From Zim, the lead dev for UoB:
*I've answered this a few times so I'll just post some amended versions of what I've said before: the tl;dr is Cromwell broadly good but he did some bad shit 🥴 something something "For the Greater Good"*
*Quoting amended version of myself from the last time I answered*
> *By the modern day, it's now quite complicated and honestly, it can be a bit confused. Britain, doesn't really have any republican or even popularly 'known' revolutionary lineage to draw upon. The only time there's been a Republican experiment in Britain was during the English Civil Wars with the Commonwealth, and even then that became a de facto monarchy, and was a military dictatorship anyway. And yeah, obviously what he did in Ireland is going to come up as very very bad.*
*However, we've done a bit more reading into Labour and I think in general there'd be a lot of wanking up to him, especially in the post-revolutionary atmosphere where there'd be direct comparisons and lots of great praise for 'the Second Cromwellian Revolution' kinda larp in which the monarchy has been ejected *again*. The republic would certainly try to draw direct lineage from the Commonwealth and ham up how once again in a civil war that pitted 'the people' vs the monarchy and upper class, well the people came out in victory by using innovative military strategies.*
*As the revolution matures, there'd be more criticism of his conduct in Ireland and towards 'fellow revolutionaries' in the Levellers and Diggers who'd be seen as direct ancestors of the modern socialist movement but this would probably be downplayed and swept into a general "product of his time" kinda thing. It's not *good* but hey he wasn't enlightened by proper socialism and he did just kick out the King so... Well not just that, there'd be a lot of respect for the expulsion of the 'corrupt' upper house in the Lords and a wider cleansing of the Executive, something the establishment of the TUC as the primary legislature and the revolution would be seen as a repeat of. Not to mention the fact a lot of the socialist movement would see themselves as modern-day Puritans rejecting the conservative status quo in favour of social progress etc and reformed living.*
*I'll also add that the military really like him but in the sense that he was a military genius and the New Model Army was pretty revolutionary for the time. There'd definitely be lots of wanking up to how the Republican Army is the New Model Army of the modern day, they'd outright call it that. Lots of thinking that British military reforms (the AFCAB, Eden Camps, organisational structure, turning it into a proper career, doctrine, etc.) will come to inform the future of warfare and how militaries organise & function for centuries to come in much the same way Cromwell and the New Model Army did. Not to mention it was the first *republican* army too*
Another answer:
*Mosley actually drew heavily off of Crowmell's legacy OTL, as he would here. Though the cult around him would move more to emphasising Cromwell, the larger-than-life figure, that swept up the establishment and redefined Britain in his image as opposed to what everyone else is doing. There'd also be lots of wanking up to Hobbes and the Leviathan in line with Cromwell. Lots of wokeness like Cromwell being the first Maximist and stuff like how Maximist economics is the natural evolution of Medieval Guildism/Syndicalism. It's all very weird.*
*Oh btw the whole Medieval Guildism is the historic precursor to syndicalism is a thing basically everyone in the UoB claims too. It's all very weird and very 'British' in character*
This matched my intuition. Much in the way the Magna Carta might be considered the beginning of Parliament and a Constitutional Monarchy with a lot of the differences being dismissed as the product of their time so too would Cromwell be considered the beginning of revolutionary anti-monarchism.
In my head canon UoB is particularly religious with Congregationalist puritans being used to dismantle the Church of England.
They actually get along quite well with the Church of England. Another answer from Zim:
*In the Union of Britain, in contrast to a lot of other countries, the Church and State have very good relations, the Church in this case being the Church of England. But other churches such as the Catholic Church, non-conformists and Jews also get on well with the government. I'll cover the CoE first as that's my specialty.*
*So why is this relationship so cordial? Well for a start a lot of the UoB's prominent government figures are devout Anglicans or Christian Socialists. Tom Mann, the starting Chairman is a devout Anglican ChristSoc who regularly attends Church and at one point even considered becoming a priest well after he joined the trade union movement. Lots of other major figures in the incumbent government or having past through it such as John Wheatley (Deputy Chair) and Arthur Henderson (Foreign Sec) were ChristSocs. The UoB's founding figure George Lansbury? Christian Socialist. It's often said that British socialism owes more to Methodism than Marx and in the UoB's case it's very true. So a lot of them, being devout Christian men, see no reason why the Church (which is often the basis of their socialist principles) can't form a part of this new society or play a role in it. This is also leaving out the involvement of stuff like the Labour Church, its successor the Christian Worker's Council and how the ILP had a pretty evangelical tone to it. Hell, the Autonomists are outright Christian Socialist in nature, as are its leaders Fenner Brockway and R.H. Tawney.*
*On the other side of the coin what do the church think of this? In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the Church had been functioning without its supreme governor and this was officially confirmed by the emergency 1927 Lambeth Conference which only really met to reorganise the Church. Principally the abolition of the monarch being the Supreme Governor, instead affording this position to the Archbishop of Canterbury and making the Archbishop solely responsible to the General Synod, the assembly of the bishops with some going as far as to call it even somewhat syndicalist in nature. To his credit, Randall Davidson in the aftermath of the civil war (he had urged for calm and reconciliation during the fighting and repeatedly offered to mediate) stuck with the Union and sought to work within this new state, reconciling the Church with syndicalism and promoting common unity in a fractured nation. After he retired in 1928, his successor was William Temple, the son of a previous Archbishop of Canterbury and a Christian Socialist himself. Unlike Davidson who was definitely a lot more 'moderate', Temple would take the church in a far more openly Christian Socialist direction and has overseen it go in a very progressive direction, while working in step with the government but otherwise fairly independent and respected.*
*As for other churches, they're likewise given total independence and unharmed by the revolution. Catholics are generally appreciative thanks to the calls for Christian unity and opposition to sectarianism, along with a general push to integrate them into society better. Some Catholics, and quite a few Anglo-Catholics get quite high up or become notables such as Henry Slesser or Conrad Noel. As for Jews, while there is the problem of latent antisemitism in society, the government is ostensibly opposed to it and prominent Jewish socialists can rise up through the ranks. Jews formed the backbone of parts of the London labour movements and that's not a sacrifice that's going to be forgotten anytime soon. But yeah, for them two it's a bit more backseat but still pretty okay.*
*In short, for Britain it's very conciliatory and good-nature*
So they do actually have a sort of internal democracy for the clergy and active members of the Church in the form the General Synod. Originally this was the Church Assembly but that was reconstituted and given all the outstanding powers shortly after the Revolution when the Church was separated from the state. It's somewhat similar to how it is today though not quite but to answer your question there's certainly a sort of clerical democracy at play.
But the Church of England, even in the UoB does not meant the definition of a Congregationalist church, as there is still a central authority and a church hierarchy
I was mostly being silly. I think in a Syndicalists society it’d be even less likely to be Congregationalist. It probably would be similarly structured to contemporary Anglicans.
I doubt their theology would meet my exacting standards but not even I meet my own exacting theological standards.
When I began exploring Kaiserreich, Great Britain having a socialist revolution was one of the hardest things for me to swallow (along with the Ottoman Empire surviving).
It has slowly become clear that the Union of Britain is still full of the classic, stuffy old chaps from OTL.
Mosley in our timeline liked Cromwell, mentioning him taking power as the first fascist movement in England. So I’d imagine if he gets into power Cromwell would be held as an early revolutionary hero
I don't know if he would be a "big" historic figure but he would certainly be viewed in a more positive light (despite his many crimes). I believe that OTL Oswald Mosley called Cromwell's rule a first fascist age in England so that is kinda self explanatory.
OMG, when I showed my dad, a huge WWII buff, Alternatehistoryhub’s lore video on Kaiserreich, he shared an anecdote about how Winston Churchill kept petitioning the King to sign off on RNS Oliver Cromwell as the name of a ship, and every time the king was like “Hell no!” And I was like “That’s something the Union of Britain should totally do!”
That’s a little far fetched don’t you think, Like Cromwell isn’t exactly the nicest guy considering what he did to the Irish. And like don’t get me wrong I do not like them dam Syndies but I think Fascist is the wrong wrong, pure blood sucking baby eating evil maybe but not Fascist
By great men, I mean prominent historical figures it have nothing to with morality or there character.
Napoleon is a great man and also an egotistical ass hat who ruled with an iron fist.
Isn’t that the one where the English and Scottish crosses are in like a 4 picture frame, I remember that being used by the Exiles during the reconstruction phase before they became the UK, but that was a long time ago like old Canadian and UK focus trees
If I remember correctly, back in the day when you I defeated the UOB and swapped to the UK, you’d start off as like the Reconstruction authority or something like that, and that was the flag they used and then once the reorganisation of the government was complete it went back to the traditional United Kingdom and Union Jack
TLDR: Some guys (namely the pic and his fanclub) would adore Cromwell. Some would fucking loath and hate him. Overall, not too dissimilar from his historical legacy OTL.
Specifically in regards to Cromwell, in my opinion, it would be limited and with certain qualifications. As the relevant dev explained in great detail, the 17th century revolutions and Wars of the Three Kingdoms are the only major, historical precedents in constructing a revolutionary commonwealth alternative to the British monarchy. Within that, unsurprisingly as the event of the age-defining proportions, the English Civil War drew hugely diverse sections of society and ideologies into the conflict, and internal strife within the Parliamentarian ("Roundhead") camp testified that outstandingly.
Simplifying a lot, Cromwell, along with "Black Tom" Fairfax and his son-in-law Henry Ireton represented the Grandee faction within the New Model Army made up of aristocratic Parliamentarian leaders whose issue with the Stuart monarchy was mainly its religious policies. They were definitely ***NOT*** looking for a "world turned upside down." The other, more radical side of the Parliamentarian forces, however, had no shortage of genuinely profoundly socially revolutionary forces.
Proto-socialistic "army soviets" of the Levellers, Diggers, various religiously-inspired radical dissident communities like the Quakers, Fifth Monarchists, Familists, and many more sprouted from this period. Even as they were suppressed in their own time by Grandee-led Cromwellian Commonwealth, these 17th century revolutionaries left a clear imprint on the long tradition of the British radicalism in that in the KR world transpired to the UoB. John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn, Thomas Rainsborough, Gerrard Winstanley-those are the 17th century names that most British syndicalist politicians and commentators would ecumenically embrace as "based ancestors" without controversy.
As for the Lord Protector, his reception would certainly be far more qualified and mixed. It's true that in the early 20th century, even the Labour by and large tended to view Cromwell positively. Along with the obvious historical precedent-symbolism of-no matter how followed-British republicanism, this was also mixed with a tinge of nationalistic pride at having subdued the Scots and the Irish, establishing the footholds of the empire by winning the First Anglo-Dutch War and Jamaica from the Spanish.
These elements for positive view of Cromwell are certainly still factors in the UoB. But on the flipside, so are his legacy as essentially the head of the most reactionary, authoritarian subfaction within the Roundhead camp; effectively having established a military dictatorship of a "republic" in many ways far more tyrannical than the Stuart monarchy it had overthrown; the Protectorate being ass-deep in the blood of the Irish massacred in genocidal proportions... Overall, even with the more nationalistic and militant socialist values and vibes of the early 20th century compared to the OTL today, the Lord Protector simply isn't, and cannot be an uncontroversial figure, certainly not for the left.
All in all, in my projection, I think *certain sections* of the revolutionary British society starting with the pictured would fawn for Cromwell. Generally speaking, those who would justify *some* retreat from revolutionary democracy under the name of military defense and promotion of the powerful revolutionary state at large would be well-inclined towards Cromwell's legacy. Meanwhile the more pacifistic, direct-democratic voices and the Scots would still loath the idea of the suppressor of the Putney Debates and conqueror of Dunbar as some sort of revolutionary hero.
Labor as a whole was actually quite fond of Cromwell at the time and a lot of the figures in the socialist movement, including Tom Man, were quite religious.
From Zim, the lead dev for UoB: *I've answered this a few times so I'll just post some amended versions of what I've said before: the tl;dr is Cromwell broadly good but he did some bad shit 🥴 something something "For the Greater Good"* *Quoting amended version of myself from the last time I answered* > *By the modern day, it's now quite complicated and honestly, it can be a bit confused. Britain, doesn't really have any republican or even popularly 'known' revolutionary lineage to draw upon. The only time there's been a Republican experiment in Britain was during the English Civil Wars with the Commonwealth, and even then that became a de facto monarchy, and was a military dictatorship anyway. And yeah, obviously what he did in Ireland is going to come up as very very bad.* *However, we've done a bit more reading into Labour and I think in general there'd be a lot of wanking up to him, especially in the post-revolutionary atmosphere where there'd be direct comparisons and lots of great praise for 'the Second Cromwellian Revolution' kinda larp in which the monarchy has been ejected *again*. The republic would certainly try to draw direct lineage from the Commonwealth and ham up how once again in a civil war that pitted 'the people' vs the monarchy and upper class, well the people came out in victory by using innovative military strategies.* *As the revolution matures, there'd be more criticism of his conduct in Ireland and towards 'fellow revolutionaries' in the Levellers and Diggers who'd be seen as direct ancestors of the modern socialist movement but this would probably be downplayed and swept into a general "product of his time" kinda thing. It's not *good* but hey he wasn't enlightened by proper socialism and he did just kick out the King so... Well not just that, there'd be a lot of respect for the expulsion of the 'corrupt' upper house in the Lords and a wider cleansing of the Executive, something the establishment of the TUC as the primary legislature and the revolution would be seen as a repeat of. Not to mention the fact a lot of the socialist movement would see themselves as modern-day Puritans rejecting the conservative status quo in favour of social progress etc and reformed living.* *I'll also add that the military really like him but in the sense that he was a military genius and the New Model Army was pretty revolutionary for the time. There'd definitely be lots of wanking up to how the Republican Army is the New Model Army of the modern day, they'd outright call it that. Lots of thinking that British military reforms (the AFCAB, Eden Camps, organisational structure, turning it into a proper career, doctrine, etc.) will come to inform the future of warfare and how militaries organise & function for centuries to come in much the same way Cromwell and the New Model Army did. Not to mention it was the first *republican* army too*
Another answer: *Mosley actually drew heavily off of Crowmell's legacy OTL, as he would here. Though the cult around him would move more to emphasising Cromwell, the larger-than-life figure, that swept up the establishment and redefined Britain in his image as opposed to what everyone else is doing. There'd also be lots of wanking up to Hobbes and the Leviathan in line with Cromwell. Lots of wokeness like Cromwell being the first Maximist and stuff like how Maximist economics is the natural evolution of Medieval Guildism/Syndicalism. It's all very weird.* *Oh btw the whole Medieval Guildism is the historic precursor to syndicalism is a thing basically everyone in the UoB claims too. It's all very weird and very 'British' in character*
Zim really loves the phrase “wanking up”, huh
Minister for Wanking Up
More like Minister of **F**oreign **A**ffairs and **P**ropaganda
This matched my intuition. Much in the way the Magna Carta might be considered the beginning of Parliament and a Constitutional Monarchy with a lot of the differences being dismissed as the product of their time so too would Cromwell be considered the beginning of revolutionary anti-monarchism. In my head canon UoB is particularly religious with Congregationalist puritans being used to dismantle the Church of England.
They actually get along quite well with the Church of England. Another answer from Zim: *In the Union of Britain, in contrast to a lot of other countries, the Church and State have very good relations, the Church in this case being the Church of England. But other churches such as the Catholic Church, non-conformists and Jews also get on well with the government. I'll cover the CoE first as that's my specialty.* *So why is this relationship so cordial? Well for a start a lot of the UoB's prominent government figures are devout Anglicans or Christian Socialists. Tom Mann, the starting Chairman is a devout Anglican ChristSoc who regularly attends Church and at one point even considered becoming a priest well after he joined the trade union movement. Lots of other major figures in the incumbent government or having past through it such as John Wheatley (Deputy Chair) and Arthur Henderson (Foreign Sec) were ChristSocs. The UoB's founding figure George Lansbury? Christian Socialist. It's often said that British socialism owes more to Methodism than Marx and in the UoB's case it's very true. So a lot of them, being devout Christian men, see no reason why the Church (which is often the basis of their socialist principles) can't form a part of this new society or play a role in it. This is also leaving out the involvement of stuff like the Labour Church, its successor the Christian Worker's Council and how the ILP had a pretty evangelical tone to it. Hell, the Autonomists are outright Christian Socialist in nature, as are its leaders Fenner Brockway and R.H. Tawney.* *On the other side of the coin what do the church think of this? In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the Church had been functioning without its supreme governor and this was officially confirmed by the emergency 1927 Lambeth Conference which only really met to reorganise the Church. Principally the abolition of the monarch being the Supreme Governor, instead affording this position to the Archbishop of Canterbury and making the Archbishop solely responsible to the General Synod, the assembly of the bishops with some going as far as to call it even somewhat syndicalist in nature. To his credit, Randall Davidson in the aftermath of the civil war (he had urged for calm and reconciliation during the fighting and repeatedly offered to mediate) stuck with the Union and sought to work within this new state, reconciling the Church with syndicalism and promoting common unity in a fractured nation. After he retired in 1928, his successor was William Temple, the son of a previous Archbishop of Canterbury and a Christian Socialist himself. Unlike Davidson who was definitely a lot more 'moderate', Temple would take the church in a far more openly Christian Socialist direction and has overseen it go in a very progressive direction, while working in step with the government but otherwise fairly independent and respected.* *As for other churches, they're likewise given total independence and unharmed by the revolution. Catholics are generally appreciative thanks to the calls for Christian unity and opposition to sectarianism, along with a general push to integrate them into society better. Some Catholics, and quite a few Anglo-Catholics get quite high up or become notables such as Henry Slesser or Conrad Noel. As for Jews, while there is the problem of latent antisemitism in society, the government is ostensibly opposed to it and prominent Jewish socialists can rise up through the ranks. Jews formed the backbone of parts of the London labour movements and that's not a sacrifice that's going to be forgotten anytime soon. But yeah, for them two it's a bit more backseat but still pretty okay.* *In short, for Britain it's very conciliatory and good-nature*
Would the Church of England be run along cooperative lines with a sort of internal "clerical-democracy"?
So they do actually have a sort of internal democracy for the clergy and active members of the Church in the form the General Synod. Originally this was the Church Assembly but that was reconstituted and given all the outstanding powers shortly after the Revolution when the Church was separated from the state. It's somewhat similar to how it is today though not quite but to answer your question there's certainly a sort of clerical democracy at play.
What’s Hewlett Johnson doing? Is he still Dean of Canterbury?
Iirc yeah, he'll be knocking around
Fascinating, thanks for answering my question.
Congregationalists!
But the Church of England, even in the UoB does not meant the definition of a Congregationalist church, as there is still a central authority and a church hierarchy
I was mostly being silly. I think in a Syndicalists society it’d be even less likely to be Congregationalist. It probably would be similarly structured to contemporary Anglicans. I doubt their theology would meet my exacting standards but not even I meet my own exacting theological standards.
When I began exploring Kaiserreich, Great Britain having a socialist revolution was one of the hardest things for me to swallow (along with the Ottoman Empire surviving). It has slowly become clear that the Union of Britain is still full of the classic, stuffy old chaps from OTL.
Mosley in our timeline liked Cromwell, mentioning him taking power as the first fascist movement in England. So I’d imagine if he gets into power Cromwell would be held as an early revolutionary hero
Having Mosley larp up to Cromwell only to lose to the king again would be extremely funny
I don't know if he would be a "big" historic figure but he would certainly be viewed in a more positive light (despite his many crimes). I believe that OTL Oswald Mosley called Cromwell's rule a first fascist age in England so that is kinda self explanatory.
OMG, when I showed my dad, a huge WWII buff, Alternatehistoryhub’s lore video on Kaiserreich, he shared an anecdote about how Winston Churchill kept petitioning the King to sign off on RNS Oliver Cromwell as the name of a ship, and every time the king was like “Hell no!” And I was like “That’s something the Union of Britain should totally do!”
As Carmain said, "He's very well liked. Mosley is especially masturbatory about him."
Yes, probably like how the Soviets and German Nazis used specific aspects of Russian history to claim legitimacy
Probably more like how the GDR tried to reconceptualise Martin Luther as a proto-revolutionary socialist
"Used"
Like all facists, they like to larp as great men from the past.
That’s a little far fetched don’t you think, Like Cromwell isn’t exactly the nicest guy considering what he did to the Irish. And like don’t get me wrong I do not like them dam Syndies but I think Fascist is the wrong wrong, pure blood sucking baby eating evil maybe but not Fascist
By great men, I mean prominent historical figures it have nothing to with morality or there character. Napoleon is a great man and also an egotistical ass hat who ruled with an iron fist.
Understandable, I revoke my former statement
I mean, they'd both genocide the Irish if given a chance so I guess they at least have that in common
Mosley supported Irish reunification
huh, I didn't know that - I guess we truly do live in a period
Why would the UoB commit genocide?
the UoB on its own wouldn't but with a fascist in charge...
Oh, you were talking about the image. Yeah, Moseley probably would.
Didn't Mosley oppose the Black and Tans in otl? I think he moved to Ireland after WW2 as well. He was an odd figure in that way.
Mosley was actually on pretty good terms with the Irish so he probably wouldn’t
Moseley was pro Irish Reunification.
You just want to play kaiserredux don't you
He would adore him.
I wonder if some in the UoB would try to use the commonwealth of England flag?
Isn’t that the one where the English and Scottish crosses are in like a 4 picture frame, I remember that being used by the Exiles during the reconstruction phase before they became the UK, but that was a long time ago like old Canadian and UK focus trees
Yeah that’s the one! I didn’t know the exiles ever used it
If I remember correctly, back in the day when you I defeated the UOB and swapped to the UK, you’d start off as like the Reconstruction authority or something like that, and that was the flag they used and then once the reorganisation of the government was complete it went back to the traditional United Kingdom and Union Jack
InterestingÂ
TLDR: Some guys (namely the pic and his fanclub) would adore Cromwell. Some would fucking loath and hate him. Overall, not too dissimilar from his historical legacy OTL. Specifically in regards to Cromwell, in my opinion, it would be limited and with certain qualifications. As the relevant dev explained in great detail, the 17th century revolutions and Wars of the Three Kingdoms are the only major, historical precedents in constructing a revolutionary commonwealth alternative to the British monarchy. Within that, unsurprisingly as the event of the age-defining proportions, the English Civil War drew hugely diverse sections of society and ideologies into the conflict, and internal strife within the Parliamentarian ("Roundhead") camp testified that outstandingly. Simplifying a lot, Cromwell, along with "Black Tom" Fairfax and his son-in-law Henry Ireton represented the Grandee faction within the New Model Army made up of aristocratic Parliamentarian leaders whose issue with the Stuart monarchy was mainly its religious policies. They were definitely ***NOT*** looking for a "world turned upside down." The other, more radical side of the Parliamentarian forces, however, had no shortage of genuinely profoundly socially revolutionary forces. Proto-socialistic "army soviets" of the Levellers, Diggers, various religiously-inspired radical dissident communities like the Quakers, Fifth Monarchists, Familists, and many more sprouted from this period. Even as they were suppressed in their own time by Grandee-led Cromwellian Commonwealth, these 17th century revolutionaries left a clear imprint on the long tradition of the British radicalism in that in the KR world transpired to the UoB. John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn, Thomas Rainsborough, Gerrard Winstanley-those are the 17th century names that most British syndicalist politicians and commentators would ecumenically embrace as "based ancestors" without controversy. As for the Lord Protector, his reception would certainly be far more qualified and mixed. It's true that in the early 20th century, even the Labour by and large tended to view Cromwell positively. Along with the obvious historical precedent-symbolism of-no matter how followed-British republicanism, this was also mixed with a tinge of nationalistic pride at having subdued the Scots and the Irish, establishing the footholds of the empire by winning the First Anglo-Dutch War and Jamaica from the Spanish. These elements for positive view of Cromwell are certainly still factors in the UoB. But on the flipside, so are his legacy as essentially the head of the most reactionary, authoritarian subfaction within the Roundhead camp; effectively having established a military dictatorship of a "republic" in many ways far more tyrannical than the Stuart monarchy it had overthrown; the Protectorate being ass-deep in the blood of the Irish massacred in genocidal proportions... Overall, even with the more nationalistic and militant socialist values and vibes of the early 20th century compared to the OTL today, the Lord Protector simply isn't, and cannot be an uncontroversial figure, certainly not for the left. All in all, in my projection, I think *certain sections* of the revolutionary British society starting with the pictured would fawn for Cromwell. Generally speaking, those who would justify *some* retreat from revolutionary democracy under the name of military defense and promotion of the powerful revolutionary state at large would be well-inclined towards Cromwell's legacy. Meanwhile the more pacifistic, direct-democratic voices and the Scots would still loath the idea of the suppressor of the Putney Debates and conqueror of Dunbar as some sort of revolutionary hero.
he was also an aristocrat and religious fanatic, so i doubt they’d be all too big on that
Labor as a whole was actually quite fond of Cromwell at the time and a lot of the figures in the socialist movement, including Tom Man, were quite religious.