|
26 Sep 06 - 12:52 PM (#1843813) Subject: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Mr Yellow Banbury FF Sunday Dance Yes folkies - there has been no liscivious terpsichore in Banbury Town Hall since the Commonwealth. Until Oct 2006 - the folk festival have overturned Cromwell's puritan edict banning the evil gyrations of men dancing with women. Anyone know Cromwell's stance on Morris Dancing? Handkerchieves or Sticks? |
|
26 Sep 06 - 03:13 PM (#1843946) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Manitas_at_home Apparently Cromwell danced all night at his daughter's wedding. He wasn't against music and dance just in confusing it and 'pagan' celebration with Christian worship. |
|
26 Sep 06 - 07:17 PM (#1844101) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: McGrath of Harlow Cromwell and Morris dancing? Banned it. And Maypoles of course. Basically, think in terms of the Taliban, and you aren't too far off the truth. |
|
26 Sep 06 - 07:20 PM (#1844103) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Snuffy Did I dream the ceilidh at the town hall last year then? |
|
27 Sep 06 - 05:10 PM (#1844458) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: GUEST Anybody who can do away with a monarch, now matter for how short a time, can't be all bad Jim Carroll |
|
27 Sep 06 - 05:44 PM (#1844492) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: ositojuanito And not before time. up the republic |
|
27 Sep 06 - 06:12 PM (#1844517) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: GUEST,IBO AND WHAT A GAME OF FOOTBALL IT WAS |
|
28 Sep 06 - 05:10 AM (#1844813) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: GUEST,Train Guard There is a lot of misunderstanding about Cromwell and the banning of festivities. Cromwell only rose to prominence in the course of the Civil war, and was not in control of events (if he ever really was) until later in the proceedings. Consequently, much of the actions that are quoted are the responsibility of the presbyterian faction that dominated parliament. (He wasn't a presbyterian, and he later purged this group.) Why were many of the puritans so opposed to maypoles and christmas festivities? It was because of their association with superstition and pagan ritual, which they placed on the same level as popery. The most important thing was the individual relationship with God. There was no intermediary, no church with a reservoir of supernatural power that could be tapped into, no priesthood with special supernatural powers. Any ceremony that invoked supernatural power, or suggested that the priest might affect the spiritual state of the individual was questionable....baptism, churching of women, the funeral service etc. Any festivity or ceremony with pagan elements also fitted the bill. Within this context, the maypole (to use Stubbes's quaint expression) was a "stynking eidol". As for Cromwell, he said very little about these things himself. He did ban some gatherings (including foxhunts) during the reign of the major Generals, but this is because it was thought that they would provide cover for plotters to meet each other. As someone pointed out, Cromwell liked music. He also had a very earthy sense of humour....in addition to the dancing at the wedding, he seems to have spent some time in placing sticky sweets on the guest's chairs! Cromwell was, by the standards of the time, a remarkably tolerant man. He readmitted the jews to England, and presided over the first exercise in religious tolerance in England. His words to a group of religious nutters are often quoted...."I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think that you may be mistaken." |
|
28 Sep 06 - 03:16 PM (#1845298) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: McGrath of Harlow As I said, think in terms of the Taliban, and you aren't too far off the truth. Stalin had "an earthy sense of humour". Dancing at weddings and playing tricks on the guest woudl haveb been his style too. Andyou can bet they laughed uproariously...Well, you would, wouldn't you. And it's pretty common to find dictators enjoying for themselves the things that are outlawed for ordinary people. |
|
28 Sep 06 - 04:02 PM (#1845321) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Les from Hull Cromwell was never a sole dictator, he was rather badly served by his more Taliban-like puritan MPs. And if he banned dancing how come Playford published his now-famous book in 1651? |
|
28 Sep 06 - 06:55 PM (#1845484) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Merek'n'Dary Come to Banbury Canalside Folk Festival 13 - 15 October and find out more !! |
|
28 Sep 06 - 08:18 PM (#1845568) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: paddymac All of us, even, or perhaps especially, those we love to hate, are inconveniently complex. There is a cracker Florida expression that has made me think of Cromwell from the first time I heard it from one of the best political operatives I ever met. In describing a legislator who had justly earned his undieing enmity, he termed him "one o' them prism som'bitches. It don't make no nevermind how ya look at him, he's still a som'bitch." It looses some of the flavor when reduced to writing, but if you can imagine it spoken with "a chaw" (a wad of chewing tobacco in the mouth), and dripping with a mixture of sarcasm, satire and plain ol' venom, you'll be pretty close to the sense of the expression. |
|
28 Sep 06 - 08:52 PM (#1845586) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: McGrath of Harlow A bit easier to like at a distance in time, I think. That's how it goes. I gather Genghis Kham is now considered a pretty good bloke in some places. In fact they renamed an airport after him a few months ago. If they get round to renaming Stansted Airport up the road after Old Noll I think I'll refrain from joining in the celebrations. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 09:06 AM (#1845926) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: GUEST I think comparing Cromwell's protectorate to the taliban is rediculous. Try reading up on the subjects before making assinine comments like that. Cromwell wasn't a saint by any means but by the standards of his day he was quite liberal in his views and completely different from the Taliban who are anything but. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM (#1845966) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Paul Burke Cromwell was pretty much the right-of-centre moderate in his time.He defeated both the Presbyterians who wanted to re- establish a state church with themselves in charge, and (sadly) the Levellers and their nascent democratic movement. To him, Society was to be made safe and comfortable for gentlemen of the middling sort, and defended against encroachments by both religious fanatics and those who, having no property, had (to his mind) no rooted interest in stability. Nearest comparison today? Tony Blair. Will Tony's successor do better than Richard? Will there be a restoration of the status quo ante ante (there wasn't, though they pretended there was, after Cromwell)? |
|
29 Sep 06 - 02:20 PM (#1846192) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: McGrath of Harlow I'm sure that down the road there'll be people saying how the Taliban weren't anywhere near as bad as people made out - kept the place much more peaceful and stable than it had been before, cut down on corruption and the stuff the warlords got up to. A bit intolerant about music and the way people behaved and went in for some pretty dramatic destruction of ancient monuments and works of art, on religious grounds. Much the same stuff as can be said about the Protectorate, really. And it'd be true enough. There's some good stuff to be said about the most detestable regimes. |
|
29 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM (#1846206) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Herga Kitty I doubt there'll be many women saying the Taliban weren't that bad. Kitty |
|
07 Oct 06 - 07:27 AM (#1852638) Subject: RE: Cromwell finally defeated Banbury 2006 From: Mr Red I think Mr Yellow, in his enthusiasm to promote the Banbary Folk Festival and ceilidhs thereof, omitted the fact that it was only the Sunday frivolities that had been banned for 350 years. I do have his ear after all. And Playford recorded parlour dances of the hoipaloi. I have been remonstrated against for regarding Mr Playford as a collector not because he wasn't but because there is no evidence that he went and looked at the choreography. I feel that anyone who can publish (for that was his trade) such popular books in their day would not go to eyeball his cash cow. And I would wager he danced too - if the evidence is not there I can't be proven wrong. |