English Parliament loses the Civil War

[DMA]

The English Civil Wars, & the proceeding Commonwealth (1642-1660), are arguably the event(s) which ensured that Parliamentary Democracy, in its various forms, was established in England, & over the many proceeding years, throughout the world. From this short period in history, all of our countries, the USA included, can trace their democratic ways back to the Parliamentary side, led by Oliver Cromwell, in winning the English Civil Wars.

But what if Charles I, & his supporters, won the English Civil Wars as was quite possible in the earlier years of battle.

What would have England have ended up like? Would have democracy, as we know it today, even have a chance?

And what of the United States? Would it have had its Revolution let alone know democracy as akin to today?

Indeed, what of the popular struggle throughout the world, not just back in the 1660s, but the here and now?

Anything else?

Discuss.

[Flocculencio]

Depends on what Charles does. If he sees reason and decides to moderate his stance on his Divine Right to rule we might see some slow reform. If not, the whole kettle might boil over again and TTLs Glorious Revolution might be more akin to the French Revolution.

[Wozza]

The Stuarts have big problems holding on to power, a few more victories will not change that. These problems are ideological, religious and because they are pretty damn inefficient.

Crucially most of the country stayed aloof from the civil war - about 80% of the gentry for instance. There are plenty more potential opponents to come against Charles if he does not steer a moderate course.

[Jason Sleeman]

Would Not Victory only serve to make Charles I more confident in his "Divine Right"?

I think he would attempt to make over parliament into a much more subservient body.

Jason Sleeman

[LordKalvan]

Originally Posted by Wozza

The Stuarts have big problems holding on to power, a few more victories will not change that. These problems are ideological, religious and because they are pretty damn inefficient.

Crucially most of the country stayed aloof from the civil war - about 80% of the gentry for instance. There are plenty more potential opponents to come against Charles if he does not steer a moderate course.

I do agree in full: the only way i see for Charles to avoid defeat would be for him not be Charles, if you get my meaning.
But then a different king would not have precipitated the crisis which finally erupted into a civil war.

[Wozza]

Originally Posted by Jason Sleeman

Would Not Victory only serve to make Charles I more confident in his "Divine Right"?

I think he would attempt to make over parliament into a much more subservient body.

Jason Sleeman

The problem with Charles is he never compromised. He was offered deal after deal and turned them down.
Starkey was on T about this last night, pointing out that the deal Cromwell accepts to rule was the one Charles turns down. I just see him getting into more trouble even if he does win.

[Lord Douglas]

Originally Posted by Jason Sleeman

Would Not Victory only serve to make Charles I more confident in his "Divine Right"?

I think he would attempt to make over parliament into a much more subservient body.

Jason Sleeman

If Charles had stayed in Scotland for longer among the quarreling lords and chiefs, who often showed the King little respect, he might have learned sense. His father James VI was taught statecraft in that way, afterall.