What if Prince Charles, son of James I of England dies of typhoid instead of his eldest brother Henry the Prince of Wales who died in OTL in 1612. Henry ascends the throne in 1625 or thereabouts and is crowned King Henry the IXth. Henry was married to a Spanish princess. He was fond of his sister Elizabeth who married Frederick V, Elector Palatine.
Charles, son of James I Dies of Typhoid
- Thread starter fortyseven
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
DMA said:
Civil War was hardly inevitable and had a LONG history behind it, Charles I didn't bring it about within just a few years, it took a substantial part of his reign to sufficiently alienate everybody and Cromwell is insignificant unless a Civil War breaks out - i.e. he is not in the political mix significantly enough to bring it about, but only to come to prominence once it has begun
Henry Frederick was a completely different character from Charles I, he also had a well-defined foreign policy and a political faction based around this
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
Which is why, even with the early death of Charles I, there'll still be a civil war as I believe that it was inevitable regardless which Stuart is on the Throne. As a result, you'll have the rise of Cromwell who will kick Royal arse because they deserve their Royal arses kicked.
Pity they can't bring Cromwell back to the here & now & have him do it all over again.... but that's just my opinion
Grey Wolf
Donor
DMA said:Which is why, even with the early death of Charles I, there'll still be a civil war as I believe that it was inevitable regardless which Stuart is on the Throne. As a result, you'll have the rise of Cromwell who will kick Royal arse because they deserve their Royal arses kicked.
Pity they can't bring Cromwell back to the here & now & have him do it all over again.... but that's just my opinion
Why on earth do you think the civil war was inevitable ??? And how do you use what I just said to support that view ???
It was through the long-term policies of CHARLES and his mistakes, including in the religious sphere, that EVENTUALLY a situation where civil war was possible came about
Remove Charles as this thread does, and almost everything Henry IX does is going to be at variance to what his younger brother did. Why would THAT lead to civil war ?
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
Geess, do I have to do a PhD thesis or something? Blaming the entire civil war on one man tis complete over simplification. You said it yourself earlier when you stated that it:
This is correct, but it goes back much further than with the coronation of Charles I . In fact it's probably impossible to identify the civil war's origins, but the first major signpost in this road is Magna Carta. As you'd know, this is the first constitutional restriction placed upon the English Monarch & thus the match is lit just waiting for the gunpowder to arrive in order to ignite the English Civil War.
But to say it's just Magna Carta would be wrong. England, as you know, has a long history of civil wars. If it wasn't Magna Carta, it was the War of the Roses. But there are other as well as one king tried to, or in fact did, depose one king for themselves. All this is civil war based upon one thing - power. Now back then, such things were essentially about about politics & little else. In many respects, everything is about politics, but the essential thing that's completely different to previous civil wars, & that of the one in the 1640s, is massive & unprecidented societial change.
So come the 1640s, we no longer have the feudal lords fighting it out so see who becomes king. Now society, or far more importantly the rising middle monetry class, is starting to flex its muscles. But most of this class doesn't have a say in anything. Furthermore, these people are fueled by the freedom that comes with protestantism. Whether you agree with Marx or Weber on this issue, the fundamental thing is they have money. And money means power - a power, though, that has little say in government. Our American friends will say that this sounds familar from somewhere...
Yet money isn't the only dynamic running wild here. Thanks to protestanism, people are starting to talk freely about how things should be done. The Tudors, especially Elizabeth, are partly to blame here because of their governmental style (except for Mary). They governed in a form of partnership which meant to say that a small number, granted, of non-royal family members are involved for the first time in government. But now that freedom of conscience, & to a lessor extent freedom of speech, is well a truly established as an Englishman's right. And the monetry middle class is making itself more & more heard, but most of government isn't overly listening unless it has too.
But here comes the gunpowder in the form of the House of Stuart. It isn't Charles, but James that ensures Civil War becomes completely inevitable. Look at all the political fights that take place. It is James who, more or less, tears up Magna Carta & just about everything else that was practiced by the Tudors & government. So at this point Charles is doomed long before he is even born, not really by anything he is going to do, but because of the fact that society is heading one way, thanks mostly to the middle class, & Monarchal government (now based upon Divine Right) is heading the other way.
Unless a Stuart is prepared to introduce radical reforms, which more or less means pre-empting those that came about due to the Glorious Revolution, then Civil War will enviably take place at some point in time. maybe not in the 1640s, but it'll happen before 1700. And it's not as if there was just one civil war, but essentially two against the Stuarts within 50 years of each other in England, & then another one less than 100 years in America. Note that, much of what took place in America, is very similar to those of England if not even more radical.
The English CW wasn't inevitable. Depending on Henry IX's actions there'd be at most a parliamentary rebellion. There's still the Irish and Scots to deal with though.
fortyseven said:
Well to ensure no Civil War you're going to have to have changes to James I rule, but far more importantly, the new monetry middle class are going to have to gain political power more or less immediately which requires changes in both the Reigns of Elizabeth & James. Now considering power is never given away, but taken, I can't see these PODs taking place.
Where did you find info on Henry Frederick, Grey Wolf? There's nothing about his his political or foreign policy views in my textbook and I can't find anything online.