AH Challenge: a stronger Crown and a weaker Restoration Parliament

So, I have an idea for a TL, but I'm not exactly sure how to go about getting it to work:
After the English Restoration, would it be possible, somehow, for us to get a stronger Crown? King Charles II, by the Declaration of Breda, already had a great deal of power--would it have been possible for him, assuming he had persued a more anti-Catholic policy (and thus ensured more confidence in his Parliament), to have eventually stopped summoning Parliament altogether (as he did from 1681-1685) and ruled in a more absolutist style? I'm curious to see if things could have turned up differently.
Also, just for fun's sake, let's assume that he also manages to produce a legitimate heir (with Queen Catherine or otherwise--if the POD is earlier).
 
How about Charles II restores the Monarchy by force after Oliver Cromwell's death in 1658. England had become disillusioned with puritan rule by the time Richard succeeded his father, and Parliament was already abolished. If Charles had French military support, he could invade England after Cromwell's death and recall Paliament on his terms. Richard Cromwell would not have had enough support to retain control of the country under these circumstances.
However, the consequence of a stronger monarchy would mean that James II is probably not deposed in 1688. As a result, there is no Anglo-Dutch union (for want of a better term) and the Bank of England is not founded in 1694 (the idea was borrowed from the Dutch). Lacking the advanced financial system enjoyed by the Dutch, Great Britain is defeated in the Seven Years War of 1756-63 because she cannot raise enough capital to defeat the French and Spanish (the Public Debt is not an option without a central bank).
After this fiasco, a bankrupt Britain goes the same way as revolutionary France and violently dismantles the Monarchy and Aristocracy. But don't expect the British to then export their new revolutionary ideals to the continent, Napoleon style. They don't have the manpower or the influence on the continent that France enjoyed.
So I believe that England, and subsequently Great Britain were successful because of the balance acheived between the Crown and Parliament. A stronger monarchy would have been detrimental to Great Britain's development.
 
Lacking the advanced financial system enjoyed by the Dutch, Great Britain is defeated in the Seven Years War of 1756-63 because she cannot raise enough capital to defeat the French and Spanish (the Public Debt is not an option without a central bank).
Maybe; remember, French support for Charles II and a continued Stuart dynasty means more pro-French policies in years to come. Also, the War of Spanish Succession would probably turn out much differently.
 
My vote (albeit a bit after your goal) is to have James, Duke of York, die in... let's say... 1683. That way, you get Williamandmary on the throne, so England won't work itself up into an insane antiCatholic fit, but no Glorious Revolution to completely empower Parliament. I suspect it couldn't last - power'll just keep drifting over to Parliament, but it'll be delayed a couple of decades.
 
Top