WI: Oliver Cromwell chose to become King?

Shiva · Sep 3, 2014

WI: Oliver Cromwell decided that the only way to gain a stable government in the British Isles was with a monarchy, so instead of becoming 'Lord Protector', he accepted the Crowns of England and Scotland, becoming King Oliver I?

How would he fare as King compared to 'Lord Protector'? Would he keep the thrones separate or found the UK early? How long would his dynasty last? Would his supporters be more comfortable with his son as 'Richard IV' if they could re-limit his authority (much as William and Mary were in OTL)? Or would they demand a different successor?

Strawberry · Sep 3, 2014

Shiva said:
WI: Oliver Cromwell decided that the only way to gain a stable government in the British Isles was with a monarchy, so instead of becoming 'Lord Protector', he accepted the Crowns of England and Scotland, becoming King Oliver I?

How would he fare as King compared to 'Lord Protector'? Would he keep the thrones separate or found the UK early? How long would his dynasty last? Would his supporters be more comfortable with his son as 'Richard IV' if they could re-limit his authority (much as William and Mary were in OTL)? Or would they demand a different successor?

Oliver Cromwell was a genocidal maniac. Unless you change that, I think there is little point in changing his title.

Plus, he banned Christmas! There was no hope for him after that.

Thoresby · Sep 4, 2014

Strawberry said:
Oliver Cromwell was a genocidal maniac. Unless you change that, I think there is little point in changing his title.

Plus, he banned Christmas! There was no hope for him after that.

I'm absolutely not a fan of Oliver Cromwell but a.) he wasn't a genocidal maniac and b.) anyway as the career of dozens of other Kings and Emperors shows being a genocidal maniac is no obstacle to founding a successful dynasty. Just ask Qin Shi Huang, Babur or Timur/Tamerlane.

As to the OP I think he wouldn't change much about King Oliver's reign but it would be crucial for his son. I still think Richard wasn't a strong enough character to keep the show on the road but as King he would be much harder to sideline and depose.

Strawberry · Sep 4, 2014

Thoresby said:
I'm absolutely not a fan of Oliver Cromwell but a.) he wasn't a genocidal maniac and b.) anyway as the career of dozens of other Kings and Emperors shows being a genocidal maniac is no obstacle to founding a successful dynasty. Just ask Qin Shi Huang, Babur or Timur/Tamerlane.

As to the OP I think he wouldn't change much about King Oliver's reign but it would be crucial for his son. I still think Richard wasn't a strong enough character to keep the show on the road but as King he would be much harder to sideline and depose.

Oliver Crowell committed a near genocide in Ireland. If he'd had more up to date weapons, I wouldn't be alive.

That bastard is to the Irish what Adolf Hitler is to the Jews. So don't nitpick or preach to me about Cromwell.

Mikestone8 · Sep 4, 2014

Shiva said:
WI: Oliver Cromwell decided that the only way to gain a stable government in the British Isles was with a monarchy, so instead of becoming 'Lord Protector', he accepted the Crowns of England and Scotland, becoming King Oliver I?

How would he fare as King compared to 'Lord Protector'? Would he keep the thrones separate or found the UK early? How long would his dynasty last? Would his supporters be more comfortable with his son as 'Richard IV' if they could re-limit his authority (much as William and Mary were in OTL)? Or would they demand a different successor?

Don't really see why Richard Cromwell should have held onto the kingship any better than the Protectorate. He'd have been in with a chance had the Stuarts turned Catholic at this point, but even they weren't that stupid.

Derek Pullem · Sep 4, 2014

Strawberry said:
Oliver Crowell committed a near genocide in Ireland. If he'd had more up to date weapons, I wouldn't be alive.

That bastard is to the Irish what Adolf Hitler is to the Jews. So don't nitpick or preach to me about Cromwell.

There must be several other "Hitlers" then as the population fall in much of Germany over the Thirty Years War (similar period) was around 25-35%.

It's not nit picking to point out that war (especially religious war) devastated much of Europe in the Seventeenth century.

Sideways · Sep 4, 2014

Cromwell was monstrous in Ireland, unfortunately, I don't think that relates to how likely he was to survive politically.

I imagine being a king may actually be worse for him. The trial of Charles I was on the basis of crimes against the people. Cromwell would have probably been able to pull off being a king, but his descendents would inherit a system where the king is not sovereign or legitimate. It would really help Charles II if he was competing against a pretender to the crown with no royal blood in him.

Strawberry · Sep 4, 2014

Derek Pullem said:
There must be several other "Hitlers" then as the population fall in much of Germany over the Thirty Years War (similar period) was around 25-35%.

It's not nit picking to point out that war (especially religious war) devastated much of Europe in the Seventeenth century.

Oliver Cromwell sold Irish people en masse into slavery, committed massacres, ethnic cleansing, and presided over mass torture and execution.

Strawberry · Sep 4, 2014

BrotherSideways said:
Cromwell was monstrous in Ireland, unfortunately, I don't think that relates to how likely he was to survive politically.

I imagine being a king may actually be worse for him. The trial of Charles I was on the basis of crimes against the people. Cromwell would have probably been able to pull off being a king, but his descendents would inherit a system where the king is not sovereign or legitimate. It would really help Charles II if he was competing against a pretender to the crown with no royal blood in him.

No, I don't imagine his atrocious record in Ireland relates at all to his survival as a ruler. Its not like Irish people count or anything..

Cromwell has about as much respectability in history as Adof Hitler. Both are genocidal bastards. One committed genocide against the Irish, the other against the Jews.

Derek Pullem · Sep 4, 2014

Strawberry said:
Oliver Cromwell sold Irish people en masse into slavery, committed massacres, ethnic cleansing, and presided over mass torture and execution.

I know.

And if he had been doing that today he would be brought before the ICC on Genocide and war crimes charges.

But it wasn't today and trying to judge yesterdays actions by the standards of today isn't very helpful.

Should we rage against the government of Eire for failing to stand up to the Germans during WW2, for banning any Irish volunteer in the fight against Hitler from any state support or jobs for seven years?

Or should we just understand that in terrible times, terrible things happen and the further back you go the worse it gets.

Kellan Sullivan · Sep 4, 2014

Oliver Cromwell refused the title of king when Parliament offered it to him. Parliament had offered it to him since by doing so, they could make him beholden unto them (which he wasn't as Lord Protector), and this curb his power somewhat. Naturally Oliver refused.

As to his successor, his older son, Oliver, could be a better successor than Queen Dick. And also, the Cromwells were already descended from a bastard line of the House of Tudor (through Siasbar Tudor's illegitimate daughter whose son married Katharine Cromwell, the sister of Thomas Cromwell, the Tudor statesman).

Strawberry · Sep 4, 2014

Derek Pullem said:
I know.

And if he had been doing that today he would be brought before the ICC on Genocide and war crimes charges.

But it wasn't today and trying to judge yesterdays actions by the standards of today isn't very helpful.

Should we rage against the government of Eire for failing to stand up to the Germans during WW2, for banning any Irish volunteer in the fight against Hitler from any state support or jobs for seven years?

Or should we just understand that in terrible times, terrible things happen and the further back you go the worse it gets.

You dare to compare Ireland's neutrality to Cromwell's genocide? You don't even see Ireland as a real fucking country, do you?

After the loyalty we showed to you in ww1 and the horrible amount of atrocities we got back, it should be no surprise that you got neutrality. In fact, you're lucky you didn't get Franco's neutrality.

Derek Pullem · Sep 4, 2014

Strawberry said:
You dare to compare Ireland's neutrality to Cromwell's genocide? You don't even see Ireland as a real fucking country, do you?

After the loyalty we showed to you in ww1 and the horrible amount of atrocities we got back, it should be no surprise that you got neutrality. In fact, you're lucky you didn't get Franco's neutrality.

This is a history forum not a political soapbox.

If you didn't get the point I was making then fine but you can drop the abuse please.

Morty Vicar · Sep 4, 2014

I don't think he would in all honesty. His motivation was his distrust of Royalty, and much of his support came from just that.

In terms of his character he is defamed by Irish nationalists because of his role in Ireland, and possibly somewhat unfairly demonised. In the context of European history he doesn't stand out as any worse than most of his contemporaries, especially in terms of the Reformation when Catholics and Protestants committed horrendous atrocities in the name of Jesus.

Saphroneth · Sep 4, 2014

Strawberry said:
You dare to compare Ireland's neutrality to Cromwell's genocide? You don't even see Ireland as a real fucking country, do you?

After the loyalty we showed to you in ww1 and the horrible amount of atrocities we got back, it should be no surprise that you got neutrality. In fact, you're lucky you didn't get Franco's neutrality.

I think you missed the last clause of Derek's statement. "The further back you go the worse it gets".
The idea that, in 1940-5, someone would consider joining what eventually became the entire rest of the planet in waging war on Hitler as not only wrong but grounds to ban the person joining from support for seven years... that's kind of startling to me. I didn't know about it. I knew Ireland was neutral (and thought of that as a little surprising but understandable), but I didn't know about the cut-off thing.

The idea that, in 1860, some Americans would consider the right to keep slaves so important that the mere accession of a president opposed to it was grounds to secede from their country? That's also shocking for the times, but not too shocking.

The idea that a soldier-general in the mid-1600s engaged in a campaign of genocide? It doesn't seem all that out of place. It's bad, yes! It's HORRIBLE from our point of view. But it was not beyond the pale then - given that, at the same time, it was considered merciful that Count Tilly saved a single child from the city his soldiers stormed.

Das_Colonel · Sep 4, 2014

Strawberry said:
You dare to compare Ireland's neutrality to Cromwell's genocide? You don't even see Ireland as a real fucking country, do you?

After the loyalty we showed to you in ww1 and the horrible amount of atrocities we got back, it should be no surprise that you got neutrality. In fact, you're lucky you didn't get Franco's neutrality.

And the massacres commited by Irishmen on indigenous populations in North America and Australia don't count either I guess. Because hey, it's not Old Erin.

That aside, I saw on a documentary Cromwell's installation ceremony used a lot of royal regalia and sybolisim, as there was confusion over what to actually use. Is that true?

Strawberry · Sep 4, 2014

Derek Pullem said:
This is a history forum not a political soapbox.

If you didn't get the point I was making then fine but you can drop the abuse please.

Then why on earth did you start on about Ireland's neutrality in ww2? What was that if it wasn't political and abusive?

It is in no way comparable to Cromwell's near genocide of the Irish people. Our people were nearly wiped out. Your's were not, so stop pulling the poor Goliath act.

Strawberry · Sep 4, 2014

Das_Colonel said:
And the massacres commited by Irishmen on indigenous populations in North America and Australia don't count either I guess. Because hey, it's not Old Erin.

Yes, I'm sure the indigenous populations of the Earth were wiped out by the Irish. Such a powerful people we were, weren't we?

Morty Vicar · Sep 4, 2014

Strawberry said:
You dare to compare Ireland's neutrality to Cromwell's genocide? You don't even see Ireland as a real fucking country, do you?

Where did that come from? He never said anything about the Republic of Ireland not being a 'real country'..

If events of a few centuries ago upset you this much, then maybe avoid discussing them.

After the loyalty we showed to you in ww1 and the horrible amount of atrocities we got back, it should be no surprise that you got neutrality. In fact, you're lucky you didn't get Franco's neutrality.

It's possibly unwise to pursue this point of debate, but I feel it's worth mentioning that some Irish Republicans took WW1 as an opportunity for the Easter Rising. In WW2 the Irish Republican Army conspired to help Hitler. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_–_Abwehr_collaboration_in_World_War_II
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just some historical facts you may or may not be aware of.

Anyway back to the topic. If he did become King, or King in all but name, I think he may have been in some ways comparable to Napoleon, and Britain to a post-Revolutionary France.

Strawberry · Sep 4, 2014

If I'm not allowed to get upset about events of a few centuries ago, maybe this shouldn't be a thread about Hitler in a history forum.

Oliver Cromwell was a genocidal bastard, and I don't care what the rest of you think of him. He should rot in hell.