray the whole country as them alone.

1

RobertoSantaClara t1_j1qi597 wrote

Replying to YejiWord (#1,044,272)

He is referring to the Pilgrims and Puritan migration to New England in the 1600s. Massachusetts and Connecticut were Puritan strongholds, and even sheltered some of the Regicides who killed King Charles I.

However, I disagree with the whole "Puritans founded America" line. New England is only one small part of the USA, tucked away in the northeastern corner of the country. The rest of the colonies had completely different origins from NE and they were not Puritan strongholds by any means. In fact, the Quakers of Pennsylvania were persecuted in New England.

1

RobertoSantaClara t1_j1qjo7a wrote

Replying to NovelCandid (#1,044,514)

Why is this such a uniquely American phenomenon? You never hear about Australians or Canadians of Irish descent being as militant as the American ones, or still identifying with a country they weren't raised or born in for that matter.

2