'Not in any doubtfull dispute'? Reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell

This article challenges the widespread belief that Oliver Cromwell nominated his eldest son as his successor. By looking closely at private correspondence, official publications and parliamentary debates, the article demonstrates that the surviving evidence does not suggest that Oliver Cromwell ever...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Historical research : the bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 2010-05, Vol.83 (220), p.281-300
1. Verfasser: Fitzgibbons, Jonathan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 300
container_issue 220
container_start_page 281
container_title Historical research : the bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research
container_volume 83
creator Fitzgibbons, Jonathan
description This article challenges the widespread belief that Oliver Cromwell nominated his eldest son as his successor. By looking closely at private correspondence, official publications and parliamentary debates, the article demonstrates that the surviving evidence does not suggest that Oliver Cromwell ever nominated a successor in his own lifetime. Instead, it would seem that the ultimate decision to confer the title of lord protector on Richard Cromwell was taken by the privy council at Whitehall in the hours following his father's death. The implications of this are examined, both in terms of the council's motives and the ultimately debilitating effect it had on the protectorate as a whole.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1468-2281.2009.00508.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1035970606</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1035970606</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4118-d705242aeea9c9b4b91b439e56ad7f7df576b13c3229049e951871874c3273233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1P4zAQhi0E0pbu_geLC1ySHdtxHB8QQhVfApWlsOJoOYkDLmlc7ES0_35duuqBE5Ylj8bvMxo9CGECKYnn9zwlWV4klBYkpQAyBeBQpKs9NNp97KMRSA4JywT5gQ5DmAMA4VyO0PR46npsO6y7Na7dUPbN0La4tmE59Ob4DM-MDsGEYLsX3L8a3LmF7XRvXYddg2e2etW-xhPvFh-mbX-ig0a3wfz6_47R38uLp8l1cnd_dTM5v0uqjJAiqQVwmlFtjJaVLLNSkjJj0vBc16IRdcNFXhJWMUolZNJITgoRbxY7glHGxuhkO3fp3ftgQq8WNlRxAd0ZNwRFgHEpIIc8Ro--ROdu8F3cTlEKLGdQ0BgqtqHKuxC8adTS24X26zhJbTyrudroVBudauNZfXpWq4iebtEP25r1tzl1ffM4i1Xkky1vQ29WO177N5ULJrh6nl6p28nDHwmXD-qZ_QOfwZC6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220363082</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>'Not in any doubtfull dispute'? Reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Fitzgibbons, Jonathan</creator><creatorcontrib>Fitzgibbons, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><description>This article challenges the widespread belief that Oliver Cromwell nominated his eldest son as his successor. By looking closely at private correspondence, official publications and parliamentary debates, the article demonstrates that the surviving evidence does not suggest that Oliver Cromwell ever nominated a successor in his own lifetime. Instead, it would seem that the ultimate decision to confer the title of lord protector on Richard Cromwell was taken by the privy council at Whitehall in the hours following his father's death. The implications of this are examined, both in terms of the council's motives and the ultimately debilitating effect it had on the protectorate as a whole.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0950-3471</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2281</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2281.2009.00508.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Cromwell, Oliver (military personnel) ; Parliaments ; Sons</subject><ispartof>Historical research : the bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 2010-05, Vol.83 (220), p.281-300</ispartof><rights>Institute of Historical Research 2009</rights><rights>2010 Institute of Historical Research</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4118-d705242aeea9c9b4b91b439e56ad7f7df576b13c3229049e951871874c3273233</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2281.2009.00508.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2281.2009.00508.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fitzgibbons, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><title>'Not in any doubtfull dispute'? Reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell</title><title>Historical research : the bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research</title><description>This article challenges the widespread belief that Oliver Cromwell nominated his eldest son as his successor. By looking closely at private correspondence, official publications and parliamentary debates, the article demonstrates that the surviving evidence does not suggest that Oliver Cromwell ever nominated a successor in his own lifetime. Instead, it would seem that the ultimate decision to confer the title of lord protector on Richard Cromwell was taken by the privy council at Whitehall in the hours following his father's death. The implications of this are examined, both in terms of the council's motives and the ultimately debilitating effect it had on the protectorate as a whole.</description><subject>Cromwell, Oliver (military personnel)</subject><subject>Parliaments</subject><subject>Sons</subject><issn>0950-3471</issn><issn>1468-2281</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkE1P4zAQhi0E0pbu_geLC1ySHdtxHB8QQhVfApWlsOJoOYkDLmlc7ES0_35duuqBE5Ylj8bvMxo9CGECKYnn9zwlWV4klBYkpQAyBeBQpKs9NNp97KMRSA4JywT5gQ5DmAMA4VyO0PR46npsO6y7Na7dUPbN0La4tmE59Ob4DM-MDsGEYLsX3L8a3LmF7XRvXYddg2e2etW-xhPvFh-mbX-ig0a3wfz6_47R38uLp8l1cnd_dTM5v0uqjJAiqQVwmlFtjJaVLLNSkjJj0vBc16IRdcNFXhJWMUolZNJITgoRbxY7glHGxuhkO3fp3ftgQq8WNlRxAd0ZNwRFgHEpIIc8Ro--ROdu8F3cTlEKLGdQ0BgqtqHKuxC8adTS24X26zhJbTyrudroVBudauNZfXpWq4iebtEP25r1tzl1ffM4i1Xkky1vQ29WO177N5ULJrh6nl6p28nDHwmXD-qZ_QOfwZC6</recordid><startdate>201005</startdate><enddate>201005</enddate><creator>Fitzgibbons, Jonathan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>C18</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201005</creationdate><title>'Not in any doubtfull dispute'? Reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell</title><author>Fitzgibbons, Jonathan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4118-d705242aeea9c9b4b91b439e56ad7f7df576b13c3229049e951871874c3273233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Cromwell, Oliver (military personnel)</topic><topic>Parliaments</topic><topic>Sons</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fitzgibbons, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Humanities Index</collection><jtitle>Historical research : the bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fitzgibbons, Jonathan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>'Not in any doubtfull dispute'? Reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell</atitle><jtitle>Historical research : the bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research</jtitle><date>2010-05</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>220</issue><spage>281</spage><epage>300</epage><pages>281-300</pages><issn>0950-3471</issn><eissn>1468-2281</eissn><abstract>This article challenges the widespread belief that Oliver Cromwell nominated his eldest son as his successor. By looking closely at private correspondence, official publications and parliamentary debates, the article demonstrates that the surviving evidence does not suggest that Oliver Cromwell ever nominated a successor in his own lifetime. Instead, it would seem that the ultimate decision to confer the title of lord protector on Richard Cromwell was taken by the privy council at Whitehall in the hours following his father's death. The implications of this are examined, both in terms of the council's motives and the ultimately debilitating effect it had on the protectorate as a whole.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1468-2281.2009.00508.x</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0950-3471
ispartof Historical research : the bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 2010-05, Vol.83 (220), p.281-300
issn 0950-3471
1468-2281
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1035970606
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Cromwell, Oliver (military personnel)
Parliaments
Sons
title 'Not in any doubtfull dispute'? Reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T05%3A23%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle='Not%20in%20any%20doubtfull%20dispute'?%20Reassessing%20the%20nomination%20of%20Richard%20Cromwell&rft.jtitle=Historical%20research%20:%20the%20bulletin%20of%20the%20Institute%20of%20Historical%20Research&rft.au=Fitzgibbons,%20Jonathan&rft.date=2010-05&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=220&rft.spage=281&rft.epage=300&rft.pages=281-300&rft.issn=0950-3471&rft.eissn=1468-2281&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1468-2281.2009.00508.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1035970606%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220363082&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true