AHC Absolutist England!

Have England become absolutist and remain absolutist to modern day. How would you go about this?
Well, there is one problem with you're challenge. It certainly isn't the first half; there are possibly hundreds of PODs that would net an absolutist England. However, the problem with the challenge as a whole lies within the solution to the first half of the challenge. Most of these PODs would need to be before the English Civil War, with a few before the Hanoverian succession. In other words, regardless of the POD, every plausible POD is too far back to logically have an absolutist regime lasting to the present day. Those are quite difficult to sustain for a long period of time. If you look at history, all absolutist regimes tend to crumble well within the time period between any of the PODs that would plausibly result in an absolutist England.
 
I don't know if it's necessarily doomed, but the longest lasting absolutist monarchies died in WWI.

That's only ninety-four years from the present. I suppose it's possible for a sturdier state than Russia or Austria to last longer.

Darn hard to keep one going without massive changes though. I don't think democracy winning was inevitable, but absolutism rests on shallow foundations.
 
Democracy winning isn't inevitable. Coups, Military rule, dictatorships or any combination of the above can quite easily fill the void of absolutism.
 
I still think the best answer to the first half of the challenge is for Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales and eldest son of James VI/I, not to die in 1612. He certainly seemed to have the temperament to rule as an absolute monarch, and he was a Puritan-esque Protestant who could have avoided the trouble over religion his little brother faced. Whether an absolutist England established under Henry IX would last to the present day, I have doubts. But a much less democratic England even down to the present would be quite probable.
 
Democracy winning isn't inevitable. Coups, Military rule, dictatorships or any combination of the above can quite easily fill the void of absolutism.

Exactly. This isn't Fukuyama's fantasy 'end of history.' There's no reason to believe that absolutism couldn't survive to the present day - it's only a less technologically enabled version of totalitarianism.
 
Exactly. This isn't Fukuyama's fantasy 'end of history.' There's no reason to believe that absolutism couldn't survive to the present day - it's only a less technologically enabled version of totalitarianism.

That is true, but from history we can see that a system of coups and military rule tends not to lead to absolutism either, if only because you end up with a group of people in charge of things (a group of generals for example) who the head man might have significant power over, but is reliant upon the support of the majority of to rule. Not to mention the tendancy for warlordism or de facto regional autonomy by some armed units.

My comment was more along the lines of 'just because the absolutist system collapsed, don't assume that it'll lead to democracy.
 
Maybe we should define absolutism: IMHO none of the pre-WW1 governments in Europe would be recognised as "absolutist"by someone from say 17th or 18th century.
Are 3 estates required (with the fourth completely dispossessed), similar to FRance pre-revolution?
Does a totalitarian, reactionary state fits the bill?

Even if there is an agreement on the terms, I'm quite sceptical about absolutism surviving an industrial revolution and a prosperous middle class
 
Most of these PODs would need to be before the English Civil War, with a few before the Hanoverian succession.
Speaking of the Hanoverian succession I was actually going to mention that. As I understand things it was George I not speaking English which meant that he left governing pretty much to other people leading to a large loss of monarchical power and the rise of cabinet government and proto-prime ministers. The obvious point of departure is that George I either speaks English well enough or is interested in government that he gets some very good interpreters and royal power remains undiminished. That in itself would seriously impede progress towards parliamentary supremacy.


Maybe we should define absolutism: IMHO none of the pre-WW1 governments in Europe would be recognised as "absolutist" by someone from say 17th or 18th century.
Not even Tsarist Russia?
 
Top