Mad Priest, when you die and go to heaven, and Oliver Cromwell shows you around the place, I do hope he gives you some stick for having failed to do any actual research on the subject before taking his name in vain.
In the meantime, good old Charles I is presumably still stuck in Purgatory somewhere sweating and writing on a blackboard, "I really must not impose my brand of religion on the Scots. I really must not impose my brand of religion on the Scots. I really must not impose my brand of religion on the Scots", etc etc, while God says, "Only a few more centuries now Charles and it will all be OK."
OC isn't a Calender Saint - Charlie is! (Mind you some saints were pretty dumb!). Anyhow some of us in Jockland LIKE Charlie boy's religion - especially when compare to Puritanical mince from say Sydney!
Father Dougal: I know Charlie is a calendar saint - one of the many reasons the calendar cannot be taken altogether seriously, IMHO. I also know some of the Scots go for the Anglo Catholic thing these days. They didn't much at the time, it has to be said. If you had been about at the time, I suspect you would have been as eager as the next person to cut off Charlie's head.
BTW I don't talk mince, am no more a puritan than I am an Anglican, and am not from Sydney. (!)
I think you should do some research into Scottish ecclesiastical history, Cathy. And you are also being paranoid again. Go back and read Fr. Dougal's comment whilst at least pretending that not everyone in the world is out to get you and you will see that he didn't say what you've projected onto his words. Unless you happen to be Archbishop Jensen, that is.
Now you're reading too much into what I've said, Mad Priest.
I don't know if you mean it seriously or if you are just having a go, but I don't vaguely think anyone in the world is out to get me, and am not especially paranoid. And you are a fine one to tell me I should research history!
Actually koala bears probably do deserve purgatory. They are extremely grumpy, curmudgeonly creatures and given half a chance will inflict a nasty bite. (Like certain reverends I could mention?) They also wee copiously on unwary tourists. (I'm unable to comment on whether any reverends of my acquaintance do that.)
So does "weeing" on tourists get them time off from purgatory? It might in Chicago where I live. We get these freaking Europeans who want to see Navy Pier (worth doing actually) but cannot read a damn transit map....
OK, you're not Jensenite and all I meant was that about half of the population were actually Pisky prior to 1690 - it is a historical myth that we were all covenanters. Agin Charlie? When the choice was him or those two faced, backstabbing, murderous scum the Campbells who my mothers Clan charged at Culloden?? Nope, wrong Dougal!
MadPriest, you know very well every time you post something anti-Puritan you will get me up in arms. Not because I endorse everything they did by any means but because what most people think they know about them is such rubbish. The fact that I see Dicky's face every time I open this post to comment does not improve my mood. I have to take the blame for that one, though - it was me wot sent you the photo.
DVBB - no, it wasn't silly, but suggesting that it particularly stands out when it comes to the history of warfare generally, or of the period, is. And it is another one of those words people bandy around, as if that was all that needs to be said on that subject or any other. Whereas in reality historians (ie people who have actually researched the subject) have widely varying opinions on most of the battles, including that one (as you would expect).
The simplistic stuff people come out with on the subject of the Civil War, which is usually leftover monarchist propaganda at root anyway, is the thing that really annoys me. And if I query any of it people react as if "you're for Charles or against him" or "for Cromwell or against him". As if that was what the history of any period was about.
Cathy, you are the one who widened the topic to include more than Cromwell. In reality, the British have a realistic attitude towards the rebels, idolising some, such as the Diggers. However, they hate Cromwell for what he was as a person and the damage he caused and we have never got over our guilt of executing a monarch.
Mad Priest, Cromwell is a contentious figure and opinions on him and what he did vary widely (as they would). The depth of understanding of the Civil War also varies widely, as do opinions on the value or otherwise of cutting off Charles's head. I don't think you can talk about "the British". "The British" in the sense you mean don't exist. You mean that is how you feel about it.
I've just consulted a (British) work colleague, Kathy, on how she feels about cutting off Charles's head. She thought the question was hilarious and says: "You know what, I feel fine about it. Absolutely fine."
Molloy next to her says: "No, I don't feel guilty, though I approve of a constitutional monarchy and wish the House of Lords would go back to the way it was before it was full of small businessmen from the Midlands."
Carol says: "No, though it is amazing it happened. Every time you go past the spot you can imagine the crowds."
As for me, speaking as an Australian expatriate, I don't feel guilty either.
Whatever. It still has nothing to do with the photoshop.
When threads don't stay on topic at Wounded Bird, I'm not bothered, because the direction the off-topic comments take are sometimes more interesting than on-topic comments.
Of course, you run your blog as you see fit, but if you give the people the freedom to speak, the comments will to go in the direction that they will go. You may scold, but you have no enforcement power other than not to moderate comments through or delete them after they are posted.
As for me, since I don't know what your photoshop means, I could not comment on topic, which, in fact, you may have preferred.
But there is going off topic and then there is using every opportunity, no matter how tenuous, to bang on about your favourite topic. And that is frustrating when you are trying to make an observation, in this case that all power corrupts etc.
And from now on, Mimi, we will take it as read that you agree with Cathy and that she agrees with you.
And from now on, Mimi, we will take it as read that you agree with Cathy and that she agrees with you.
It ain't necessarily so, Jonathan, but you take it as read however you like.
You complain about few comments, and when people do comment, you complain about what they say. Back in what I think of as the glory days of OCICBW, some of the best, cleverest, and funniest threads were almost entirely off-topic. And folks banged on about their favorite topics back then, too.
Mad Priest, to be fair, your cartoon about Dicky Dorkins does turn on the assumption that you can cast the "Lord Protector of England" as a Satanic usurper. So, while Cromwell may not be in the foreground of your joke, he is in its background (literally).
I've only kept on replying because people have had digs at me I felt I couldn't let pass. As it happens, it's not my favourite topic. Just one of the very rare topics on which I am at odds with you and other members of the gang who congregate on this blog.
You are of course correct in your point that power corrupts. That is why Charles was trying to do away with parliament and restore an absolute monarchy. (Oops, did I say that?)
Dicky Dorkins in his colossal arrogance does carry on as if he is bigger than God now (while failing to spot how reliant he is on God), and his adoring supporters seem to think so too. There, how's that?
Right, but it's your assumptions about Cromwell that I have been querying the whole way along. The parallel you have drawn rests on a conception of him that I think is deeply flawed, the product of Anglo-Catholic monarchist bias. That's me whole point. My broader references to the Civil War have simply been intended to point back to that - my dislike of the way people voice simplistic cliches about the war in general and Cromwell in particular.
The only reason I have kept going with this is because people keep throwing the cliches back at me as if they were self-evidently true.
Shall we stop arguing?... You think Cromwell was a tyrant, I don't think the real history is remotely that simple, we disagree, there it is.
Cromwell insisted on the execution of the king. Cromwell declared himself Lord Protector at a coronation. These two things are facts, whatever the reasons behind them and they are the only two things about Cromwell that the photoshop alludes to. I could have mentioned the genocide, of course, but I didn't.
No, those are not "facts", not the way you have phrased them, and the reasons behind the events are all-important. I don't think you could allude to the genocide, since there wasn't one.
Mad Priest, why you assert that you are a socialist, I do not know. You seem to believe in the divine right of kings.
Again, we could keep arguing forever on this, but there's little point.
I'll bet you twenty zillion Aussie dollars that these are facts: King Charles I was executed. Cromwell became Lord Protector. Your phrasing attributes far too much to Cromwell with events that were a long time coming and came about because of all sorts of complex reasons.
It's a cartoon not a fecking phd dissertation. Steve Bell doesn't footnote his funnies and neither do I. And another thing, Dicky Dorkins won't declare himself Lord Protector of the Universe. That was a joke just in case you want to get pernickety about that as well.
Mad Priest, when you die and go to heaven, and Oliver Cromwell shows you around the place, I do hope he gives you some stick for having failed to do any actual research on the subject before taking his name in vain.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, good old Charles I is presumably still stuck in Purgatory somewhere sweating and writing on a blackboard, "I really must not impose my brand of religion on the Scots. I really must not impose my brand of religion on the Scots. I really must not impose my brand of religion on the Scots", etc etc, while God says, "Only a few more centuries now Charles and it will all be OK."
PS I don't mean to imply by that that I think Ollie is to be confused with God. He's just the appropriate person to meet you at the pearly gates.
ReplyDeletewv - pecarti. At that point you're going to have to confess to your pecarti!
OC isn't a Calender Saint - Charlie is! (Mind you some saints were pretty dumb!). Anyhow some of us in Jockland LIKE Charlie boy's religion - especially when compare to Puritanical mince from say Sydney!
ReplyDeleteFather Dougal: I know Charlie is a calendar saint - one of the many reasons the calendar cannot be taken altogether seriously, IMHO. I also know some of the Scots go for the Anglo Catholic thing these days. They didn't much at the time, it has to be said. If you had been about at the time, I suspect you would have been as eager as the next person to cut off Charlie's head.
ReplyDeleteBTW I don't talk mince, am no more a puritan than I am an Anglican, and am not from Sydney. (!)
I think you should do some research into Scottish ecclesiastical history, Cathy. And you are also being paranoid again. Go back and read Fr. Dougal's comment whilst at least pretending that not everyone in the world is out to get you and you will see that he didn't say what you've projected onto his words. Unless you happen to be Archbishop Jensen, that is.
ReplyDeleteReally, this is how wars start.
I think they're both in Purgatory, Cathy (FWIW---not much!)
ReplyDeleteNow you're reading too much into what I've said, Mad Priest.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you mean it seriously or if you are just having a go, but I don't vaguely think anyone in the world is out to get me, and am not especially paranoid. And you are a fine one to tell me I should research history!
Don't argue with the referee!
ReplyDeleteI just got in before Dougal had the chance to misunderstand your words.
JCF - I am being ironic in what I said about that. Far be it from me to say who does and doesn't deserve purgatory. If there is a purgatory.
ReplyDeleteMad Priest, if we don't all get the chance to misunderstand each other's words on OCICBW, it spoils all the fun. :-)
ReplyDeleteAustralians deserve purgatory. Except the koala bears, of course, and Skippy who was always a good boy (girl whatever).
ReplyDeleteActually koala bears probably do deserve purgatory. They are extremely grumpy, curmudgeonly creatures and given half a chance will inflict a nasty bite. (Like certain reverends I could mention?) They also wee copiously on unwary tourists. (I'm unable to comment on whether any reverends of my acquaintance do that.)
ReplyDeleteI'm very shallow. I only go by looks.
ReplyDelete... ummm, do you mean you wee on unwary tourists if they don't look good?
ReplyDeleteOh come on Mad Priest, you can easily come up with a funny response to that one.
ReplyDeleteSo does "weeing" on tourists get them time off from purgatory? It might in Chicago where I live. We get these freaking Europeans who want to see Navy Pier (worth doing actually) but cannot read a damn transit map....
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
It might do Jim. If you try it, tell them you're doing them a favour.
ReplyDeleteOK, you're not Jensenite and all I meant was that about half of the population were actually Pisky prior to 1690 - it is a historical myth that we were all covenanters. Agin Charlie? When the choice was him or those two faced, backstabbing, murderous scum the Campbells who my mothers Clan charged at Culloden?? Nope, wrong Dougal!
ReplyDeleteAnd you are also being paranoid again.
ReplyDeleteCathy paranoid? I don't think so.
If Cromwell's not in hell, then nobody should be.
ReplyDeleteFr Dougal: if your mother was involved I can see that might sway a man's decision.
ReplyDeleteDavid Virtue's Bountiful Bosom: I don't mean to be rude, but that's just silly.
Mimi: Thank you, darling :-)
This post was about Dicky Dorkins.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 19 or so days Cathy and I traveled together, I didn't see a trace of, "They're all out to get me!" I'm just saying.
ReplyDeleteTake that, Dicky Dorkins!
See. I stayed on topic.
MadPriest, you know very well every time you post something anti-Puritan you will get me up in arms. Not because I endorse everything they did by any means but because what most people think they know about them is such rubbish. The fact that I see Dicky's face every time I open this post to comment does not improve my mood. I have to take the blame for that one, though - it was me wot sent you the photo.
ReplyDeleteEverybody should be, DVBB, but then that Jesus fellow has to go and save us all. Wuss!
ReplyDeleteDrogheda was many things, but it was not silly.
ReplyDeleteIwas wondering about that MP, but I wan't about to put my foot in my mouth!
ReplyDeleteDVBB - no, it wasn't silly, but suggesting that it particularly stands out when it comes to the history of warfare generally, or of the period, is. And it is another one of those words people bandy around, as if that was all that needs to be said on that subject or any other. Whereas in reality historians (ie people who have actually researched the subject) have widely varying opinions on most of the battles, including that one (as you would expect).
ReplyDeleteThe simplistic stuff people come out with on the subject of the Civil War, which is usually leftover monarchist propaganda at root anyway, is the thing that really annoys me. And if I query any of it people react as if "you're for Charles or against him" or "for Cromwell or against him". As if that was what the history of any period was about.
Cathy, you are the one who widened the topic to include more than Cromwell. In reality, the British have a realistic attitude towards the rebels, idolising some, such as the Diggers. However, they hate Cromwell for what he was as a person and the damage he caused and we have never got over our guilt of executing a monarch.
ReplyDeleteMad Priest, Cromwell is a contentious figure and opinions on him and what he did vary widely (as they would). The depth of understanding of the Civil War also varies widely, as do opinions on the value or otherwise of cutting off Charles's head. I don't think you can talk about "the British". "The British" in the sense you mean don't exist. You mean that is how you feel about it.
ReplyDeleteI've just consulted a (British) work colleague, Kathy, on how she feels about cutting off Charles's head. She thought the question was hilarious and says: "You know what, I feel fine about it. Absolutely fine."
ReplyDeleteMolloy next to her says: "No, I don't feel guilty, though I approve of a constitutional monarchy and wish the House of Lords would go back to the way it was before it was full of small businessmen from the Midlands."
Carol says: "No, though it is amazing it happened. Every time you go past the spot you can imagine the crowds."
As for me, speaking as an Australian expatriate, I don't feel guilty either.
Whatever. It still has nothing to do with the photoshop.
ReplyDeleteWhatever. It still has nothing to do with the photoshop.
ReplyDeleteWhen threads don't stay on topic at Wounded Bird, I'm not bothered, because the direction the off-topic comments take are sometimes more interesting than on-topic comments.
Of course, you run your blog as you see fit, but if you give the people the freedom to speak, the comments will to go in the direction that they will go. You may scold, but you have no enforcement power other than not to moderate comments through or delete them after they are posted.
As for me, since I don't know what your photoshop means, I could not comment on topic, which, in fact, you may have preferred.
MY WV is "unsit". I'm just saying.
I've let Cathy rant on, haven't I?
ReplyDeleteBut there is going off topic and then there is using every opportunity, no matter how tenuous, to bang on about your favourite topic. And that is frustrating when you are trying to make an observation, in this case that all power corrupts etc.
And from now on, Mimi, we will take it as read that you agree with Cathy and that she agrees with you.
And from now on, Mimi, we will take it as read that you agree with Cathy and that she agrees with you.
ReplyDeleteIt ain't necessarily so, Jonathan, but you take it as read however you like.
You complain about few comments, and when people do comment, you complain about what they say. Back in what I think of as the glory days of OCICBW, some of the best, cleverest, and funniest threads were almost entirely off-topic. And folks banged on about their favorite topics back then, too.
I agree with you that all power corrupts.
That was nasty.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I came across as nasty. I didn't mean to.
ReplyDeleteApology accepted. Let's just keep it at bickering, you old curmudgeon :-)
ReplyDeleteMad Priest, to be fair, your cartoon about Dicky Dorkins does turn on the assumption that you can cast the "Lord Protector of England" as a Satanic usurper. So, while Cromwell may not be in the foreground of your joke, he is in its background (literally).
ReplyDeleteI've only kept on replying because people have had digs at me I felt I couldn't let pass. As it happens, it's not my favourite topic. Just one of the very rare topics on which I am at odds with you and other members of the gang who congregate on this blog.
You are of course correct in your point that power corrupts. That is why Charles was trying to do away with parliament and restore an absolute monarchy. (Oops, did I say that?)
Dicky Dorkins in his colossal arrogance does carry on as if he is bigger than God now (while failing to spot how reliant he is on God), and his adoring supporters seem to think so too. There, how's that?
Cromwell did usurp the throne of England having fought against the idea of monarchy.
ReplyDeleteMy joke is that Dorkins will usurp the role of pope (or whatever) after fighting against religion.
It's about hypocrisy not the bleeding English civil war.
Right, so you draw the parallel (as you see it), then claim in your third sentence that it isn't there? ...
ReplyDeleteIt's about Cromwell and Dorkins - FULL STOP.
ReplyDeleteRight, but it's your assumptions about Cromwell that I have been querying the whole way along. The parallel you have drawn rests on a conception of him that I think is deeply flawed, the product of Anglo-Catholic monarchist bias. That's me whole point. My broader references to the Civil War have simply been intended to point back to that - my dislike of the way people voice simplistic cliches about the war in general and Cromwell in particular.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I have kept going with this is because people keep throwing the cliches back at me as if they were self-evidently true.
Shall we stop arguing?... You think Cromwell was a tyrant, I don't think the real history is remotely that simple, we disagree, there it is.
Cromwell insisted on the execution of the king. Cromwell declared himself Lord Protector at a coronation. These two things are facts, whatever the reasons behind them and they are the only two things about Cromwell that the photoshop alludes to. I could have mentioned the genocide, of course, but I didn't.
ReplyDeleteNo, those are not "facts", not the way you have phrased them, and the reasons behind the events are all-important. I don't think you could allude to the genocide, since there wasn't one.
ReplyDeleteMad Priest, why you assert that you are a socialist, I do not know. You seem to believe in the divine right of kings.
Again, we could keep arguing forever on this, but there's little point.
I'll bet you twenty zillion Aussie dollars that those two facts are facts.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet you twenty zillion Aussie dollars that these are facts: King Charles I was executed. Cromwell became Lord Protector. Your phrasing attributes far too much to Cromwell with events that were a long time coming and came about because of all sorts of complex reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt's a cartoon not a fecking phd dissertation. Steve Bell doesn't footnote his funnies and neither do I. And another thing, Dicky Dorkins won't declare himself Lord Protector of the Universe. That was a joke just in case you want to get pernickety about that as well.
ReplyDeleteDicky Dorkins won't declare himself Lord Protector of the Universe
ReplyDeleteNothing would surprise me :-)