WI: No English Restoration?

After Oliver Cromwell's death in 1658, and following Richard Cromwell's disastrous short term as Lord Protector the following year, one man slowly and subtly gained political and military control of England: George Monck.

He eventually became completely unopposed; however, despite being the de facto ruler of the Isles, at that point, and with his motives incredibly uncertain, Monck eventually influenced the new Parliament to allow Charles II to return and take the throne.

...however, with all his temporal power, becoming something of a modern Caesar, or even a better political reformer than Cromwell ever was, might've been quite tempting to Mr. George Monck. What if he hadn't become something of a Royalist Cincinnatus? What if there was no Restoration of the Monarchy, and all the history that entails?

What then?

...perhaps I should've given this a more descriptive title.

I've heard Fleetwood as Cromwell's successor used more often to get what you're after...

Well... the man had amassed so much power, it's really a wonder he didn't just try to become the new ruler of England, or even just to reform the Parliament with himself at its head.

I doubt there's any chance for a full-on "President Monck of the United Isles of Great Britain", but as the man's motives were pretty much unknown until he invited Charles back... who knows?

The modern view is that deep down, Monck was a Commonwealthman. But after all the trouble and strife since Cromwell's death, he decided the best way to preserve English liberties was not to support the current military government or bring back one of Cromwell's pseudo-theocratic experiments, but to call back the Long Parliament and from there the King.

...but, as Monck was not a theocrat, he could well have brought back the Parliament, but not the king. Any experiment made by him, considering his incredible (in retrospect) political maneuvers, would resemble more the Restoration... sans, of course, a king.

He could've set some sort of a founding precedent (or made himself a founding President )... but he didn't. What if he had, though?

What then?

well id imagine he wouldnt try to do a cromwell and take full power for himself...given the past track record of rulers, they tended to piss people off, and i doubt hed wanna follow charles to the block if another revolution broke out

mabye he could be a kingmaker kinda guy...get someone else to assume authroity, but without actual power....a symbol for the masses to appreciate (or target) whilst leaving himself scott free

ive always wondered myself as to who the protestant succesor couldve being if charles II never got the throne...like part of the new deal for a long parliment was no catholic (no matter their succession), and perhaps a protestant could get it...whod have that have being?

Stolengood said:

...but, as Monck was not a theocrat, he could well have brought back the Parliament, but not the king. Any experiment made by him, considering his incredible (in retrospect) political maneuvers, would resemble more the Restoration... sans, of course, a king.

He could've set some sort of a founding precedent (or made himself a founding President )... but he didn't. What if he had, though?

What then?

Click to expand...

He could have just continued the Commonwealth. Possibly bring back the Parliament and keep the military rule for the immediate period.

Enigmajones said:

He could have just continued the Commonwealth. Possibly bring back the Parliament and keep the military rule for the immediate period.

Click to expand...

The problem was that you couldn't keep the current state of affairs as it was deeply unpopular, but you couldn't bring the Long Parliament back because they'd abolish the Commonwealth. The only solution is either to extend the vote to poorer people or win over the aristocracy by promising a mercantile Venice-style republic.