Charles I of England abdicates

In 1649 King Charles I was executed.
Suppose Charles I had abdicated. His son succeeds as King Charles II in 1649.
What happens then?
 
In 1649 King Charles I was executed.
Suppose Charles I had abdicated. His son succeeds as King Charles II in 1649.
What happens then?

Kings didn't do it unless they were forced. Charles's grandmother Mary, was effectively told to abdicate or she would be killed.

Charles believed in the divine right of Kings, he was King because God had made him such and no one could alter that except God.

I suppose he could have been told abdicate or he'd be killed but you still have a scenario where he is then succeeded by his son, who is not going to be terribly cooperative with the men who just threatened to murder his father.
 
Suppose Charles I abdicated in June of 1649.
Charles II would be a young nineteen. His birthday was May 29th.
Would Parliament give him due respect because he was an inexperienced sovereign?
 
In 1649 King Charles I was executed.
Suppose Charles I had abdicated. His son succeeds as King Charles II in 1649.
What happens then?
Parliament by then would likely accept the abdication, but refuse to accept Charles II, then in exile in the Netherlands, as King.

Charles I would probably still be tried and executed. Hardline supporters of Charles II would fight on, as they did in reality.

Suppose Charles I abdicated in June of 1649.
A bit difficult as he was executed in January.
 
He would not abdicate, the same way Louis XXVI wouldn't, these men lived life believing that had "GOD" given right to rule, they did not have to give it up because a mere human asked them to.

There was only two out comes of the civil war, the King wins and Parliament is killed or Parliament wins and the King is killed, no middle ground I am afraid.
 
There were parliamentary debates on the future of the monarchy once the Parliamentarians won, you can find them, in which Charles the II and others were considered as successors. The one thing Parliament seemed to agree on was that a Republic was out of the question. Even Cromwell said as such. So I wouldn't dismiss anything out of hand, given that the most unlikely thing is actually what happened, in a way.
 
There were parliamentary debates on the future of the monarchy once the Parliamentarians won, you can find them, in which Charles the II and others were considered as successors. The one thing Parliament seemed to agree on was that a Republic was out of the question. Even Cromwell said as such. So I wouldn't dismiss anything out of hand, given that the most unlikely thing is actually what happened, in a way.

Well they continously tried new forms of government until it fell apart completely.

What about a deal where Charles abdicates in favour of his Son? But Charles has no choice but to leave the country as well? Charles II therefore becomes King as a result and has to be closer advised by a victorious Parliament while Charles I presumably goes to the Netherlands and has a comfortable retirement. I can see that as the only way Charles will retire but even then its a unlikely situation given how stubborn he was over his reign. There would have to be a POD somewhere else earlier, perhaps he gets involved in actual fighting during the Civil War and the events of it break him. But that might just make him more likely to accept Parliaments proposition to accept all the terms while he remains a weakened King. Its a tough one really at the end of the day.
 
Really, abdication has nothing in it for the King. His successor is already safely abroad and in place to return to rally the Royalists if need be; he might as well follow the path he did IOTL, which was to negotiate in bad faith, divide his enemies as he had done several times before, and prepare to be martyred if that was neccesary.

Charles' 'conscience' mattered more to him than anything else; it's what caused the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the first place. If Charles wasn't willing to sign the Covenant and wasn't willing to concede any power to Parliament, he certainly wouldn't be willing to abdicate, which would after all be an abrogation of his coronation oath.

Speaking of the Covenant, it's worth remembering that in 1649 Charles isn't just King of England and Ireland, but also Scotland. This makes Abdication even less attractive for everyone concerned, as it means that there is still a Kingdom for the Monarch to flee to and raise his standard, should the need arise (it would involve the usual stand-off over signing the covenant, but it's not as if Charles hasn't strung the Scots along twice already).

This leaves enforced abdication, and this is something that Charles was worried about IOTL. His eldest sons are both non-starters as successors; Parliament would have been mad to have crowned either of them, given that both were die-hard Royalists who would only return at the head of an army. That leaves Henry, the Duke of Gloucester and Charles' youngest; he was under Parliament's control, had been given parliamentary tutors and was regarded as a good protestant child. He's an unlikely alternative king though; as the Princess Elizabeth recorded during their last meeting with their father,;

"Taking my brother Gloucester on his knee, (Charles) said, 'Sweetheart, now they will cut off thy father's head.' And Gloucester looking very intently upon him, he said again, "Heed, my child, what I say: they will cut off my head and perhaps make thee a king. But mark what I say. Thou must not be a king as long as thy brothers Charles and James do live; for they will cut off your brothers' heads when they can catch them, and cut off thy head too at the last, and therefore I charge you, do not be made a king by them.' At which my brother sighed deeply, and made answer: 'I will be torn in pieces first!' And these words, coming so unexpectedly from so young a child, rejoiced my father exceedingly."

All of this leaves the "Hanoverian" option of finding a new, more suitable King. Probably the best candidate for this was the Elector Palatine, who had been mooching aorund London for most of the mid-1640s in the case of just such an eventuality; as of 1649 though, he'd just been restored to many of his former lands and might not be as willing to take the throne, even if Parliament had wanted him (which was pretty dubious).
 
Top