Britain becomes exemplar of absolutist monarchy by 18th century--

Ooh!

(One of the TLs I've already been thinking about, as a way to avoid industrialization entirely.)

First, let's recap how Britain became a constitutional monarchy: it had a string of weak monarchs - Charles I, then Oliver Cromwell's succession, and finally George I, who didn't speak the language and therefore had to let Parliament run the country. At multiple points, a stronger king could have launched an auto-coup and restore 16c absolutism, as Gustav III did in Sweden. William III sort of launched a coup, in that he stayed in power even after Mary died, even though the claim came through Mary.

So pretty much any time during the first three quarters of the 17c, events could have led to a strong monarch, with children to bequeath to, launching a coup and ruling as an autocrat.
 
Exactly what do you mean by coup?

William III was 3rd in line for the throne in his own right, when the revolution happened, and the most senior male claimant who wasn't catholic.

Yes, but Anne was second in line, and William usurped her claim by staying in power. That's what I mean by coup - William completely disregarded Parliament's stipulation regarding succession. He wasn't strong enough to actually restore absolute monarchy the way Sweden's Gustav III was, but he still had enough power to stick around longer than he was supposed to.
 
Yes, but Anne was second in line, and William usurped her claim by staying in power. That's what I mean by coup - William completely disregarded Parliament's stipulation regarding succession. He wasn't strong enough to actually restore absolute monarchy the way Sweden's Gustav III was, but he still had enough power to stick around longer than he was supposed to.

He didn't usurp, there was an agreement set up when the Glorious Revolution occurred that would let William stay King if Mary predeceased him, Anne would inherit only if William and Mary failed to have living heirs (which they did).
 
Say William remarried and his wife popped out an heir or two, they would only inherit after Queen Anne, yes?
 
Say William remarried and his wife popped out an heir or two, they would only inherit after Queen Anne, yes?

I believe that was the agreement yes. In which case you would have situation where William dies and despite being King without Mary, his children (after remarriage) are all after Anne and her heirs.

Actually it would be pretty easy to have an absolutist monarchy after Henry VIII - just have any of Henry's kid have offspring and being Tudors I can definitely see them going the way of the French in terms of absolute power (this is particularly the case of the priggish Edward VI who if he lived might have become more...unpleasant...than his father).

Or have Charles I thoroughly defeat Cromwell and the Parliamentarians.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Have Charles the 1st arrest all the MPs when he fails to arrest the missing Five Members, or have the Great Fire of London happen in 1642, giving Charles a chance to win the Civil War. Or have a convention where the families of leading MPs are held as hostages which was what the Shoguns of Japan did.
 
Have Charles the 1st arrest all the MPs when he fails to arrest the missing Five Members, or have the Great Fire of London happen in 1642, giving Charles a chance to win the Civil War. Or have a convention where the families of leading MPs are held as hostages which was what the Shoguns of Japan did.

Even easier would be to kill off William III before he invades England. Without him James II and his son keep the throne. There we go, a semi-absolute monarchy (not as much as France or Spain but close).
 
Have the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 succeed.

Charles I is raised to be a good Protestant, who listens to his advisers, and hangs every Catholic he can find. This butterflies the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell, and 1688. Most of the Parliamentary hierarchy is wiped out, so Parliament will be more likely to defer to the Crown during the period it started making demands in OTL. Charles' regime is more likely to get away with dodgy stuff like Ship Money, thereby allowing the Crown a reasonable income outside Parliament.
 
Even easier would be to kill off William III before he invades England. Without him James II and his son keep the throne. There we go, a semi-absolute monarchy (not as much as France or Spain but close).

Problem is that if it wasn't William, it'd have been someone else. Having a Catholic monarch on the throne just isn't a recipe for long term dynastic survival, especially if the monarch is a Louis XIV fanboy who is actively organising an army independent of Parliamentary authority.

James II either needed to be much more cautious or he needed to be Protestant.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
What about having James I's eldest son, Henry Stuart, becoming King Henry IX? From what I understand, despite his early death, he was a much loved figure who was widely accepted to bring in a new golden age of sorts?

Perhaps his rule would be a better one than that of his brother, the "Archbishop" Charles with his Anglo-Catholic attitudes and poor political skill (possibly due to Asbergers or some form of acute autism, by the way).
 
The reason the Stuarts got kicked out after being invited back was the whole 'Catholic Absolutist' thing they tried to push (or were perceived to have been pushing) on a, at that point, Protestant country used to Parliament having a strong say on policy.

The only way a 'Stuart Absolutism' would work is if Charles I was more competent and intelligent than he was.
 
The reason the Stuarts got kicked out after being invited back was the whole 'Catholic Absolutist' thing they tried to push (or were perceived to have been pushing) on a, at that point, Protestant country used to Parliament having a strong say on policy.

The only way a 'Stuart Absolutism' would work is if Charles I was more competent and intelligent than he was.

I think an interesting POD would be a Protestant James II (he converted to Catholicism via the mistress who became his first wife, so just have our womanising James fall in lust with someone else). That way you get Stuart Absolutism that is Anglican, rather than Catholic, and thus less likely to spark rebellion.

A less lazy Charles II might work too.
 
The reason the Stuarts got kicked out after being invited back was the whole 'Catholic Absolutist' thing they tried to push (or were perceived to have been pushing) on a, at that point, Protestant country used to Parliament having a strong say on policy.

The only way a 'Stuart Absolutism' would work is if Charles I was more competent and intelligent than he was.

Um no that's not right. Look at the last years of Charles II's reign: he basically was an absolute monarch in all but name and no one objected to it. And without William to lead an invasion there was no one else to threaten James: Mary would be a childless widow and Anne wouldn't make a move unless she was assured of success. As for the Catholic part, yeah James should have downplayed it or supported the Anglican Church more. It was his determination to grant religious toleration that really did him in. At his accession in 1685 the Anglican Church was still a close ally.
 
You need to go back to at least the Civil War to do this. I don't buy you can do this after the Glorious Revolution - by that point the concept of a constitutional monarchy was firmly enshrined and any King trying to roll that back will just be deposed.
 
Um no that's not right. Look at the last years of Charles II's reign: he basically was an absolute monarch in all but name and no one objected to it. And without William to lead an invasion there was no one else to threaten James: Mary would be a childless widow and Anne wouldn't make a move unless she was assured of success. As for the Catholic part, yeah James should have downplayed it or supported the Anglican Church more. It was his determination to grant religious toleration that really did him in. At his accession in 1685 the Anglican Church was still a close ally.

You're right about this. The Glorious Revolution plotters depended on the Dutch William brang with him in their plans. Without them Anne or Mary would not make a move. James II was in a good position at the beginning - especially after Monmouth's army was crushed easily and no great big uprising in Monmouth's name (which is why I have trouble buying any Monmouth-centered TL's in which he wins). If James II had just the smallest bit of his brother Charles's political and pragmatic acumen he could have survived.
 
Top