Because without it/the Stuarts there's NO WAY England/Britain can build up an empire like she did OTL? I disagree. Most of the "empire" England had until the ARW was acquired by the Stuarts (Bombay/Mumbai, what would later become the 13 Colonies, islands in the Caribbean). The Hannoverians oversaw a development of it, but the groundwork was laid in the Stuart period (aquiring New York from the Dutch or Delaware from the Swedes, granting charters to William Penn and the Carolina Colony are examples I can think of off the top of my head).
Britain didn't become a great power post-1688 out of nothing. So to say that something like the lack of a Glorious Revolution would mean that Britain is going to become some provincial backwater stagnating in absolutism or unable to project influence beyond its own borders, is really just wiahful thinking. Would it go as OTL - highly unlikely.
But when you think about it, except for the BRIEF period of the reign of Queen Anne, England managed to carve out that empire with a continental millstone (first the Netherlands, then Hannover, no offense to the Dutch or the Germans) slung around its neck, and yet STILL managed to prosper, why would NOT having that millstone mean that she wouldn't?
What about a match with the Austrian branch of the Habsburgs? She's far enough back in the succession (since by the time she weds, her two oldest brother and oldest sister likely all have kids already) that even were she to convert to marry Ferdinand III, while Protestant Englishmen would be unhappy about it, barring an Act of Settlement type situation skipping over 50-odd claimants to get to this Sophia's line, she's reasonably "unimportant".
The fact that there WAS an English Revolution OTL, and just over a decade later, they brought back the monarchy and never went republican again makes me question this.
Why would keeping the Stuarts around do this? As said before, Oliver Cromwell had FAR more power than the Stuarts EVER did, he ruled as essentially a "despot", but not sure anyone ever asserts that the protectorate HARMED English interests in the long term (the navy at the time being - IIRC - one of the best in Europe; English literacy rate exceding most of the European contemporaries; etc). Why would a Stuart king instead of a Nassau, Oldenburg, Hannoverian or Wettin be any worse and "retard England's trajectory"?
Frankly, the New England Pilgrims with their massive numerical advantage in North America could have done the same with New York and Pennsylvania under any regime.The Hannoverians oversaw a development of it, but the groundwork was laid in the Stuart period (aquiring New York from the Dutch or Delaware from the Swedes, granting charters to William Penn and the Carolina Colony are examples I can think of off the top of my head).
The Glorious Revolution brought many financial innovations to Britain you know. More importantly, the new regime also boosted the voice of the mercantile class in politics (merchants got more influence during the Interregnum, but then were nerfed under Charles II and James II).Britain didn't become a great power post-1688 out of nothing. So to say that something like the lack of a Glorious Revolution would mean that Britain is going to become some provincial backwater stagnating in absolutism or unable to project influence beyond its own borders, is really just wiahful thinking. Would it go as OTL - highly unlikely.
Frankly, the New England Pilgrims with their massive numerical advantage in North America could have done the same with New York and Pennsylvania under any regime.
The Glorious Revolution brought many financial innovations to Britain you know. More importantly, the new regime also boosted the voice of the mercantile class in politics (merchants got more influence during the Interregnum, but then were nerfed under Charles II and James II).
In addition, it also screwed the Dutch big time and Britain gained the most from that. During the 1688 invasion, the invading Dutch fleet outnumbered James' poorly maintained navy by 2 to 1. And then, the 1689 naval agreement tied the Anglo-Dutch fleet ratio to 5:3.
Frankly, the New England Pilgrims with their massive numerical advantage in North America could have done the same with New York and Pennsylvania under any regime.
it also screwed the Dutch big time and Britain gained the most from that. During the 1688 invasion, the invading Dutch fleet outnumbered James' poorly maintained navy by 2 to 1. And then, the 1689 naval agreement tied the Anglo-Dutch fleet ratio to 5:3.
Acadia, and various Caribbean islands gained during the Anglo-Spanish War which England won. In fact, they were planning to invade New Netherlands in 1653, but then the war ended and they decided to grab Acadia instead.While none during the Protectorate