Other ways Britain could become a republic other then Cromwell’s Commonwealth succeeded

We all know that Britain for a while was under the “republican” government of Oliver Cromwell and his son (though really the government still had a dynasty as the post of Lord Protector was a hereditary position) but this point of divergence is widely use as how Britain could be a “republic” but I’m here to look for other ways Britain could become a republic (before 1900 of course) where the monarchy is overthrown and a full fledged republican government is instated to rule the British Isles.
 

Philip

Donor
There was the Rye House Plot. If the prospective King Billy is tied up in the French War of Reunions, you could the Monarchy is serious danger. It could end up a republic. A bloody mess, but a republic.
 
One that narrowly dodges it would be a victory by the Diggers and Levellers. Effectively a form of Agrarian Proto-Socialist Anarchist system. I'd expect you'd likely see Parliament consist of representatives (or delegates) for each community. I expect it would be representatives in reality though.

Would be radically interesting, enough to lead to (likely) an ideological war with continental forces wanting to destroy it when it proves to become a rallying call to continental people.

What would be very interesting is the relationship between this Anarchist Republic and the 13 Colonies. Considering the egalitarianism at home, and the potential that the 13 colonies serve as a refuge for Parliament, you could have the civil war spread to the 13 colonies.

But TL;DR - Anarchist Republic ftw!
 
Not sure how "full fledged" it might be but if the royalists had lost the Second Baron's War and parliament wanted to prevent them trying again that's a possible PoD I suppose.

Lord Protector Simon de Montfort of the Republic of England. ;)
 
How about a massive British loss in the 7 years war? If memory serves, the UK was pretty close to bankruptcy at the end of the war, being able to regain wealth though favourable territorial concessions. A bankrupt britain that (at the time) was host to quite a few revolutionary minded people could be quite the fertile ground for a republican revolution.
 
I think a better time is immediately after the American War of Independence but I'm dubious either really impacted the common man that much so a popular rebellion would be hard to mobilise. And a republican coup just didn't have a constituency until the aftermath of the American Revolution and the start of the French
 
I wouldnt even say that Cromwell's Commonwealth was a Republic in an sense other than the Caesarian. I mean beyond the obvious dynasty, the biggest thing is that Cromwell's government far more derived any authority and right to rule from a mandate from God, along with the fact that it was for all intents and purposes a Stratocracy, ran in the interests of the Religiously radical New Model Army.
 
I think a better time is immediately after the American War of Independence but I'm dubious either really impacted the common man that much so a popular rebellion would be hard to mobilise. And a republican coup just didn't have a constituency until the aftermath of the American Revolution and the start of the French

I know that there were a few republican groups in England at the time of the french revolution, but i don't know just how big they were, and as was demonstrated by their treatment of Thomas Paine they would crackdown hard on anything they saw as rable rousing very quickly. Plus it helped that the government had a few republican aspects, unlike the ancien regieme
 
No Victoria and Ernst Augustus as King should do it in the revolutions of 1848.

Yah... no. The Constitutional roots in Britain are MUCH deeper and stronger than they ever were in Hanover, and Ernst was hardly trying to restore Absolutism given he fully consented to the Constitution of 1819. His main complaints had to do with the legitimacy of the methoids being used by his opponents; circumventing the proper procedures to have their greivances heard, and passing the Constitution of 1833 in a legally dubious way. The odds of something so similar happening in England, where George III had more clearly traded the revenue of crown lands for an allowance and the powers of the Parlament were more strongly defined than in Germany, as well as the more stable domestic situation in general, are absolutely miniscule, and if he tried to pull anything crazy Parlament would be more than willing to invite in another grandchild of Purple-poop George faster than you can say "Glorious Revolution" in order to make the transition as smooth as possible and head off the threat of exactly that kind of revolutionary instability.

Britain's political system is extremely flexable, which makes individual governments somewhat more unstable but the state as a whole highly so, at least post-Civil War. To get a legitimate Republic, I'd say you need to break Parliament and replace it with something "stiffer" in favor of a strong Executive office, then align it with a weak/incompitent King. A Stuart Victory in the Civil War preceded by a reign of mass terror by Puritains and Levelers that spooks the elite away from the notion of popular possession of political power (thus retarding later reforms by dragging out the bloody shirt) could lead to the continued restriction of the franchise, a weaker parlament, the dismissal of the merchant class from political power (by tying it to land ownership) in such a way as to slow economic development ect. that could lead to the kinds of conditions that created Republican sentiment and state instability in the early 19th century
 
I know that there were a few republican groups in England at the time of the french revolution, but i don't know just how big they were, and as was demonstrated by their treatment of Thomas Paine they would crackdown hard on anything they saw as rable rousing very quickly. Plus it helped that the government had a few republican aspects, unlike the ancien regieme

The only real Republican Groups, post-Cromwell, was the so-called "Good Old Cause", however beyond that most anti-Republicanism was more the Gentry's fear about Cromwellianism returning. This is because even as a movement Cromwell's rise to power wasnt really off any popular mandate, but off the backs of his very loyal soldiers, so the peasantry never really had any sort of love for him.

A Stuart Victory in the Civil War preceded by a reign of mass terror by Puritains and Levelers that spooks the elite away from the notion of popular possession of political power (thus retarding later reforms by dragging out the bloody shirt) could lead to the continued restriction of the franchise, a weaker parlament, the dismissal of the merchant class from political power (by tying it to land ownership) in such a way as to slow economic development ect. that could lead to the kinds of conditions that created Republican sentiment and state instability in the early 19th century

Firstly, I doubt the Puritans would perform a reign of terror, as the Puritans were primarily Gentry, and Merchants, the majority of the Rural Population remained Pseudo-Catholic, and even Pseudo-Pagan, for a long time after the civil war. Secondly, the Levellers never had the population to perform a reign of terror, the thing that spooked the Gentry/Merchants about them was that they existed, and doubly so for the Diggers, in fact a key part of Cromwell's Consolidation of power was his crushing of the Army Agitators. Similarly, a Stuart Victory arguably would prevent the rise of so-called Classical Liberalism, and would lead to English Liberalism, and thus American Liberalism, being about comparable to France, from the start. A further complication is that with a Stuart Victory the Northern US Colonies would likely become more Puritan, from refugees, this would likely form a divide between the North and South, that coupled with the Settlements in Canada, would prevent any type of American Independence. The Other issue is that at this time the key reason for the Strife, was the Parliamentary Control of Taxes, which if he had won Charles would have likely gotten greater control of, this along with Loans would then allow for Continental Wars, and colonial wars, likely more with the Dutch, and it is hard to predict, if these would have the same outcome as under Cromwell, and Charles II.
 
I know this is pre-1900 but the late 1970’s where very unstable.

What about a worse plague/fire taking out more of the Nobility, and even the Royals?
 
I think a better time is immediately after the American War of Independence but I'm dubious either really impacted the common man that much so a popular rebellion would be hard to mobilise. And a republican coup just didn't have a constituency until the aftermath of the American Revolution and the start of the French
Returning soldiers and sailors from North America mutiny and bring the American Revolution back to Britain. They see the rights the colonists have won and want them for themselves and their families.
 

Kaze

Banned
You could go back further than that:
1. More power towards the Witengemot. Basically - no Harold, no William the Conqueror - Witengemot goes on steroids and runs the country ala the Venetian Republic.
2. King John and the Great Charter.
Something goes very wrong in the time of King John. Monarchy dissolved - the House of Lords runs the nation, a few decades pass and it becomes a Republic.
 
Might a Royalist victory in the Civil War, with the Stuarts going full-on absolutist over time, end up with a French Revolution-esque event, toppling the monarchy?
 
Top