Sir - A recent Worcester News’ letter put forward a case for a statue of Oliver Cromwell in the city rather than Charles II.
The case made was that Cromwell was the victor of the Civil War’s Battle of Worcester and, at that time, Charles hadn’t been crowned.
I would argue against this because:
1. Cromwell never entered the city, even after his victory
2. Our mayor offered Charles Stewart the city’s mace, so recognising him as the monarch
3. The Battle of Worcester was the culmination of a Scottish invasion rather than part of the Civil War.
If a statue were to be erected to commemorate someone from the Civil War it would be more appropriate to remember the mathematician and master gunner Nathanial Nye or even better Col. Henry Washington, the governor of the city when we were besieged in 1646 – visitors would be interested in his family link with America’s first president George Washington.
However, I think we should consider someone more contemporary. Basil D’Oliveria was an international cricketing hero but more important he was the catalyst for a sporting ban which was to help bring down the South Africa apartheid regime. I suggest we have never done enough to recognise this adopted son and that it is not too late to make amends.
Worcester
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel