It’s true enough that the real radicals are a minority, but the majority are still liberals (in the usual, not the classic sense). The theological basis is still crap, and that’s not a firm foundation even for an outhouse.

Ken, I think you give them WAY too much credit. The majority really like being able to wear a pointy hat, carry a hooked stick, have people get all nervous and impressed when they meet them and tell themselves that they’re part of the “apostolic succession.” Given all that, they’d REALLY like everyone to PLEASE stop, you know, demanding that they actually take actual stands and stuff. Cuz they didn’t sign up for that!

You’re harshing their buzz, Ken.

I think the progressive/Integrity crowd will start focusing on bishops’ elections in a real and serious way.

I don’t believe that they have the votes, at the diocesan level, to dominate as completely as they do in the current House of Deputies. But they do have the organisation and the skills to torpedo any candidates they do not approve of.

The question is how long the process will take. A very large number of bishops retired since the 2006 GC, so I don’t know how many are in line for replacement.

“Might we be looking at a revolution in 2012? Or even earlier? And who gets to play the role of William Laud? Or Charles I?”

This is an interesting thought, but the parallel is not very exact, for both Laud and Charles were, if I may use the term, “revolutionary counterrevolutionaries” trying to overturn the “Calvinist consensus” that had prevailed for 60 years or more by 1625, that is, to overthrow what many clerical and lay members of the church of England assumed to be orthodoxy in favor of “semi-popish” Arminian “heresy.” What we have in TE”C” is yesterday’s revolutionaries who have fallen behind the vanguard of the diabolical pack that they once inspired and led, and whose flesh their aspiring replacements need to rend and tear before they can take over this “wild hunt.”

Perhaps instead of Charles we might write “Kerensky,” but I’m not sure of a churchman whom we might substitute for Laud. If we wanted to remain within the confines of England we might substitute “Fairfax” (the commander-in-chief of the Parliamentary armies in England in the late 1640s who was replaced by Cromwell when he refused to cooperate in or by involved with the trial and execution of Charles I) for Charles I and one of the many Presbyterian divines who pushed for the replacement of the Church of England of 1559-1642 by a Presbyterian settlement, only to be pushed aside from 1648 onwards by a coalition of religious radicals supported by Cromwell and the army.

Might we be looking at a revolution in 2012? Or even earlier? And who gets to play the role of William Laud? Or Charles I?

Who cares?

Instead of Charles or Kerensky or Fairfax, they are looking for an American Rowan.

There is no revolution afoot. The only thing at play is whether the radical liberals will hasten a break with “official” world-wide Anglicanism, or whether TEO can be less overtly offensive and politely (Rowanesquely) lead “whomsoever would” into more thorough heresy.

Call me crazy, but I wonder if Kevin Thew Forrester’s nomination in Northern Michigan made some of the bishops take a look at where things were heading, and they didn’t like it one bit.

After all, even some of the liberal bishops and Standing Committees, who would have been expected to rubber-stamp Kev’s nomination, surprised everyone by saying “No” (from what I understand of the coverage on Stand Firm of the tally).

Messing with the Baptismal Covenant seems to have scared them; if baptism is not the initiatory sacrament, but a kind of badge of joining the community, then they might as well be - well, Baptists. And I don’t think they want to be Baptists

Fanster, of course, they don’t want to be Baptists!!

Baptists believe in the Bible and all that icky sort of stuff. They’d rather be (like handbags advertised on the internet - fake Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Coach) RC knock-offs -all gaudy display, nifty costumes and parading around, but hollow and empty within.

I started to say “institutionalists” rather than “liberals”, Christopher, but decided to go all high brow philosophical.

You’re harshing their buzz, Ken.

You are so much hipper than me; what the heck does that mean?

LM, I like the handbag analogy. Especially as knock offs are notoriously transient in their durability.

(I don’t know about Coach handbags, but my Coach checkbook and wallet have lasted for well over a decade.)

“Might we be looking at a revolution in 2012? Or even earlier? And who gets to play the role of William Laud? Or Charles I?”

Actually I was thinking Donner Party adn it’s dinner time.
Intercessor

my taste, or my theology

Or whatever.

Since it’s Gene Robinson, it’s hard to tell what this means. Since the Deputies are apparently going all-out for the radicals, if some of the bishops said they wouldn’t be railroaded, that’s “arrogance” in his book. If they were in favor of his agenda, they’d be “prophetic” and “real leaders.”

Nobody’s going to know until the votes are all in.

Ken,

Confronting them with reality.

To tepidly defend my analogy, Prof, the whole Cavalier-Roundhead shootin’ match came about because of the political and religious situation Charles and Laud created(according to Austin Woolrych, Charles bears far more of the blame than Laud who was just carrying out the King’s wishes). In the same way, the spinelessness and timorousness of the Episcopal bishops created the radicalized House of Deputies that we see today.

Actually, the only reason I used that analogy was so that I could trot that seal out. I consider the seal of the English Commonwealth to be one of the finest examples of medallic art in the world and I’d pay a LOT of money for a sterling silver reproduction of it.

Maybe Richard II, rather than Charles I, would be a better parallel, at least if we go by the Shakespeare play. Richard was a weakling, trying unsuccessfully to keep a lid on his Bolingbroke problem, which only succeeded in driving Bolingbroke temporarily underground until he came back with a lot of power at his back, to depose the King.

I’ve been using ‘That Hideous Strength’ as my mental template for the destruction of the Episcopal Church. As near as I can tell, Merlin is just about to deprive them of the power of speech.

Matthew -
Good template choice! But actually, I think Merlin has already spoken! I cannot fathom 3/4’s of what comes out of the Episcopal Church now!

CJ,

I think you’d enjoy this fine book, which is just about the best and most lucid I’ve read on the subject:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=russell&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&sts=t&tn=causes+of+the+english+civil+war&x=33&y=6

*The Causes of the English Civil War* by Conrad Russell (1990)

It contains three chapters on the role of religion, and one, “The Man Charles Stuart,” which is just about the best thing on the king’s enigmatic personality (and “extreme” religious views; an Anglo-Catholic, of sorts, 200 years in advance) and maddening way of practicing politics that I’ve ever read.

Russell himself (1937-2004) was quite a character, too, and when I attended the Tudor History Seminar over which he presided in London it was interesting how Russell (who characterized himself as a Protestant atheist) and the Countess (who termed herself a high-church agnostic) would banteringly disagree with one another at times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Russell,_5th_Earl_Russell

Prof,

That’s the one you just sent me. Thanks to the Black Hole of Mailcutta in which I live, it just arrived a week back or so. Profuse thanks. I’m going to have to start sending you books one of these days.

Interesting thread. I took a couple of courses in English history in college, but some of y’all here are, obviously, light years ahead of me in the subject matter. Will have to dig into a couple of the recommended books as my interest has been renewed by what I have read here today. As to the liberals in TEO suddenly growing spines, I don’t think “Jeepers, I really wish you wouldn’t do that” is much of a battle cry.

Ouch. “The Causes of the English Civil War* by Conrad Russell (1990)”, $63 in paperback on Amazon.com.

Don,

So far, my big three are Austin Woolrych’s Britain in Revolution, Trevor Royle’s The British Civil War and Antonia Fraser’s biography of Cromwell.

Dear Mr. Johnson: my apologies for not being totally sure about what that medallion is supposed to depict - is it perchance the execution of Charles I? Thanks in advance!

I read Cromwell and really liked it. The other two are new to me. Thanks much for the tips. Look forward to knowing more on the subject - I find it intriguing.

Sasha,

That’s the House of Commons in session. There may be better depictions of the Commonwealth seal on the Web but that’s the first one I could find of the right size.

tamsf,

Click on the link I gave; much cheaper copies available there.

CJ,

Oops, I forgot; gotta live up to the absent-minded professor reputation. Did I ever give you this; it’s worth reading, too:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=haigh&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&sts=t&tn=english+reformations&x=67&y=17

*English Reformations* by Christopher Haigh (1993): a sharp book, but with a hefty dollop of cynicism from its “Angostic Anglican” author.

Woolrych is on the other side of the historiographical street from Russell, a kind of moderated version of the views put forth by that old Marxist historian Christopher Hill, *The Century of Revolution,* a book which, like a bad old penny, keeps on being reprinted. But Woolrych is careful, unlike Hill. Russell went on to publish a BIG book, *The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637-1642* (1992) written in chronological form; but it’s a bit overwhelming, really, and it only goes up to the outbreak of war in England in August 1642. The best narrative account is probably now this:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=gentles&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&sts=t&tn=english+revolution&x=71&y=19

*The English Revolution and the Wars in the *Three Kingdoms 1638-1652* by Ian Gentles (2007).

Thank you, Mr. Johnson!! I had tried to look as closely at the medallion as was possible without having the physical object on hand, but could only make out “the Third year of Freedom”, which - assuming it was Cromwell’s Protectorate - would have dated it as 1651. However, the rest of the detail was so hard to make out that in the end yours truly needed help.

Thanks again!

Cromwell’s Protectorate began in 1653; I wonder if it kept the same Commonwealth seal.

Prof,

The Protectorate had a different seal:

http://www.fotosearch.com/IST518/1624421/

As for Professor Hill, I’ve read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Society-Puritanism-Pre-Revolutionary-England-Christopher/dp/0312174322/ref=sr_1_64?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247280635&sr=1-64

which I found useful once I filtered out Hill’s Marxism.

Seriously, Prof. I’m going to have to start sending you books one of these days.

A much more regal seal, to be sure. I wonder whether it comes from the period 1653-57, when the position of “Lord Protector” was a kind of modest “Chief Executive” kind of position, hedged around with legal limitations (such as the Protector not being able to choose his successor), or from 1657-58, when the Protector (refusing to become King after months of hesitation) became a regal figure, carrying a sceptre, wearing royal robes, etc., and able to choose his own successor.

Took a look just now and Mrs. Fraser suggests that it dates from late 1653 or early 1654. Thomas Simon, the medallist who engraved the Commonwealth seal, engraved that one as well.

Might we be looking at a revolution in 2012? Or even earlier? And who gets to play the role of William Laud? Or Charles I?

Who cares?

Nailed it.

Wow, one can truly learn something new every day - thanks for the history lessons! [In other words, as Protector Cromwell was really what now in Africa one knows as "Presidents-for-life".]

I don’t know that I’d go that far, Sasha. From everything I’ve read, Cromwell basically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to assuming the Protectorate.

Also, Prof, the illustration I included really doesn’t do the Commonwealth seal justice. Volume 2 of Simon Schama’s History of Britain, the books which accompanied his TV series, has an actual impression of the seal which is much more impressive. Thomas Simon was at the top of his game.

No, Cromwell didn’t take on the office of Protector willingly. After he ousted the Rump Parliament in April 1653, in his role as commander of the army, he and his fellow-commanders summoned an assembly of the godly (ministers, magistrates and soldiers, chosen by themselves) in July, not technically a parliament, but called “Barebones’ Parliament” after one of its members, Praise-God Barbon. The hope was that this assembly would open the gate to a thoroughgoing renewal of Britain, its laws, government and religion, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Instead, it bogged down into hopeless factional wrangling, and dissolved itself in December. Then the army leadership produced a kind of written constitution called the Instrument of Government, under which Cromwell became Lord Protector, with wide but legally limited powers, assisted by a Council of State that was to assist the Protector and choose his successor after his death or resignation.

In 1656 a number of politicians offered to make Cromwell king, on condition that the traditional form of gov’t be restored and the army dissolved, but the army opposed it strongly, and Cromwell declined. The old constitution was modified by “the Humble Petition and Advice,” which Cromwell accepted, making himself king in all but name. On his deathbed Cromwell named his amiable but inexperienced elder son Richard (1626-1712) his successor, thus virtually ensuring that the Protectorate would collapse after his death, as it did seven months later, in April 1659. The selection of Richard was so bizarre a choice (Cromwell’s second son, Henry, an experienced military commander and governor of Ireland, would have been a lot better) that many have suggested that Cromwell died without choosing a successor, and Richard was put in by politicians that hoped to sway him, but recently deciphered coded letters seem to show that Cromwell did indeed choose Richard 3 or 4 days before his death. Perhaps Cromwell, who seems to have been beset in the last year of his life by the growing melancholy conviction that God had spurned “the godly endeavor” of republican rule, took the action he did to bring it all to an end after his death. In the event, Richard tried to cut a deal with the civilian politicians to cut the army down to size; the army leaders defied him, and finally kidnapped him and forced him to resign in April 1659. Eight months of chaos followed, as the Rump Parliament, which Cromwell had forcibly dissolved in April 1653, was called back into power and army leaders quarrelled with one another. Finally, in December 1659 General George Monck, the commander of the English army in Scotland, seized power and ordered all surviving members of the House of Commons who had been elected in 1640 to assemble at Westminster. They assembled, declared England to be a monarchy, ordered a new House of Commons to be elected on the old franchise, and promptly dissolved themself. When the new assembly came together in May 1660 it invited the nobles to assemble as the House of Lords, and invited Charles II to return as king without imposing any conditions on him. Such was the Restoration.

In other words, Oliver Cromwell may not have wanted to become “President-for-life”, but he nevertheless so became (and a king in all but name even!). What a tale however about the Restoration - many thanks, Professor Tighe!

It also proves how England’s revolution of 1642-1659 was so radically different from the French Revolution both in terms of Cromwell not being that power-hungry compared to Napoléon Bonaparte as well as that it took plenty of external intervention (fellow kings and emperors with conservative governments abroad, particularly Britain as pushing everybody else!) to restore the Bourbon Monarchy.

[At that, lots of people remained attached to Bonaparte, which incited and helped his attempt to take over France once again in 1815 (together with Louis XVIII initially trying to force France back to pre-1789 days), leading to Waterloo. At least then Louis learned his lesson, which his younger brother Charles X rejected - thus leading to his dethronement in 1830.]

Contrast that to how the English themselves as a body (for the most part) of their own will called for Charles II to come back as king!

As to “external intervention,” both France (Charles’s queen was sister to Louis XIII [d. 1643] and aunt to Louis XIV) and the Netherlands (Charles’s daughter Mary was married to William II, son of the Stadtholder Frederick Henry [d. 1647] and himself Stadtholder from 1647 to his unexpected death in 1650; their posthumous son was the future William of William & Mary) were committed to intervening in England on the king’s side, once the war against the Habsburgs was over; but that war, the Thirty Years War, didn’t end till 1648, and France & Spain continued their war right down to 1659; and so the intervention never happened.

In fact, France was so ticked off at their Dutch ally making a separate peace with Spain in 1648, that they gave behind-the-scenes support to the English Commonwealth when it launched a trade war that soon became a real war in 1651. Cromwell ended that war in 1654, but then allied with France and declared war on Spain. When the war ended in 1659 England gained Jamaica and the continental foothold of Dunkirk from Spain, but Charles II sold the latter to France in 1661. Charles and his brother James had initially been refugees, together with their mother, in France, but when France allied with Cromwell, both brothers went to the Netherlands, James serving as a soldier in the Spanish army and Charles living quietly in the Dutch city of Breda until called back to England as king in May 1660.

Napoleon, by contrast, was a mere cynical opportunist adventurer, if militarily an extremely talented one, whose greatest “skill” was to allow the politicians who hoped to exploit him for their own ends in 1798-99 severely to underestimate his intelligence and ambition, as they found to their cost when he turned on them after he had ceased power at their urging in November 1799.