>From an English POV, I'm not sure about everyone else but I'd say he's viewed as a bit of a "baddie", and the Royalist cause as righteous. He was a right killjoy ( the Grinch who, literally, cancelled Xmas - certain laws of his still exist today but no one follows them: no eating mince pies for e.g) and quite puritanical. He forbade dancing, singing, theatre, etc. ( cf The Taliban)
>
>In reality, of course, Charles I was a bit lot of an @sshole, believing in the "divine right of kings" and all that - in his infallibility. He took liberties with the patience and tolerance of his subjects and parliament, and rode roughshod over them.
>
>Certainly films and TV dramas about the English Civil Wars have always portrayed him and his Roundheads as bully boys, marauders - in the jack-booted role so to speak. Certainly he was extremely vicious in putting down of the Irish rebellions and the legacy of his mercilessness has been passed down the ages to us to this day, resulting in bitter Catholic resentment and the "Troubles" in Ireland and NI. Although there is a viewpoint that he wasn't all privvy to his men's actions in Ireland.
>
>Now Cromwell, despite his "warts and all" gruff persona and noted deeds, wasn't all that bad:
>
>- He introduced a level of religious tolerance and laissez faire that had been lacking in GB for centuries
>- Maybe of interest to you is that he effectively allowed the jews back into England after a banishment of 300 years
>- His Model Army was a fine example of piety and discipline (Ireland aside) - no looting and rapine after victories
>- He is to be commended in that he didn't do a "Julius Caesar", or, like many latter day African or S. American revolutionaries, accept the crown and thus replace one deposed king with another, thereby negating all he stood for. He was a man of principle, accepting the title of "Lord Protector" instead.
>- We are talking of an era where still kings ruled supreme, democracy unknown, brutality and horrible punishments still the norm. In that light he was quite lenient.
>- Many people think of Cromwell as the upstart who STARTED the whole business. Of course he was a product of the wars and rose to his position because of them
>- It speaks ill of Charles II, who was covertly just as much an AH as his dad, for his spitefullness and the appalling treatment and desecration of Cromwell's corpse.


Thanks for the info. The Eng. POV is what I wanted to see. Better than what you get in books as it gives you a feel for the person.


>BTW - sent you a PM
Answered. Fixed. Thx.