Colonies of the English Commonwealth

[Hawkeye]

How do you think the colonial game play out for England if it managed to become a stable republic during the Commonwealth years?

[TheNordicBrit]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

How do you think the colonial game play out for England if it managed to become a stable republic during the Commonwealth years?

Well for one, we'd have probably held onto Dunkirk.

[Thande]

Well, OTL the American colonies went over to Cromwell after he sent out new governors.

Assuming the broad pattern of the 17th and 18th centuries is the same as OTL (i.e., declining Spain + ascendant France, with most of Europe bound in alliances against France) I think the Commonwealth would do somewhat better than the KGB in OTL at retaining the colonies - because Cromwell was much more amenable to rationalising electoral procedures and his successors would probably have conceded the need for colonial representation. In fact British reform in OTL was hamstrung for a long time specifically because it smacked of Cromwell - some of the reforms passed in the 1830s had actually been passed by Cromwell nearly 200 years before, yet had been definitively reversed upon the Restoration just due to being associated with him.

Not saying the colonies will always stick with the Commonwealth but they would at least do so for longer, and if we do see a USA analogue it's more likely to be an amicable divorce along the lines of Brazil-Portugal in OTL.

Elsewhere: I think what happens in India and the East Indies will depend very much on whether the Commonwealth gets on with the Dutch Republic in the long term or keeps coming to blows. The fact that the Dutch shut the English out of the East Indies in OTL was the main reason why the English East India Company started concentrating on India instead...if the two are allies instead (though there would still be competition) then England might instead have more minor colonies in SE Asia and France would most likely bag India.

[Alex Richards]

Umm, sorry to break it to you, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the Commonwealth becoming a stable republic unless you effectively replace Cromwell with someone different (and then you hit the butterflys!). In OTL, Cromwell at first attempted a parliament stuffed with his cronies, then a parliament of 'godly souls' then ditched parliament and becaming a dictator teh Soviet Union would have been proud of. He was actually offered the crown as a way of limiting his power. So we either have something similar to OTL, or a Cromwellian dictatorship for a few generations, or a Cromwellian monarchy. Colony wise, it then depends. In the first and last cases, probably broadly similar to OTL. In the second case, well perhaps Ireland declares independance, under the fully catholic James II? After all, Cromwell tried to ban alcohol, all festivities, and anything remotely akin to 'fun'. It's not a tenable situation.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Umm, sorry to break it to you, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the Commonwealth becoming a stable republic unless you effectively replace Cromwell with someone different (and then you hit the butterflys!).

Umm, any High School freshman who pays close attention in his history class could have told me that. Cromwell's personality is pretty much the one thing I completely understand from that crazy time period.

I'm currently thinking of a POD where Thomas Rainsborough isn't killed and leads the Levellers while Cromwell is assassinated early in office and is replaced by someone who is willing to make some compromises. It's not perfect but let me worry those details; I will eventually get it right.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Umm, any High School freshman who pays close attention in his history class could have told me that. Cromwell's personality is pretty much the one thing I completely understand from that crazy time period.

I'm currently thinking of a POD where Thomas Rainsborough isn't killed and leads the Levellers while Cromwell is assassinated early in office and is replaced by someone who is willing to make some compromises. It's not perfect but let me worry those details; I will eventually get it right.

I see. Sorry you should have specified that. Well there are going to be conflicts with the Dutch (two maritime trading powers, both operating out of the North Sea-English Channel area). The Commonwealth would have seen a more efficient military power, so that nets New York (or the colony of Manhattan in this TL?). A few other Dutch colonies are taken as well, possibly the Dutch Antilles. After that, we have representation for all white males, so the 13 colonies are not going to rebel, but this will leave the focus on America for longer, so no Australian colony (that will probably end up Dutch) but the Raj may happen, and possibly a British Siam as well. The Scramble for Africa may well be later here. On the continent, we'll never have the rise of Hannover to the Electorate, and the commonwealth will probably stay out of foreign wars, so there's no Marlborough either. The French will probably end up with more of Germany.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

After all, Cromwell tried to ban alcohol, all festivities, and anything remotely akin to 'fun'.

That's a myth propagated by Restoration propagandists. While a lot of Puritan laws were passed at the time, Cromwell had little to do with any of them: he was known for his fondness for music, playing football and big banquets (it's good to be the, um, Lord Protector).

[Jape]

The Republic would last a hell of a lot longer if Cromwell simply appointed an heir, his son-in-law Charles Fleetwood was his favourite and had support from the NMA. However he is also very tough on Ireland so that might become a long-term sore spot. Apart from that I'm not sure but rebellion was hardly endemic in England during the Cromwell years so I have a feeling if Fleetwood can maintain a relatively stable reign (in OTL he lived into the early 1700s), the Commonwealth might be secure, America in particular.

On the Anglo-Dutch Wars, a Republican England might have more uniform success, as Charles II's return saw funding for the army and navy drop substaintially which allowed the Raid on the Medway and pushed the English out of the East Indies. If the pressure can be kept up the English might seize at least a massive chunk of present day Indonesia. This combined with butterflies will also probably do the French some good in India, Bengal I feel will remain an English bulwark in the region but further down the coast and into Hyderbad, the French East India Company might cling on, New France however is screwed, 50,000 Quebecois simply aren't beating 1 million Yanks and Brits.

[Umbric Man]

Originally Posted by Jape

On the Anglo-Dutch Wars, a Republican England might have more uniform success, as Charles II's return saw funding for the army and navy drop substaintially which allowed the Raid on the Medway and pushed the English out of the East Indies. If the pressure can be kept up the English might seize at least a massive chunk of present day Indonesia. This combined with butterflies will also probably do the French some good in India, Bengal I feel will remain an English bulwark in the region but further down the coast and into Hyderbad, the French East India Company might cling on, New France however is screwed, 50,000 Quebecois simply aren't beating 1 million Yanks and Brits.

Exactly. It was during this time that the Commonwealth conquered Jamaica, which is NO small feat. Such militarism lasting in time to take on Canada, Florida, and New Netherland should be interesting.

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by Thande

Well, OTL the American colonies went over to Cromwell after he sent out new governors.

This is actually half wrong. The northern colonies supported Parliament before the arrival of commonwealth governors but the southern colonies actually had a small war over the matter and the royalists won. Parliament had to send a military expedition to topple the royalist governments in Maryland and Virginia.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Jaded_Railman

This is actually half wrong. The northern colonies supported Parliament before the arrival of commonwealth governors but the southern colonies actually had a small war over the matter and the royalists won. Parliament had to send a military expedition to topple the royalist governments in Maryland and Virginia.

Yes, but Virginia (grudgingly) accepted Parliament rule after the war. And the governors sent by Cromwell became popular leaders of the colony.

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Yes, but Virginia (grudgingly) accepted Parliament rule after the war. And the governors sent by Cromwell became popular leaders of the colony.

Of course. I was making the point that it was New England who joined up once a governor was sent. Virginia only jumped once troop ships were snet.

[Analytical Engine]

Originally Posted by Thande

That's a myth propagated by Restoration propagandists. While a lot of Puritan laws were passed at the time, Cromwell had little to do with any of them: he was known for his fondness for music, playing football and big banquets (it's good to be the, um, Lord Protector).

Not to mention his childish sense of humour and the practical jokes he pulled...

[Jape]

The one I've always been interested in when comes to a lasting Commonwealth is how it would react to the Enlightenment and the arrival of Liberal nationalism via some French Revolution style event.

Would England ossify into a Dutch style republic in name with aristocratic oligarchs that is just as reactionary to democratic reform as any kingdom or due to general revolusion to 'Cromwellian' reforms never taking hold would England have a bit of a liberalism wank? I've also thought that the Lord Protector could become a Shogun figure, appointed by the military big wigs ruling while Parliament acts as a rubber stamp to their dictations, maybe even a negotiated return of the monarch but as a truly powerless figurehead with the LP still running the show.

Personally I think it would be awesome to have the head of government/head of state be called the Lord Protector but I digress.

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by Jape

...maybe even a negotiated return of the monarch but as a truly powerless figurehead with the LP still running the show.

Personally I think it would be awesome to have the head of government/head of state be called the Lord Protector but I digress.

That is a very cool idea, something I'm tempted to work into a TL if I ever make one for this period. I think it would be feasible to see the restoration of the monarchy at some point... but who would they place on the throne? Probably not a Stuart, but then who else would there be in the period in question?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Analytical Engine

Not to mention his childish sense of humour and the practical jokes he pulled...

Insert non-PC reference to Ireland here

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Jape

I've also thought that the Lord Protector could become a Shogun figure, appointed by the military big wigs ruling while Parliament acts as a rubber stamp to their dictations, maybe even a negotiated return of the monarch but as a truly powerless figurehead with the LP still running the show.

Personally I think it would be awesome to have the head of government/head of state be called the Lord Protector but I digress.

It's possible but it wouldn't be called the Lord Protector, because that title is only used for a regent or someone otherwise ruling in the stead of a monarch but fulfilling the same functions, like Cromwell.

If we're talking more of a Shogun figure, they might revive the old title of Lord High Steward (previously held by example by Simon de Montfort, a comparable figure), which had been divided between several lesser posts since the 1400s.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by rcduggan

That is a very cool idea, something I'm tempted to work into a TL if I ever make one for this period. I think it would be feasible to see the restoration of the monarchy at some point... but who would they place on the throne? Probably not a Stuart, but then who else would there be in the period in question?

I don't see why the new king wouldn't be a Stuart.

I believe a constitutional monarchy was proposed in the "The Heads of the Proposals" made by Henry Ireton. But I admit that I only just stumbled on this while searching through wikipedia, so who knows if it would have worked or not.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Jape

Personally I think it would be awesome to have the head of government/head of state be called the Lord Protector but I digress.

So do I

*cough Beerhaven cough*

[Alex Richards]

How about the Hanovarians. They were defiantly protestant.