A Royalist Victory in the ECW

Currently, I'm toying with a TL in which King Charles I is triumphant in the ECW. The POD which I am considering is one in which the arrest of the five members of the House of Commons attempted by the king is successful (news of the royal warrant issued for the purpose does not reach the House in time).

What implications would this have, and what would be the short term effects in the ECW? Would this be sufficient to minimize most of the troubles in England into the form of a minor rebellion? If not, what further is necessary to secure absolutism in England? Obviously the question of Scotland and the religious question there will be another problem entirely for me to tackle...
 
I doubt the arrest alone would be sufficient, given the amount of ill will this is liable to emngender, but an easrly blow is the best chance for the king to win. There were plenty of people who were more than willing to countenance rebellion, but were still not ready for revolution. Especially if Charles sees reason and makes some concessions, they'd grumble, mutter and toe the line. Religious conflict is still going to be an issue, but without the political faultlines to match, it'd likely be a lot less virulent.

An interesting question I see for the immediate future: Charles was an English king above all, and his dynasty only became quintessentally un-English after the English repudiated him. With him retaining an (uneasy) seat on the throne, and quite possibly pointedly avoiding London and its mobs and brickbats, the conflicts in his kingdom are still there, but this time he stands for the oppressor. He can't really afford a conciliatory policy, given how tenuous his position in England is, so the Scots and Irish, Catholics and foreigners need to be 'put in their place'. That could wreck the Magna Britannia idea more thoroughly than any Cromwellian brutality. At least with Oliver, you knew where you stood. Ultimately, the revolution might come out of Edinburgh, and the English army on strike.
 
An interesting question I see for the immediate future: Charles was an English king above all, and his dynasty only became quintessentally un-English after the English repudiated him.

Eh? Charles was a Stuart - he was born in Scotland, partially brought up in Scotland and his father was James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots! The fact that he lost touch with Scotland doesn't lessen those facts!
 
While I'd hesitate to call Charles I a Scotsman, I must say that "English oppression" wasn't anyone's first concern: the idea os Scotland losing its independence wasn't popular, but it never seemed real until it turned up on Cromwell's pikes. The Covenant was a stand against Episcopalianism, but from the start its supporters looked for allies among likeminded Englishmen.

Ireland is an interesting question. Ulster went off by itself, but that there was a heightening crisis was pretty obvious (IIRC, troops were staged from Ulster during the Bishops' War) and the Confederate revolt was not spontaneous, being planned in advance by O'Neill's circle. The Ulster Planters and Irish appear to have been on surprisingly good terms in the 1630s, although I don't think that would have lasted if planting has picked up again.

How the Irish situation develops is hard to foresee without a more specific scenario but - as always - it's not a matter of Everybody Versus The English Oppressor.
 
Last edited:
Top