Can Charles abolish parliament?

Interesting discussion. Part of the financial problem between England and Parliament vis-à-vis the continental states and their Estates was the way the countries developed. From the early middle ages, if not by the Magna carta England was basically a unitary state; there was no collection of Duchies and other territories nominally united under a weak monarchy but instead one of the few states to retain/emerge as a strong state in the post Roman world. While this was in many ways a good thing in terms of finances it could and did become difficult, especially compared to say France. Because of the way France developed, with each of the major Peerages being inherited or conquered by the King, they could be counted as parts of the French Crown Estate. The King could raise funds in the various Duchies without the need to gain assent from the local notables and even if he needed to negotiate with the assemblies of each one, like Toulouse or Burgundy, instead of with the representatives of the entire Kingdom. The same could be said of states like Spain or the unified low countries, though the later would necessarily call it a gift. In England there was no way to play one assembly off the other, just one Estates of the Realm. In my opinion at least.
 
Interesting discussion. Part of the financial problem between England and Parliament vis-à-vis the continental states and their Estates was the way the countries developed. From the early middle ages, if not by the Magna carta England was basically a unitary state; there was no collection of Duchies and other territories nominally united under a weak monarchy but instead one of the few states to retain/emerge as a strong state in the post Roman world. While this was in many ways a good thing in terms of finances it could and did become difficult, especially compared to say France. Because of the way France developed, with each of the major Peerages being inherited or conquered by the King, they could be counted as parts of the French Crown Estate. The King could raise funds in the various Duchies without the need to gain assent from the local notables and even if he needed to negotiate with the assemblies of each one, like Toulouse or Burgundy, instead of with the representatives of the entire Kingdom. The same could be said of states like Spain or the unified low countries, though the later would necessarily call it a gift. In England there was no way to play one assembly off the other, just one Estates of the Realm. In my opinion at least.

Hmm that is true, I suppose the question does emerge, what would be needed for Charles or any monarch to defang Parliament enough to make them compliant with their whims.
 
I am not as well versed in English history as many seem to be here but another thing that has me thinking is in regard to your statement about Charles being born in 1595 instead of 1600. Wasn’t his brother Henry Frederick born the year prior? Have you thought about any possibilities with him? Also, didn’t James act like more of schoolmaster than a father to his children?

You were talking about changing how Charles was regarding personality but if his father is still acting as he did OTL then I don’t believe he would be that much different.
 
I am not as well versed in English history as many seem to be here but another thing that has me thinking is in regard to your statement about Charles being born in 1595 instead of 1600. Wasn’t his brother Henry Frederick born the year prior? Have you thought about any possibilities with him? Also, didn’t James act like more of schoolmaster than a father to his children?

You were talking about changing how Charles was regarding personality but if his father is still acting as he did OTL then I don’t believe he would be that much different.

Indeed this is true, I've considered using Henry Frederick, but I've often wondered if he'd move toward civil war whatsoever, especially if he's got the good relaitons that it seems he had before his death, with several Parliamentary figures. And this is true, though Henry disagreed with his father on several matters, perhaps Charles could be the same?
 

We've already discussed about the possibility of an executive monarch if the James II crushes his traitors. While legislative powers in his reign would be in the hands of (a loyalist) parliament, the possibility of monarchs gaining power after that point isn't out of the question. The Commonwealth merely showed Britain it's first Republic was a dub "yeah, he made a cool regimented army and other than that, let's not do that again" was a common sentiment. The Glorious Revolution was fairly liked (especially you were a protestant who bought into the smear campaign), which made monarch power much like a rachet from then on... only maintaining or declining but not retaking power.
 
We've already discussed about the possibility of an executive monarch if the James II crushes his traitors. While legislative powers in his reign would be in the hands of (a loyalist) parliament, the possibility of monarchs gaining power after that point isn't out of the question. The Commonwealth merely showed Britain it's first Republic was a dub "yeah, he made a cool regimented army and other than that, let's not do that again" was a common sentiment. The Glorious Revolution was fairly liked (especially you were a protestant who bought into the smear campaign), which made monarch power much like a rachet from then on... only maintaining or declining but not retaking power.

Hmm this is true, avoid that fucking mess and things should be kosher
 
Indeed this is true, I've considered using Henry Frederick, but I've often wondered if he'd move toward civil war whatsoever, especially if he's got the good relaitons that it seems he had before his death, with several Parliamentary figures. And this is true, though Henry disagreed with his father on several matters, perhaps Charles could be the same?
The same as Henry Frederick? Maybe, maybe not. Charles would still be the second born and not the next in line to the throne as long as Henry is still alive. I’d imagine that there would still be some animosity between them. However, I am sure that if you were to get creative then you could make a potentially interesting story. Possibly have Henry die shortly after childbirth and have Charles emerge as the eldest son?
 
The same as Henry Frederick? Maybe, maybe not. Charles would still be the second born and not the next in line to the throne as long as Henry is still alive. I’d imagine that there would still be some animosity between them. However, I am sure that if you were to get creative then you could make a potentially interesting story. Possibly have Henry die shortly after childbirth and have Charles emerge as the eldest son?

Oh now that would be interesting, seeing Charles develop as a proper absolutist nAnglica
 
We've already discussed about the possibility of an executive monarch if the James II crushes his traitors. While legislative powers in his reign would be in the hands of (a loyalist) parliament, the possibility of monarchs gaining power after that point isn't out of the question. The Commonwealth merely showed Britain it's first Republic was a dub "yeah, he made a cool regimented army and other than that, let's not do that again" was a common sentiment. The Glorious Revolution was fairly liked (especially you were a protestant who bought into the smear campaign), which made monarch power much like a rachet from then on... only maintaining or declining but not retaking power.

This is easier if James II doesn't convert to Catholicism, or at least not publicly. James being of the same religion as Louis XIV (some of whose refugees ended up coming to England) made it easy for his opponents to portray him as a monster and a French puppet. Having him succeed as a powerful Catholic king of England is a challenge.
 
Having him succeed as a powerful Catholic king of England is a challenge.

A challenge but possible. In the rebellion f 1715, there were a substantial minority of Protestants in Scotland (actually they might have made a plurality of Scottish protestants, most government forces were actually more interested in any rightful leader and a paycheck, so George I's followers in London must be the right one), Lancaster, and Cornwall in the Jacobites. Yeah, the logic bomb of a Catholic as Head of the church of England...

In James II's time, the challenge should be easier than trying to restore him.

Mind you, they still aren't the favorite. But he was still popular among the English even the Protestants for a while after his public conversion (in the country as a whole, in the cities especially London a bit less so). The smear campaign whittled that away in 3 years and most Englishmen believed he was going to try to bring London under the control of Rome by force (a false accusation)
 
This is easier if James II doesn't convert to Catholicism, or at least not publicly. James being of the same religion as Louis XIV (some of whose refugees ended up coming to England) made it easy for his opponents to portray him as a monster and a French puppet. Having him succeed as a powerful Catholic king of England is a challenge.

Indeed it is, keeping him Anglican makes his life easier.
 
Top