Notably, a new major history of the Cromwells portrays them not as agents of social upheaval but as a “dynasty”: a family like the Tudors or Stuarts, driven by marriage, ambition, and inheritance. This framing is more than a narrative choice; it signals a broader ideological shift in current historiography, moving away from class, revolution, and social struggle toward a focus on the personal, domestic, and genealogical.
Miranda Malins, trustee of the Cromwell Association and
author of two historical novels about Cromwell’s daughters, has embarked on a
truly ambitious project. The House of Cromwell: Power, Family and the Making of
Modern Britain explores the family lineage over two centuries, connecting
Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s chief minister, with his distant relative Oliver,
and tracing their family from a Putney brewhouse to the heights of political
influence and back. The research is extensive; Diarmaid MacCulloch, a leading
biographer of Thomas Cromwell, has praised the book warmly. Its focus on the family's
women, a group often overlooked by historians, will attract many readers and
undoubtedly add depth to the biography.
The book's core idea, highlighted in its subtitle and
throughout its promotion, is that “family mattered above all else,” emphasising
that understanding the Cromwells requires understanding their family. However,
this premise needs to be challenged. While family ties certainly influenced
Thomas, Oliver, and others, genealogy alone cannot fully explain their
historical importance. Instead, their significance stems from their roles in
the revolutionary changes in English society. Viewing the Crawleys as a
“dynasty” swaps cause and effect: their family connections gained historical
importance because they were linked to the emergence of a new social class, not
because the family held inherent political power.
The irony of the Putney connection highlights the core
issue. Putney, Thomas Cromwell's birthplace, was also the site of the 1647
Putney Debates. During these debates, ordinary soldiers and Leveller leaders
challenged army leaders Oliver Cromwell and his son-in-law Henry Ireton about
the nation's future. Colonel Thomas Rainsborough declared that “the poorest he
that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he,” which Ireton
countered by arguing that political rights depend on “a permanent fixed
interest in this kingdom,” meaning property. In that church on the Thames, the
revolution's class conflicts were revealed. Whatever the Ireton–Cromwell
marriage’s other implications, it was fundamentally a political alliance of the
propertied class versus the common people who fought.
Viewing Ireton mainly as a son-in-law, rather than as the
leading theorist challenging bourgeois property, reduces the revolution to mere
family drama. It shifts the focus from sovereignty, representation, and
property to domestic stability. The Cromwells did not transform Britain solely
through family ties; rather, their family connections gained historical
significance because they were linked to the rise of a new social order.
Malins’s framing faces a key problem. While a connection
exists between Thomas Cromwell and Oliver Cromwell, it is not a direct family
line. Instead, it reflects broader shifts in property relations such as the
dissolution of monasteries, the rise of the gentry and merchant classes, the
expansion of capitalist agriculture, the assertion of parliamentary authority,
and the revolutionary end of feudal absolutism. Reducing this history to a
story about a “house” or “dynasty” misses the very processes that made the
Cromwells historically significant.
Putney: The Forgotten Battleground of Class
The connection to Putney carries a poignant, revealing
irony. Although Putney was Thomas Cromwell's birthplace, it also witnessed one
of England's most remarkable political clashes. In the autumn of 1647, at St
Mary’s parish church by the Thames, ordinary soldiers of the New Model Army and
their Leveller leaders faced off against the army’s elite, including Oliver
Cromwell and his son-in-law Henry Ireton, as they debated the country’s future
constitution. The Putney Debates were not typical family discussions; they
exposed the revolution's profound social conflicts, with those who fought for
Parliament questioning whether victory would serve them or the propertied
classes leading them.
Colonel Thomas Rainsborough’s statement that “the poorest he
that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he” stands as one of
the most radical expressions of democratic ideals in English history. This was
not simply rhetorical; it reflected the hopes of thousands of soldiers,
artisans, apprentices, and small producers who believed that toppling the king
would bring about a change in political rights. They called for a voice in the
nation proportional to their sacrifices. They insisted that political power
must be based on the consent of everyone living under the government, not just
landowners.
Ireton’s response was just as definitive. He asserted that
political rights should be based on a lasting stake in the country, namely,
property. Allowing those without land to vote would threaten the social order’s
core, risking "anarchy,” “confusion,” and the downfall of the propertied
classes. According to Ireton, the revolution wasn’t a push for democracy but
rather a safeguard for property against the threat of popular sovereignty.
In that church, the revolution's sharp class conflicts were
exposed. The Levellers expressed the era's most progressive democratic hopes.
At the same time, the grandees defended their own interests: gentry, merchants,
and rising landlords whose ascent had been driven by social changes Thomas
Cromwell had initiated a century earlier. Beyond its political implications,
the Ireton–Cromwell marriage symbolised an alliance between the revolution’s
propertied class and the ruling elite, against the common people who had fought
the battles.
The framing of The House of Cromwell is fundamentally
misleading because it portrays Ireton mainly as a son-in-law rather than as the
key theorist defending bourgeois property against the Levellers. This reverses
cause and effect, reducing the revolution to a domestic story. It shifts focus
from the battles over sovereignty, representation, and class power to family
continuity. The Cromwells did not transform Britain simply through family ties;
rather, their family bonds gained significance because they were linked to the
emergence of a new social class.
Viewing the Cromwells as a “dynasty” misses the core point.
Dynasties only matter when political power is passed down through hereditary
succession. The Cromwells were significant because they disrupted this
inheritance, not because of family ties. Oliver Cromwell’s authority stemmed
from the organised strength of the New Model Army, a force made up mainly of
men with no lasting vested interest in the kingdom. His power arose from a
revolutionary upheaval, not from inheritance or lineage.
The Putney Debates highlight the folly of viewing the
Cromwells as a family on par with the Tudors or Stuarts; unlike the hereditary
rule of the Tudors and Stuarts, the Cromwells governed out of revolutionary
necessity. Oliver's refusal of the crown in 1657 and the Protectorate's quick
collapse after his son Richard's brief rule show that the Cromwells were not a
dynasty, but a temporary manifestation of class struggle that couldn't be
stabilised through hereditary succession. Once the immediate revolutionary
threat was over, the bourgeoisie preferred restoring a monarchy they could
control rather than risking a mobilised army and a politicised population.
Reducing this process to a “house” or “dynasty” story
obscures the forces that made the Cromwells historically important. It shifts
the focus from revolutionary change in English society to family drama,
replacing class analysis with genealogy, political conflict with domestic
stories, and revolutionary ruptures with familial ties.
The Putney Debates highlight that the English Revolution was
not merely a family story. It centred on political power, property rights, and
the rights of common people. Grasping the Cromwells is essential to
understanding the revolution itself. Viewing them as a dynasty, however, risks
obscuring the broader revolutionary significance.
Thomas Cromwell and the Transformation of Property
Thomas Cromwell’s career clearly exemplifies this. The
dissolution of the monasteries, which he carried out with a harshness that even
some of his peers found shocking, represented the largest transfer of land in
English history before the Revolution. It was more than an administrative
change or Tudor state-building; it caused social upheaval. In less than ten
years, nearly a quarter of England’s land shifted from church ownership to
secular control. The winners were not the traditional feudal aristocracy but
the emerging gentry, merchants, lawyers, and city investors, who bought
monastic lands cheaply and turned them into successful agricultural and
commercial ventures.
This redistribution of land established the social class
that would dominate English politics for the next century: landlords,
commercial farmers, and London trading interests. It hastened the decline of
feudal tenures, promoted market-focused agriculture, and strengthened the class
whose interests would later influence Parliament and the New Model Army.
Essentially, the dissolution served as the beginning of the bourgeois
revolution. It transformed the economic landscape, eroded the foundations of
the old order, and empowered the groups poised to challenge royal absolutism in
the 1640s.
Understanding Thomas Cromwell’s importance involves grasping
the shift in property relations. His policies not only enriched select families
but also reshaped England's class dynamics. The new landowners- many minor
gentry or driven urban figures- became the foundation of the parliamentary
movement a century later. They pushed for limits on royal power, opposed
arbitrary taxes, invested in trade, and adopted the Puritan ethic, blending
religious discipline with economic reason. Their perspective, formed through
property ownership and market competition, laid the groundwork for the ideology
behind the English Revolution.
The link between Thomas and Oliver is genuine, but it lies
in this shift in property relations, not in family lineage. Their connection is
rooted in the social changes Thomas helped shape, and Oliver later embodied.
Thomas Cromwell helped shape the developing bourgeois order, while Oliver
Cromwell led it militarily and politically during a revolutionary upheaval.
Thus, their bond is based on history, not ancestry.
Viewing the Cromwells as a “dynasty” misses their true
significance. Dynasties are relevant when power is passed down hereditarily.
However, the Cromwells were significant because they disrupted traditional
hereditary rule. Thomas Cromwell advanced through talent, ambition, and the
opportunities of a transforming economy. At the same time, Oliver Cromwell
gained power by mobilising a revolutionary army mostly composed of those who
benefited from the dissolution. Their importance lies in breaking from
established lineage, not in family succession.
The dissolution of the monasteries established the social
class that would later oppose the monarchy; the New Model Army was the means by
which that opposition was expressed. Tracing a family line between Thomas and
Oliver misses the core issue. The true division lies in the development of
capitalist property relations, the rise of the gentry and merchant classes, and
the revolutionary end of feudal absolutism. It is a class line, not a familial
one.
The framing of The House of Cromwell is flawed because it emphasises
family continuity, which obscures the social forces behind the Cromwells'
historical importance. Thomas Cromwell was influential because he altered the
economic base of English society. At the same time, Oliver Cromwell was
significant for leading the political and military efforts that finalised these
changes; seeing them as merely a “dynasty” risks obscuring the revolutionary
aspects of their contributions.
The Revolution as Bourgeois Breakthrough
Marx and Engels viewed the English Revolution as the first
major bourgeois revolution of the modern era, serving as the prototype for
1789. It marked the moment when emerging capitalist forces challenged and
dismantled the declining feudal absolutist structures. They saw the execution
of Charles I not as a religious or personal act but as a political expression
of a deep shift in property relations. This revolution laid the foundation for
capitalist growth, the creation of a national market, and the rise to dominance
of the propertied middle classes. Ultimately, it was the crucial break that signalled
the beginning of modern Britain.
Christopher Hill, a leading Marxist historian of that era,
expanded this analysis by illustrating how Cromwell’s Puritanism reflected the
worldview of the emerging middle class. More than just a religious sentiment,
Puritanism was the ideological lens through which the gentry, merchants, and
commercial farmers viewed their role in a transforming society. Its focus on
discipline, thrift, hard work, and moral self-assessment echoed the developing
capitalist values. Hill argued that Cromwell’s speeches, correspondence, and
actions reflected this perspective. He was not a mere mystic but a political
figure representing a class whose goals included dismantling feudal privileges
and establishing a state to safeguard property and maintain social order.
However, Hill emphasised that the revolution unleashed
forces far beyond the ruling elites' intentions. The Levellers pushed for
political democracy, while Gerrard Winstanley's Diggers promoted communal land
ownership. The Fifth Monarchists envisioned a millenarian societal
transformation. These movements were not mere fringe ideas but reflected the
hopes of the common people who drove the revolution. They suggested, though
perhaps only briefly, that dismantling the monarchy could bring about a deeper
societal overhaul.
Cromwell responded firmly. He quelled the Leveller
uprisings, notably at Burford in 1649, where soldiers demanding democratic
rights were killed by their commanders. He also dismantled Winstanley’s Digger
communes, which sought to cultivate common land in violation of property laws. He
also enforced discipline within the New Model Army to prevent it from becoming
a tool for social upheaval. These measures were consistent with his character;
they stemmed from the nature of the class Cromwell represented- a class that
aimed to abolish feudalism but also feared the revolutionary masses it had
fueled.
Any fair assessment of Cromwell’s influence must include
Ireland. The massacres at Drogheda and Wexford, along with the large-scale
confiscation of Irish lands that ensued, established the long-lasting
foundations of British colonial dominance. The same revolution that facilitated
capitalist growth domestically also ensured the subjugation of Ireland. This
wasn’t driven by personal cruelty or virtue but by the logic of a class whose
expansion depended on forcibly integrating Ireland into a new imperial framework.
The violence seen in Ireland encapsulates the colonial aspect of the bourgeois
revolution.
In his 1925 work 'Where Is Britain Going?', Leon Trotsky
advised Labour Party leaders to study Cromwell instead of the Fabians. He
believed Cromwell understood that major historical issues are resolved through
the organised power of a revolutionary class, not parliamentary tricks. Trotsky
did not seek to idolise the Lord Protector, whose revolution ultimately
favoured property owners, but argued that the British working class should
embrace the revolutionary legacy its rulers have tried to erase. After their
own revolution, the bourgeoisie spent centuries hiding its violent and
upheaval-filled origins rooted in class struggle. Reclaiming the essence of the
English Revolution means understanding the real Cromwell- not as a dynastic
figure, but as a complex symbol of a class whose victory changed the world.
The Ideological Function of “Dynasty” History
The ongoing burial signifies a shift in how historians study
and understand history. Recent decades have seen a move away from focusing
solely on class struggles towards exploring personal, domestic, and
identity-related aspects. This has led to detailed research that sheds light on
private lives, highlights marginalised voices, and deepens our grasp of
everyday experiences. However, this approach also serves an ideological
purpose. By framing major social conflicts as stories of individual psychology
and family drama, it downplays the role of structural forces, making revolution
appear as mere costume melodrama scenes of personal and household conflicts set
against a vague political background. Consequently, the English Revolution is
viewed less as a fight over sovereignty, property, and class, and more as a
struggle of temperaments and domestic affairs.
The comparison between Malins’s book and Hilary Mantel’s
Wolf Hall is quite insightful. Mantel, an exceptional novelist, vividly
captures Thomas Cromwell’s inner world with deep psychological nuance. However,
a historian must explain facts that a novelist dramatises. Mantel’s Cromwell is
engaging because he is a fictional creation, a consciousness brought to life
through imagination. Conversely, Malins’s Cromwells are depicted as historical
figures whose importance rests on their family continuity. This shifts the historical
novel's techniques into the realm of historical analysis. The Cromwells are
portrayed as characters in a multi-generational saga rather than active
participants in a revolutionary process.
The idea that the Cromwells formed a “dynasty” akin to the
Tudors or Stuarts warrants careful examination. Dynasties rely on hereditary
succession, passing political power through bloodlines. However, Cromwell's
period in control was characterised by the collapse of hereditary legitimacy.
Oliver Cromwell’s refusal of the crown in 1657 was not just an oddity; it recognised
that his authority could not be secured through monarchical traditions. His
power rested on the New Model Army, the revolutionary upheaval that dismantled
the old order, and the temporary alignment of class forces that enabled his
leadership. It was not founded on bloodline.
The swift fall of the Protectorate under his son Richard
clearly illustrates this point. Although Richard Cromwell inherited the
bloodline, he lacked the political support. He lacked the army's confidence,
the backing of the property-owning classes, and the authority that came from
his father’s leadership in the revolutionary victory. His downfall was not a
sign of a failing dynasty; it revealed that no dynasty had been
established. The Protectorate was not a hereditary government but an unstable
Bonapartist-like regime, teetering between the army, the wealthy classes, and
the subdued radicals. It was a regime born from revolution rather than
inheritance.
After the Protectorate fell, the bourgeoisie faced a
dilemma. They could try to maintain the revolutionary army as a political
force, risking the Leveller traditions, democratic unrest, and potential social
chaos. Alternatively, they could restore a monarchy stripped of its absolutist
powers, one they could control through Parliament, property laws, and financial
influence. They chose the latter option. The 1688 settlement delivered exactly
what they sought: a constitutional monarchy that protected property rights,
ensured political stability, and prevented the army from acting as an
independent revolutionary force.
Calling the Cromwells a “dynasty” misreads the revolution's
entire course. It imposes a familial continuity narrative on a process marked
by rupture, conflict, and class struggle. It treats the Protectorate as just
another form of monarchy, rather than a transitional regime emerging from
revolutionary needs. This obscures how the bourgeoisie, after employing the
army to dismantle the old order, quickly moved to neutralise it when its
revolutionary promise became dangerous.
The shift towards family-centred history is not without
political implications. By emphasising domestic life, emotional connections,
and lineage, it diverts focus from the structural forces driving historical
change. It prompts readers to view the past as a series of personal dramas
rather than the result of social contradictions. This framing makes revolutions
seem accidental, chance-dependent, and ultimately subordinate to family
dynamics. For example, in the case of the Cromwells, it recasts a revolutionary
upheaval into a story about generations- precisely the kind of narrative that
allows the English Revolution to be remembered without fully understanding its
complexities.
Family History Is Not Class History
None of these points diminishes the importance of recovering
the stories of the Cromwell women or other lesser-known family members. Such
details can deepen our understanding of the era, highlight the nuances of daily
life, and help correct enduring historical biases. The domestic sphere mattered
to the revolution; it shaped the experiences, restrictions, and opportunities
of those involved. However, it should be viewed as part of the larger
historical process, not a replacement for it. Family mattered to the Cromwells,
as it did to everyone. What truly made their story significant to history was
something else entirely.
Malins’s framing is problematic not because it focuses on
the Cromwells' private lives, but because it makes those lives the story's
central focus. This approach risks echoing a wider trend in modern history
writing: moving away from discussions of class, revolution, and structural
forces that influence change. Instead of portraying the English Revolution as a
conflict over sovereignty, property, and national destiny, it becomes a tale of
family ties, marriage, and domestic loyalty. The Cromwells are cast as family
figures rather than as representatives of a class whose victory transformed the
world.
This change reflects a broader cultural trend. In an era
when political disputes are often seen as personal issues, social crises are
viewed through individual identity and life stories, and class struggle is
considered outdated, it's natural for historians to focus more on personal and
domestic aspects. However, this distorts the picture. Major social conflicts
are reduced to notions of individual psychology. Revolution becomes
melodramatic, and structural change becomes mere backdrop. The political becomes personal and thus depoliticised.
The Cromwells show the limits of this approach. Their
importance isn't rooted in marriages or household affairs but in the
transformative events that elevated them. Thomas Cromwell played a key role in
orchestrating the largest transfer of land in England before the 1600s. Oliver
Cromwell led the army that toppled the monarchy, paving the way for capitalist
growth. Their family ties were secondary to these larger forces and did not
drive them. Viewing them as a “dynasty” distorts the true relationship between
societal forces and individual lives.
The fall of Richard Cromwell's Protectorate clearly
disproves the idea of a hereditary ruling house. If the Cromwells had truly
been a dynastic family, Richard’s succession would have stabilised the
government. Instead, it revealed its instability. The Protectorate was not a
hereditary monarchy but a delicate Bonapartist balance maintained only by the
temporary alignment of class interests following the revolution. When that
balance unravelled, the regime collapsed. The bourgeoisie, wary of the army and
opposed to radical plebeian movements, reinstated a monarchy they could
control. The 1688 settlement finalised this shift: establishing a
constitutional order that protected property, stabilised the state, and
suppressed revolutionary ideals.
The burial of the past has never been complete. Those
studying the English Revolution need to go beyond family histories and domestic
accounts. They should consult Marx and Engels, who recognised its global
importance; Christopher Hill, who identified its radical currents; the Leveller
pamphlets, expressing the democratic hopes of ordinary people; and Trotsky, who
argued that the revolutionary tradition belongs to the working class, not the
bourgeoisie. While Malins’s book offers useful details, it doesn't explain the
revolution itself or the forces that made figures like Cromwell significant. To
understand that, we must focus on the transformation of property, class, and
political power, the real foundation of modern Britain.
Academic Articles and Bibliography
I. Foundational Marxist and Social-Historical
Interpretations
Christopher Hill
Hill remains indispensable for any serious analysis of
Cromwell, the English Revolution, and the radical movements it unleashed.
- Hill,
Christopher. God’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English
Revolution. London: Penguin, 1970. A classic Marxist
interpretation of Cromwell as representative of the rising bourgeoisie;
essential for understanding the class dynamics behind Puritan ideology.
- Hill,
Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the
English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1972. A definitive study of
Levellers, Diggers, and Fifth Monarchists; it shows how popular radicalism
exceeded the grandees' intentions.
- Hill,
Christopher. “The English Revolution 1640.” Past & Present
1955. A seminal article establishing the bourgeois revolution thesis in
English historiography.
- Hill,
Christopher. “Puritanism and Revolution.” The Economic History
Review 1958. Connects Puritan ideology to emerging capitalist social
relations.
Marx and Engels
- Marx,
Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Not about
England directly, but foundational for understanding Bonapartism and class
balancing — crucial for interpreting the Protectorate.
- Marx,
Karl & Engels, Friedrich. Selected Correspondence. Contains
remarks on Cromwell and the English bourgeois revolution.
II. Radical Movements and the Levellers
Leveller Studies
- Woolrych,
Austin. “The Levellers and the English Revolution.” The Historical
Journal 1974. A balanced but rigorous account of Leveller ideology and
its challenge to property-based political rights.
- Manning,
Brian. The English People and the English Revolution. London:
Heinemann, 1976. A Marxist social history emphasising plebeian agency.
- Reid,
John. “The Putney Debates: Popular Sovereignty and Property.” History
Workshop Journal 1985. Excellent analysis of Rainsborough vs Ireton;
directly relevant to the Putney section.
Primary Sources
- The
Clarke Papers, ed. C.H. Firth. Essential primary source collection for
the Putney Debates and Army Council discussions.
III. Cromwell, the Protectorate, and State Formation
Cromwell Studies
- Coward,
Barry. The Cromwellian Protectorate. Manchester University
Press, 2002. A modern scholarly account of the Protectorate’s political
instability and class contradictions.
- Durston,
Christopher. “The Fall of the Cromwellian Protectorate.” English
Historical Review 1992. Shows why Richard Cromwell’s failure was
structural, not personal — supports your anti‑dynastic argument.
- Smith,
David. Oliver Cromwell: Politics and Religion in the English Revolution.
Cambridge University Press, 1991. A nuanced political biography.
Bonapartism and Class Balancing
- Kishlansky,
Mark. “The Army and the Levellers.” Past & Present, 1979.
Analyses Cromwell’s suppression of radicalism within the army.
- Underdown,
David. Pride’s Purge. Oxford University Press, 1971. Classic
study of the political crisis that produced the Rump Parliament.
IV. Ireland, Empire, and Colonial Violence
Ireland under Cromwell
- Lenihan,
Pádraig. Confederate Catholics at War, 1641–49. Manchester
University Press, 2001. Contextualises the Irish campaigns within broader
colonial dynamics.
- Barnard,
Toby. “Cromwellian Ireland: Land and Society.” Irish Historical
Studies 1980. Key article on land confiscation and settler
colonialism.
- Murphy,
Elaine. Ireland and the Cromwellian Conquest. Routledge, 2010.
Modern scholarly synthesis of the massacres, land seizures, and colonial
restructuring.
V. Historiography, Revisionism, and the Turn to the
Domestic
Revisionist and Post‑Revisionist Debates
- Russell,
Conrad. The Causes of the English Civil War. Oxford University
Press, 1990. A revisionist critique of class-based interpretations; useful
as a foil to Hill.
- Morrill,
John. “The Religious Context of the English Civil War.” Transactions
of the Royal Historical Society, 1984. Emphasises religious motivations
over class — relevant to a critique of depoliticised narratives.
History and the Domestic Turn
- Fletcher,
Anthony. Gender, Sex and Subordination in England 1500–1800.
Yale University Press, 1995. Foundational for the turn toward domestic and
gender history.
- Sharpe,
J.A. “The History of the Family and the English Revolution.” Social
History 1992. Directly addresses the historiographical shift you
critique.
VI. Trotsky and Revolutionary Strategy
- Trotsky,
Leon. Where Is Britain Going? (1925). Essential for your
argument: Cromwell as a model of revolutionary decisiveness, contrasted
with Labour’s parliamentary cretinism.
- Trotsky,
Leon. History of the Russian Revolution. Not about England, but
foundational for understanding class forces, dual power, and revolutionary
leadership — concepts applicable to Cromwell’s era.
VII. Suggested Further Reading for Workers and Students
- Hill,
Christopher. The Experience of Defeat. On the radical memory of
the revolution.
- Winstanley,
Gerrard. The Law of Freedom. Primary source of Digger
communism.
- The
Leveller Tracts, ed. Don Wolfe. Comprehensive collection of Leveller
pamphlets.
