Surviving Commonwealth of England

[IchBinDieKaiser]

I had an idea for a timeline but I didn't know if it could work or if anything like it has been done. This timeline starts at the English Civil War. Before Charles I is captured, he and a large number of Royalists flee to the colonies and set up a new government. This also involves the survival of the Commonwealth of England. Charles I and about 2 or 3 generations of succesors continue to claim the title of King of England, Scottland and Ireland, but have no actual control. Charles I loses any political ties in England, so he doesn't have powerbase to return to. Eventually they establish the English Colonies in North America as an Empire.

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Intresting. It could technically work, however the distance to the colonies, their small size, relative squalor and the likely hood of dying on the way would put off a monarch and his loyal nobles from attempting it.

Also I'm not a fan of the English Commonwealth. Partly due to the religious intolerence towards Catholics, Cromwells antics in Ireland and the fact that it was not the promised republic. But it could still survive if Cromwell either gets a proper heir or he is overthrown by parliament and they elect a proper Lord Protector.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Todyo1798

Also I'm not a fan of the English Commonwealth. Partly due to the religious intolerence towards Catholics,

This is back when all over Germany, religious cleansing is considered the humane way of doing it, when in Russia, people who aren't Orthodox are confined to ghettoes, and it's not long before the Revocation in France.

Cromwell's regime let the Jews back, and was one of the most tolerant periods for the dissenting Protestants.

Whereas under the Restoration, Scotland was ordered to be Episcopalian without so much as a by-your-leave. Large outdoor Presbytarian sermons degenerated into religious violence and execution.

The worst you can really say for the Commonwealth is that it wasn't more tolerant than any other regime of the 17th century in Europe, English or otherwise. I've always found it annoying that succesful Protestant-fanatic warlord, dictator, and mass-murderer Cromwell is a Bad Man, whereas unsuccesful Protestant-fanatic warlord, dictator, and mass-murder Gustav II Adolf ia considered such a good egg.

Originally Posted by Todyo1798

Cromwells antics in Ireland

Once again: I'm absolutely not denying the outrageous attrocities of the Commonwealth in Ireland, I'm just pointing it that it was absolutely the norm for the time, and it's stuck to Cromwell thanks to a combination of Charles II's propaganda machine and later Irish nationalist historiography in which, frankly, Great Britain is the antichrist.

Originally Posted by Todyo1798

and the fact that it was not the promised republic.

Well, given how it effectively became hereditary, it hardly was. That has no bearing on how democratic it was: it was, like every regime at the time, absolutely undemocratic.

I don't think Cromwell was nice. I just want him to be judged with the same stick as everyone else.

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by IchBinDieKaiser

Before Charles I is captured, he and a large number of Royalists flee to the colonies and set up a new government.

There's really absolutely no way that this would happen. For a start, the colonies were only about 50 years old at this point, and Charles and his "government" would be forced to live in squalor, unable to effectively govern further than a few nearby settlements. Furthermore, if he does this he loses all credibility he has, forever. To the European monarchs who might have sheltered him and supported any attempts he might have made at restoration, he's thrown away his pride and his royalty by cowering in America rather than relying on their hospitality. To his enemies, he's running away from the problem and is no longer a worthy adversary, rather he's someone who should be hunted down like a dog. To his supporters, he's no more than a desperate man who's given up.

On top of this, he faces two major problems by going to America. One is that he risks bringing the Civil War to the colonies. Not everyone in the colonies is going to be cowed into supporting him, and the southernmost colonies and perhaps some of the northern ones are likely to turn their backs on him in favour of supporting the "legitimate" government. Remember that OTL only Virginia declared support for him after he lost the war. Secondly, he's fleeing to a land filled with only about 60-70,000 people. He's never going to have the maritime resources to transport an army, and to be brutally honest, Cromwell would respond to this by laughing at how easy Charles has made his recapture, before dispatching only a few ships of soldiers to apprehend him - the colonies would never be able to rustle up more than 5,000 fighting men, probably fewer than 1,000 would be capable of resisting any Commonwealth soldiers in one place at one time, and those men have no military experience at all and could be routed by a force 1/4 of their size. Even if Charles succeeds in evading capture then what life is he living? On the run from a few hundred men, in a land still not safe from Indian bands, living in poverty and humiliation, with probably no more than 10 companions, when he could be living in palaces in France or the Netherlands, able to raise tens of regiments when the time is right. Even without the Commonwealth dispatching troops to arrest him, he's never going to be able to win back England, his name will now be too dirty for Parliament to invite him back on the potential collapse of the Commonwealth, and as soon as England sets its mind to it, the colonies will be reconquered anyway. It's just not a logical move for Charles.

Please don't take this as a dig at you, that's certainly not how it's meant, but I fear this forum is fixated on this idea that Kings were always one coin-toss away from running from the slightest trouble to hide in the colonies and make a new Kingdom there. It just didn't happen like that. It happened to Brazil in 1810-ish because by that point some of Brazil's splendour was reaching that of Portugal's, and the Portuguese royals knew that Napoleon himself was hunting them down and that in a few years all of Europe could have fallen. This is not the situation that other monarchs faced, with far poorer colonies and far less of a desperate situation.

Of course, that said, your TL doesn't need Charles to flee to have the Commonwealth survive. In fact the extermination of the royal line is likely to better produce that end. In addition, in response to your first comment about whether other people have made TLs about the English royals fleeing to America from an overthrowing and forming a new American Kingdom, yes, it's been done a lot of times.

[Saepe Fidelis]

The Commonwealth was, effectively, a military dictatorship. It worked with Cromwell because he had the support and respect of the army. Everything else is secondary, and indeed it was probably the only thing that allowed him to instill hisreligious values upon the people.
To survive, therefore, the Commonwealth needs a successor to Cromwell. I can't think of anyone off the twop of my head-maybe Fairfax? Or was he already dead? Anyway, someone who commands the army's support and is competent.

Oh, and Todyo: you can't just deny something because you don't like it. Remember, AH is 'what if' not 'if only'.

NB I think I'm quoting someone wth that last part-if I'm quoting you dear reader, thank you for that piece of insight.

[Sir John A.]

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

The Commonwealth was, effectively, a military dictatorship. It worked with Cromwell because he had the support and respect of the army. Everything else is secondary, and indeed it was probably the only thing that allowed him to instill hisreligious values upon the people.
To survive, therefore, the Commonwealth needs a successor to Cromwell. I can't think of anyone off the twop of my head-maybe Fairfax? Or was he already dead? Anyway, someone who commands the army's support and is competent.

The most common candidate for a competent successor to Oliver Cromwell is Charles Fleetwood.

[ah-sue]

If he had not died in 1651, aged only 40, Cromwell's son-in-law Henry Ireton might have been an appropriate successor. For today's tastes not a 'nice' person, Ireton was a strong and maybe ruthless 'iron man', who could have held the fledging Commonwealth (or Republic) together and ensured a more stable base for continuance.

[Saepe Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Hamburger

The most common candidate for a competent successor to Oliver Cromwell is Charles Fleetwood.

He sounds good. Although, to keep the Commonwealth alive Cromwell will have to keep the landowners on his side. Perhaps instead of settling the NMA on CAtholic lands he donates them to other supporters. The NME can then be settled in Ireland or maybe even the New World (although maybe further down the line).

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

Oh, and Todyo: you can't just deny something because you don't like it. Remember, AH is 'what if' not 'if only'.

What are you talking about? I don't particularly like Cromwell because Im Irish and we are still pissed off by the injustices he commited on our island, what am I denying? I still find Cromwell/English Commonwealth AH very intresting, I hate the Nazis but I still in enjoy Axis victory AH.

Explain what you mean.

PS. I realise that his actions may have been common at the time, but wiping out an entire city tends to imprint itself onto the national councious.

[Saepe Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Todyo1798

What are you talking about? I don't particularly like Cromwell because Im Irish and we are still pissed off by the injustices he commited on our island, what am I denying? I still find Cromwell/English Commonwealth AH very intresting, I hate the Nazis but I still in enjoy Axis victory AH.

Explain what you mean.

PS. I realise that his actions may have been common at the time, but wiping out an entire city tends to imprint itself onto the national councious.

Sorry for any misunderstanding, I just thought you came off against th econcept of the WI rather than its plausibility. If I'm wrong them I'm sorry.

[DjBaraca]

I think the only way the Commonwealth can survive is that the Royal line is exterminated in the war, and Cromwell find a strong able successor. With out these two things there is no chance that the Commonwealth can survive.

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

Sorry for any misunderstanding, I just thought you came off against th econcept of the WI rather than its plausibility. If I'm wrong them I'm sorry.

It's fine. No hard feelings.

[Arachnid]

Actually I don't think you need to wipe out the Royal line, which considering the succession tables would be pretty much impossible. All you need is for Cromwell to take a slightly less hard line in England, meaning less troops and thus lower taxes. Second find him a reasonably able successor.
Couple that with beating on the Irish any-time things are looking bad and you can keep the Commonwealth going for 40 or 50 years. And just like the Jacobites the old Royalists will gradually fade away.

[Larrikin]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Once again: I'm absolutely not denying the outrageous attrocities of the Commonwealth in Ireland, I'm just pointing it that it was absolutely the norm for the time, and it's stuck to Cromwell thanks to a combination of Charles II's propaganda machine and later Irish nationalist historiography in which, frankly, Great Britain is the antichrist.

No, Great Britain is not the anti-christ, is where England is, which was the home of the anti-christ.

The anti-christ is Cromwell.

I once lived in a Cromwell Road. Do you have any idea how difficult even getting my address out was for a good Cromwell hating mick?

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

To survive, therefore, the Commonwealth needs a successor to Cromwell. I can't think of anyone off the twop of my head-maybe Fairfax? Or was he already dead? Anyway, someone who commands the army's support and is competent.

Fairfax was still alive. He supported Monk in 1660 and accepted the Restoration. He had steered clear of involvement in the execution of Charles I, so didn't have too much to fear.

Basically, Cromwell so dominated the scene that there was no credible successor. The Lamberts and Fleetwoods and other odd bods just hadn't the same prestige. Monk was smart enough to realise that the same was true for him, so rather than lose his life trying to set up a new regime, he restored the old one and accepted a Dukedom from it.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

Fairfax was still alive. He supported Monk in 1660 and accepted the Restoration. He had steered clear of involvement in the execution of Charles I, so didn't have too much to fear.

Basically, Cromwell so dominated the scene that there was no credible successor. The Lamberts and Fleetwoods and other odd bods just hadn't the same prestige. Monk was smart enough to realise that the same was true for him, so rather than lose his life trying to set up a new regime, he restored the old one and accepted a Dukedom from it.

So basically, we just need a POD where Cromwell dies early and yet the Commonwealth is still created.

Oddly this may parallel the French Revolution and subsequent Terror and Empire. Who gets to be Robespierre and Napoleon?

[Amerison]

Originally Posted by IchBinDieKaiser

Charles I loses any political ties in England, so he doesn't have powerbase to return to. Eventually they establish the English Colonies in North America as an Empire.

Assuming that you were referring to the Royalists, they would form an alliance with various enemies of the Commonwealth in the colonies, which would eventually split from the motherland. Transported Cavaliers and Catholics would work side by side with dissenting Scots. They would have common cause against Cromwell, and they may receive economic and military aid from France and Spain. Eventually, Scots-Irish, including Welsh immigrants, would join them up the road.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Amerison

Transported Cavaliers and Catholics would work side by side with dissenting Scots.

A "dissenting Scot" pretty much is a Catholic or Episcopalian (and at this point there is no such thing as the "Episcopalian Church" as distinct from Episcopalians running the CoS: that would be established in 1712). The Presbytarianism of the Covenant CoS was tolerated in the Commonwealth: English Presbytarians patterned their doctrine on Scottish ones, after all.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Amerison

Eventually, Scots-Irish,

Those guys are pretty notorious for being the most Presbyterien Presbyterians. During the Confederate Wars, they were staunch supporters of the National Covenant (many of them, or their parents, had been born in Scotland anyway). Ireland under the Commonwealth (assuming that it remains a government of Independent-leaning but fairly pragmatic army officers) won't be ideal for them, but it's not exactly the Protestant (which is to say, CoI) Ascendancy, which made them second-class citizens (as opposed to the Catholic majority, who could hardly be considered "citizens").

So if anything, there's less motivation to go to America. I'm not saying they won't (religious reasons were hardly the first or only ones to quit Ulster); but that movement really got going in the 1700s anyway. Butterflies will intervene if America and Ulster both witness very differant paths of development.

In any event, there's no reason for them to affiliate with a discredited, Episcopalian monarchy.

Originally Posted by Amerison

including Welsh immigrants, would join them up the road.

I honestly don't know the first thing about Welsh immigration to America, but I absolutely do know that Welsh people aren't "Scots-Irish". Of course, the Ulster "Scots" had plenty of Englishmen in their ranks, and some Germans and French, but they assimilated: someone who went from Wales to Ulster to America (don't know if that was common) would be about as "Welsh" as David Crockett was French.

[Amerison]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

A "dissenting Scot" pretty much is a Catholic or Episcopalian (and at this point there is no such thing as the "Episcopalian Church" as distinct from Episcopalians running the CoS: that would be established in 1712). The Presbytarianism of the Covenant CoS was tolerated in the Commonwealth: English Presbytarians patterned their doctrine on Scottish ones, after all.

A dissenting Scot could be of the church or religion of your choice, since I used "dissenting" as an adjective, not as the name of a religious group, and I meant that they were Royalists. I was not referring to Dissenters, but I can see how you might think that I was. Some Scots in my group could be Anglicans, but I doubt that they would be called Episcopalians (same church, different name) where they lived. BTW, I understand that there was tolerance for Prebyterians for some time in the century in which the ATL takes place.