Talk:Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCrown Jewels of the United Kingdom has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 1, 2017Peer reviewNot reviewed
October 3, 2017Good article nomineeListed
September 8, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Intereggnum[edit]

An order for the breaking up and sale of the Crown Jewels was made by Parliament in 1649. Cromwell had no authority to make such orders himself. In that year, Cromwell was a Member of Parliament and a member of the English Council of State (later known as the Protector's Privy Council). Although Cromwell led some military campaigns on behalf of the Parliamentary cause, he was not the leader of Parliament, and England was effectively governed by committee until he became Lord Protector in 1653. None of the many authoritative books in my possession about the Crown Jewels, which I have been researching for the past three years, states that Cromwell made the order or that the Jewels were sold "under Cromwell" (whose 'regime' began four years later), despite what lazy pro-monarchy (and thus anti-Cromwell) sources on the internet say. Firebrace (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Cromwell, backed up by the army, was not one to worry much about the legal technicalities, especially after Pride's Purge in 1648. You should probably look at wider sources by specialists in the period. The Council very largely did what Cromwell said, and he was in effective control of the government and Parliament. But in the case of the art collection he did mostly get stuff done through Parliament. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certaintly, Cromwell "dominated Parliament" in those years, as Wikipedia puts it, but then so did other leading Members of Parliament such as Henry Ireton, Cromwell's son-in-law. Cromwell was equal among the many signatories of the Act for the Sale of the Goods and Personal Estate of the Late King, Queen and Prince, drawn up by the Council of State (which had replaced the Crown), and voted on by Parliament. I think we cannot say with any authority that one individual alone was responsible for the destruction of the Crown Jewels. Nothing happened "under Cromwell" before 1653 and whilst he was a passionate supporter of the Act he did not lead the Commons or the country. Firebrace (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to MacGregor, The Late King's Goods (1989), p. 107, "At the time of the break-up of the collection [in 1649], events had taken a very different course. The first parliamentary leaders had died or been superseded, the King had been executed and power now rested with Cromwell and his future major-generals, who were, for the most part, middle-class puritans". This would put Cromwell on an equal footing with his future major-generals (see Rule of the Major-Generals), who were also senior military figures in the English Civil War.
Executive power was vested in the Council of State, and although Cromwell was the first Chairman of the council, the position was not permanent, and they elected a new chairman every month. He did not become Captain-general and Commander-in-chief of the Army until 1650 – the year after the destruction of the Crown Jewels. It's quite a reach to say "the medieval and Tudor regalia were melted down by Oliver Cromwell" or that it happened "under Cromwell", which is why academic sources steer away from pinning it on Cromwell. Firebrace (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I wish to note that contrary to WP:DR Wikiuser100 issued the hitherto uninvolved administrator User:RegentsPark with an ultimatum (paraphrasing): "Please come and help me win this edit war, or I'll quit Wikipedia. You don't want that on your conscience do you? Thanks in advance" (link). This behaviour is completely unacceptable. I have reverted the changes owing to lack of consensus. Firebrace (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Wikiuser100 has brought to my attention a page at the National Archives that states "Oliver Cromwell ordered that the orb and sceptres should be broken as they stood for the detestable rule of kings'" (link), and the Royal family website, which states: "In 1649 Cromwell ordered that the Royal regalia 'be totally broken' as being symbolic of the 'detestable rule of kings'" (link).

I'm not surprised Royal family would attribute the destruction of the Crown Jewels to their popular hate figure Oliver Cromwell. The page contains other factual errors, such as "During the Second World War the jewels were hidden in a secret location which has never been disclosed". Another white lie: In her 1997 biography Princess Margaret tells the story of how George VI took her and Princess Elizabeth down into the Windsor Castle basement to see the Crown Jewels. In 2018 the wartime hiding place was confirmed by independent research of documents held in the Royal library.

As for the National Archives, that is a worksheet for school children aged 11–14. It also says "two new sceptres and an orb costing £12,185 were made for the coronation of Charles II". Actually, this was the cost of all the regalia. Not what I call a reliable source for an encyclopedia.

Firebrace (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

picture of charles 1[edit]

He is not standing next to king edwards crown, he is staning next to tudor crown 217.68.80.54 (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damascus steel vs patterned steel[edit]

@Firebrace: Thanks for finding a source for Damascus steel. I'm not sure however when they refer to damascus steel, if they are referring to the older "true" Damascus steel made in the near east or simply patterned welded steel. It seems likely that it would be the later as the sword was created in 1820 and in the UK, but I can't find a source clarifying the matter. Do you have any thoughts on this? Safes007 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rundell, Bridge and Rundell were jewellers and goldsmiths, not swordsmiths, and there is every chance the blade pre-dates 1820 and was imported to the UK. It is also possible the author meant Damascened steel blade, in reference to the bluing and gilt work. Happy to revert myself and park this debate for now until I can obtain more information regarding the sword's history. Firebrace (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firebrace Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for sources too. Safes007 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think Damascened is far more likely - London must have been full of under-employed swordsmiths around 1820, & there would have been no difficulty finding good ones, so no need to import anything. The RC entry ("The design of the sword was suggested by George IV himself") strongly suggests they regard it as brand new for the coronation. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]