Talk:Oliver Cromwell

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Political reputation bias

This section gives a view of Cromwwell that is too scholarly and doesn't represent popular perceptions of him; whilst most historians think his dictatorship was mixed at best, many English people are republicans and Cromwell's crusading massacres in Ireland and tyranny in England have been ignored in the popular imagination with his legacy being seen as democratic, ironically not 'Warts and all' in the slightest. I don't have any references for this but it is true and someone else should sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.196.5 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

—Unfortunately for the point you have just tried to make, several extrememly well respected authors (and some not so well respected ones) do have references that the 'facts' you believe to be 'true' are shaky at best, downright anti-Cromwell propaganda at worst. If you can find undeniable proof of any of these facts, you would do better than any previous historian on the subject and make yourself a fortune to boot.I don't deny you the right to an opinion, I only wish it were an informed opinion based on research and references instead of school playground arguments such as you have given.194.9.188.22 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)CFury194.9.188.22 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with Battle of Preston (1648): how many parliamentary troops?

According to this article

At Preston, Cromwell, in sole command for the first time with an army of 9,000, won a brilliant victory against an army twice that size

However, according to the battlebox of Battle of Preston (1648), the Parliamentary force numbered 14000. The Royalist force (18000) was thus less than twice the size of the former.

Top.Squark (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless this can be accuratley solved, i suggest that they be changed to say he had "9000-14000" troops in the needed areas.24.192.38.217 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The number of 14,000 is not supported in the sources, it was closer to 9,000. I have now fixed the problem. But this is a complicated thing to report accurately because Cromwell, thanks to Hamilton's incompetence was able to engage different parts of Hamilton's army in succession and destroy each different part separately (or "in detail" as the military histories describe such actions). -- PBS (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Question... Why did Cromwell go to Ireland?

If Cromwell wanted to rid England of its Royal family, why did Cromwell then go to Ireland? Who would have been his most reliable ally against the English royal influence. Is it not a possibility he did not and the powers that be at the time wrote into history it was Cromwell attacking the Irish to make sure the Irish did not team up with Cromwell??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.230.210 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's widely known that he had to go to Ireland - because he was a jeles-boofty.70.16.240.30 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cromwell thought that the Irish would invade England!! - he wrote: If we do not endeavour to make good our interest there, ... ... but they will in a very short time be able to land forces in England and to put us to trouble here ... .... - ClemMcGann (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the section "Irish campaign: 1649–50" of this article, it explains the reasons very clearly. Top.Squark (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Another contradiction - how many slaves?

Just how many Irish were sold into slavery? In the article, just before the heading "Debate over Cromwell's effect on Ireland" the number given is only 12,000. Yet below the heading the figure becomes 50,000 That 50,000 is from OCallaghan's book based on records in Barbados. Other authors give other figures. O'Donnell in The Irish Abroad has 40,000. Emmet in Ireland under English Rule says "over 100,000". Whatever the actual number, the article should not contradict itself. - ClemMcGann (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ok I'll say 50k - ClemMcGann (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Amateurs

"In a war fought mostly by amateurs, these strengths were significant and are likely to have contributed to the discipline of his cavalry"

What does in "a war fought mostly by amateurs" mean? The New Model Army was a professional army and by the end of the Civil War it was as good as any army in Europe -- as was shown at the Battle of the Dunes (1658). "the red-coats of the New Model Army under the leadership of Sir William Lockhart, Cromwell's ambassador at Paris, astonished both armies by the stubborn fierceness of their assaults particularly with a successful assault up a sand-hill 50 meters (150 ft) high and strongly defended by Spanish veterans". Both armies were rabbles at the start of the war, but as so often happens in civil wars the winning side were competent professional soldiers by the end of it. (It is the same sort of argument one reads in contemporary European accounts dismissing the competence the American soldiers who fought the American Civil War)-- PBS (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Inquisition

This article has no discussion of the Inquisition under Cromwell. This is a rather glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.132.189 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would he engage in the Catholic inquisition? Weren't they different centuries? 75.95.47.110 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

THE ERRONEOUS CONCEPT OF THE ENGLISH REPUBLIC

I wish to respectfully state that, contrary to some opinions, England did not become a republic under the rule of that male child of a female dog Oliver Cromwell. It has been a continuous monarchy since before the 1066 Conquest by William of Normandy.

From the moment Charles 1 was beheaded [ judicially murdered by Treason ] at Whitehall on January 30 1649 his son Charles, Prince of Wales in exile, became King Charles 11. This reign thus began not in 1660 [ The Restoration ] but in 1649 and ended in 1685. This is borne out by the fact that the courier who reported the news of his father's death to Prince Charles immediatly addressed him as "Your Majesty".

In 1952 our present Queen was in Africa, at a safari lodge, when she received the news, told by her husband HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, that her father, King George V1 had died in his sleep in England. Prince Phillip was thus the first to tell her that she was now Queen. She was thus re-cognised in Britain from the moment of her father's death and was received at the airport on her return to Britain by Churchill and others as Queen.

The Coronation does not make the monarch but confirms what already is. There are numerous instances that support this opinion, one being Edward, the elder of the so-called 'Princes in The Tower'. At the death of Edward 1V in 1483 his son was re-cognised as Edward V - shown by the fact that Henry V111's son became Edward V1 in 1547. Edward V was, however, never crowned and was lawfully suceeded by his uncle as Richard 111.

Though not in a British scenario, likewise never crowned, the son of the executed Louis XV1 [ 1789 ] was re-cognised as Louis XV11 [ but died as a child during the Revolution ]. When the brother of the executed King succeeded after the fall of Bonaparte in 1815 he used the title of Louis XV111 in re-cognition of the two previous rulers of the Bourbon lineage.

The son of Napoleon 1, who never was crowned as Emperor, [ Duke of Reichstadt ] was re-cognised as Napoleon 11 by Napoleon 111, who was nephew of Bonaparte and became technically the third Emperor of The French.

Princess Victoria was awoken in the middle of the night and told that her uncle William 1V was dead an she was now Queen of England.

The late Edward, Duke of Windsor, became King Edward V111 on the death of George V in 1936 and was acknowledged as such. He, however, was never crowned but waas still the King until he signed the document of abdication in favour of his brother, who became George V1. I offer these historical points to show that England did not become a republic after the murder of Charles 1. It continued as a monarchy in exile until 1660.

THE KING IS DEAD. LONG LIVE THE KING.

Sincerely, Roger DESHON —Preceding unsigned comment added by BLANCSANGLIER (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it probably better than having a king that wants to be a tampon. One wonders if being reincarnated as a tampon will become official Church of England doctrine if he becomes head of the church. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles II was a mere pretender until 1660. Between 1649 and 1660, he was as much King of England as he was King of France (a title he also claimed). 81.105.111.230 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cromwell is Welsh; his real name is Williams

Since Cromwell is Welsh should he be classified as such? I think it is noteworthy given the hatred that the Irish have for him. It is ironic that the colonization of Ireland was begun by the Tudors, who were Welsh, not English and escalated by Cromwell, another Welshman. Pistolpierre (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cromwell only had one great-great-grandfather who was Welsh. The vast majority of his ancestry was English, he was born English, raised English, and he died English. --John of Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If Cromwell had Welsh ancestry and his real name was Williams, how do you deny his Welsh heritage? His father, grandfather, and great grandfather had Welsh ancestry. If one of your ancestors was Italian it follows that you have Italian ancestry. It doesn't matter if your parents were part English. You would still be Italian or in Cromwell's case Welsh. The article mentions that his family crest showed his Welsh origins. What I'm saying is that he is similar to the Tudors. He was an Englishman of Welsh descent wasn't he?Pistolpierre (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The article already says he has Welsh ancestry. What suggestion are you making to improve the article please? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I never denied his Welsh heritage. I acknowledged that he had a Welsh great-great-grandfather, thus he had Welsh ancestry. However, there's a difference between being Welsh and simply having Welsh ancestry. Cromwell may have had Welsh ancestry, but he was brought up according to English culture and thus was English, not Welsh. The same can be said about the Tudors. All of them had Welsh ancestry, but only one of them was actually Welsh and that was Henry VII. --John of Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he Ban Christmas?

I heard that Cromwell famously banned Christmas and Easter because they were not in the bible and therefore sinful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.152.145 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. The event that each commemorates is described in the Bible. However the Bible does not say that either of them should be celebrated. So Cromwell banned feasting, drinking, and secular celebration of Christmas and Easter. But he was quite happy for people to celebrate either of them as days of fasting and prayer. Just as long as you didn't enjoy them. See The Puritan Ban on Christmas for more info. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the article at the link you provided, attending Christmas Mass was made illegal during this time. --RLent (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. But then the Puritans considered mass to be a Bad Thing in general. Doesn't mean that they wanted to ban the observance of Christmas altogether -- just the pagan, secular and Roman Catholic elements. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"In Ireland his record is harshly criticised"

This shouldn't be in the first sentence of the article, per WP:UNDUE. There's a whole section about Cromwell's campaign in Ireland and the debate over its effect, not to mention the "genocide" sentence at the end of the intro. If there's no objection, I'm going to take it out or move it to the end of the intro where it would be more appropriate. Best, Jonchapple (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd object. his effect is still with us. - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

re the claim that he only upset irish catholics: "He stabled his horses in St. Patrick's Cathedral and is said to have publicly burned the Book of Common Prayer, denouncing it as a Mass book. Many Catholic and Church of Ireland clergy went into hiding." - In search of Ireland's heroes" by Carmel McCaffrey Publisher Ivan Dee, year 2006 isbn 9781566636155 - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure his effect is still with you, but re-read what I wrote. I'm not proposing to whitewash any mention of Cromwell's record in Ireland, just not mention it in the very first paragraph. What do you think Stalin's reputation is like in Ukraine? It's still not in the first paragraph of his article, though. Best, Jonchapple 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

only Irish Catholics complain about his memory, but I agree it should not be so prominent. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The introduction should cover the most notable features of Cromwell. I guess it comes down to Irish notability - vs - other notability, although they need not be in conflict. He's not notable in the British tradition for his conduct in Ireland, although I would say this is changing and in modern times has become more notable. In international opinion, for example the US, I would say it's more of an even thing. Probably a good case could be made for including first mention of it in the first para. I doubt we will find good sources that say "these are the five most notable things about Cromwell in order". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You ask >What do you think Stalin's reputation is like in Ukraine?< The stalin article speaks of "widespread famine, including the catastrophic ...". The 1651 famine is only in a footnote of the Cromwell article, even though Stalin's famine wasn't intended, while Cromwell's was. I suggest that if it is dropped from the first paragraph as per the Stalin article, then there should be a second paragraph in the same style as the Stalin article. As an aside, I'm surprised that the Stalin article does not highlight the defeat of Hitler. - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's famine "wasn't intended"? I suggest you read the Holodomor article. As for Cromwell, the intro states: "his measures against Catholics in Scotland and Ireland have been characterised as genocidal or near-genocidal" - is it really necessary to say his record in Ireland is harshly criticised if there's widespread belief he commited near-genocide? The sentence should be after this one or taken out altogether. Jonchapple (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we leave Stalin's unintentional famine to its own article where it is contended as {{dubious|date=November 2010}}. Cromwell's greatest impact on today is found in Anglo-Irish relations. Attempts to ignore and whitewash are unhelpful,My suggestion for your reading - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, there's no whitewashing proposed. I wasn't proposing to remove any record of Cromwell's action in Ireland. Read back what I wrote before replying. Jonchapple (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why relegate to the end? his lasting legacy - having greatest impact today. - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is his greatest impact today. Undoubtedly his policies had a strong effect on Irish-British relations over the centuries since. But it is also true that Cromwell and the Puritan / Republican revolution (when we use the word "Cromwell", we often mean the latter, as he was only part of that movement and not always the leading part) have had a very major impact on the British political and cultural makeup, ranging from the evolution of the Parliamentary system and Constitutional Monarchy to the distrust of ideological views (as a reaction against Cromwell's dictatorship) that is very common in England particularly. The article shouldn't be too anglo-centric, but equally it can't put the Irish view uppermost. It's a mixture. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that an Irish view, per se, be first - rather his major legacy - what is most notable for? what was the enduring effect of his life? You mention major impacts on the British makeup, however you accept that he was just part of such influences. His British legacy was blunted by the restoration. Whereas in Ireland his actions left permanent scars. Ireland was integrating, was supporting the crown. His actions brought a rift which was never bridged. There were later scars, such as the famine, but would they have been as severe if the alienation wasn't already there? - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Jamesinderbyshire. It's too Hiberno-centric to say that that's Cromwell's lasting legacy - I know it is in Ireland, and I'm aware he's reviled across the Irish sea, but in mainland Great Britain the majority of people wouldn't be able to tell you anything about that. Here he's most remembered for his role in the Civil War and contributions to the development of constitutional monarchy and limiting the role of the King, not his vendetta against Irish catholics. Jonchapple (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made my point. Perhaps you can, over time, reflect on it. I am of the opinion that events such as the Glorious Revolution had far more influence on the development of constitutional monarchy and limiting the role of the King than Cromwell's abolition on the monarchy which was promptly reversed. ClemMcGann (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable wording.

In the third paragraph there is this sentence: "An intensely religious man—a Puritan Moses—he fervently believed God was guiding his victories." I believe the inclusion of "a Puritan Moses" is possible bias, and suggests that Cromwell was truly guided by God, rather than merely echoing Cromwell's belief. I would think it would be wise to remove this fragment and leave the sentence as "An intensely religious man, he fervently believed God was guiding his victories." Does anyone object or have an opinion on this?IrishStephen (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep it. Cromwell often referred to himself as a new Moses and so did many of his contemporaries, as many RS tell us. I can't see any "bias" here. Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that it is not notable, as those sources you linked mainly mention how he identified himself with Moses, while not disgussing the merit of the assignation. It's merely a bit of barely subsantiated trivia, and clutters an otherwise serviceable factual statement. I see no reason to retain it.IrishStephen (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't trivial, as Cromwell's self-identification as Biblical is often said by historians to be a key to his character, however deluded; it might be more accurate though to have the sentence say ..."intensely religious man—a self-styled Puritan Moses—he fervently believed God was guiding his victories." - thoughts ? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with the inclusion of self-styled. I haven't read too much on the subject beyond history classes back in school, so I was unaware that it was that important. I just came across the page, and thought the sentence was jarring. If we are agreed that changing it to self-styled is okay, I will change it now. Thanks for discussing it.IrishStephen (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edit.

I reverted an edit by User:Alan_Liefting where he removed the Category:Religious_persecution without any sources or edit summary. It appears to me based on the article as a whole that this category should remain. To Alan, if you can cite a source or sources that justify your edit, please note them here. Your edit may be a case of WP:BOLD but without any discussion of your reason of removing a seemingly integral part of the article, it looks closer to WP:VANDAL. IrishStephen (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for the truncation of the article.

Do we really need such an extensive section on the debate over his effects on Ireland? It seems almost to have taken prominence over the section on the campaign itself. Perhaps a little too much pandering to Irish editors is afoot?
--I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The appendix sections are a mess

The MOS:APPENDIX sections are a mess. There are way to many sources listed in the section. The inline citation need to be cleaned up an an alphabetical list of general references supplied for the inline citations.

There can be a further reading section but it shoudl be kept to a short list, Say half a dozen books or better still a list of outside bibliographys listing books that experts have selected. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

the section entitled "Books" is a useless compilation of old books - -it can be deleted without loss. The bibliography is already a short list drawn from thousands of citations and covers important themes (politics, military, England, historiography) and should be kept because many different scholars have given many different interpretations, and to drop some --either out of ignorance of their contents or POV dislike of their interpretations--violates Wiki's NPOV rules and is a disservice to the readers. Thousands of students a year have to study Cromwell in school and our job is to help them. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly when did he die?

I raised this issue once before but it went nowhere. I'm interested (and our readers are interested) in knowing) exactly when Cromwell died.

• According to some sources (e.g. [1]), he died on 24 August (OS) = 3 September (NS) 1658.
• But according to others (http://www.archontology.org/nations/uk/england/commonwealth/cromwell1b.php], [2]), he died 3 September (OS) = 13 September (NS).

They can't both be correct. Which is the correct date pair, and how do we know? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We could cross check against the day of the week, if we knew that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed this question has come up as his death date is well known that any reliable sources should have the correct day of the month if not the year. Cromwell's death date is a coincidence. It is the same date as the start of his most notorious action and of his two most decisive victories Siege of Drogheda (started 3 September 1649), the victory at Dunbar (3 September 1650) and the victory at Worcester (3 September 1651) — his "Crowning Mercy". All those dates are in Julian calendar as is usually for Commonwealth dates. Just in case anyone is in any further doubt here is a copy of primary source "Cromwell lying in state. Etching and engraving, with short biography ( (Registration number: 1868,0808.3261)". The British Museum. ( same engraving in the national archives). -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

---

After he died, his body was buried in private in the Westminster Abbey on 10 November, the effigy that had been lying down while he was lying in state (see source above) was propped up and stood there crown on head orb and sceptre in hands. So it remain until his funeral on Tuesday 23 November when it was taken still standing to Westminster Abbey for the state funeral. (Little, Patrick. "The Death and Funeral of Oliver Cromwell". [1658 words, Word.doc])

Cromwell died on 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Friday 3 September (Forster, John (1864). The Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England: With a Treatise on the Popular Progress in English History. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans. pp. 639–642. {{cite book}}: Text "volume 5" ignored (help))

Foster has a detailed description of all this including the passage:

His body, presently after his expiration, was washed and laid out; and being opened, was embalmed, and wrapped in a acre cloth six double, and put into an inner sheet of lead, enclosed in an elegant coffin of the choicest wood. Owing to the disease he died of, which, by-the-by, appeared to be that of poison, his body, although thus bound up and laid in the coffin, swelled and bursted, from whence came such filth, that raised such a deadly and noisome stink, that it was found prudent to bury him immediately, which was done in as private a manner as possible.

--PBS (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead

There is a new biographical article about Oliver Cromwell's uncle called Oliver Cromwell (died 1655) there is a discussion about the dab extension on the article's talk page talk:Oliver Cromwell (died 1655) in the next few days Google will start to display it along with this page. This page is displayed as

Oliver Cromwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English military and political leader who overthrew the English monarchy and temporarily turned ...

From that it is difficult to tell the difference from the 1655 chap:

Oliver Cromwell (died 1655) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir Oliver Cromwell (c. 1566–1655) was an English landowner, lawyer and politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1589 ...

I suggest that we change the lead to emphasis his role as Lord Protector so that is show up in the Google summary eg:

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English Member of Parliament who during the English Civil War ....

-- PBS (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cromwell Family Early American Connection in Eastern Maryland and New England (omitted?):

Chapter XIV, beginning page 253, of James Waylen's "The House of Cromwell", 1897, London, as revised by the Hon. John Gabriel Cromwell; addresses the issue of the early American, Maryland Cromwell family branch.

What of the early New England, alleged Cromwell family branch? I am not an authority on this. I alert you only to the possibility of this branch. Allegedly Mrs. Argentine (Argentine is a family last name, not researched) Cromwell Ross, who as Mrs. Benjamin Cram, Sr., died New England, 5-126-1677, and had wed Benj. 11-28-1662; the son of John Cram and Hester White.

Argentine had Benj. Cram., Jr., born 12-330-1666, who wed Sarah Shaw, who had Charity Cram, 3-28-1703/Sept 15, 1774, who wed Josiah Smith, Sr., of Strathan, N.H. Daughter Hannah Smith wed Wm. Burleigh, Jr. (son of Wm. Burleigh, Sr., and Elinor Johnson of Ipswich) Who had Hannah Burleigh, who wed DAR Patriot. Pvt. Ebeneezer "Eben" Barker, Jr., born 3-6-1716, Cornish, Maine; the son of Maj. Ebeneezer Barker, Sr., and Mary Rundlett, daughter of Satchwell Rundlett, Sr., and Mercy Leavitt. Maj. Barker was the son of Noah Barker and Martha Figgett.

Mrs. Hannah Burleigh Barker had Elizabeh Barker of Sratham, N.H., who wed War of 1812, (Augusta?) militia Capt. Steven Jewett, III, of Sidney, Maine. Son Steven Jewett, IV. removed to 1830's Smithville (now Southport), N.C., on the Cape Fear River, as it's U.S. postmaster, and wed "Miss Gracie", a Smithville private school headmistress who died on a trip the the Southern Pines, N.C., area. He wed next, Lucy Anna Bradley, who had my great, grandmother, Mrs. Eliza Yonge Jewett Wootten, buried Oakdale Cemetery, Wilmington, N.C. (see Find-a-Grave website entry).

Mrs. Wootten's brother, Wm. Henry Bradley, via New Orleans; removed to San Francisco, Calif., and there established the World's Fair Exposition, Gold Metal in Photography firm, of Messrs. Bradley & Rolufson which allegedly build SFO's first 'skyscraper' of five stories, with first elevator. Stephen Jewett, IV, is buried at his father-in-law, Richard Bradley, Jr's, summer home on Bradley's Creek, now called "Airlie Gardens". Argentine Cromwell had male Cromwell kin, also in early New England. He Argentine lineage, if any, seems un-traced? There was another early New England, Cram Family. A Mr. Cram, a lately deceased, high CIA official, may be of either early Cram lineage? ∞ focusoninfinity 02:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)