Consequences if Charles wins the Bishop's War?

I'm planning a timeline where Charles I wins the Civil War, but what I was wondering is this, say Charles decisively wins the Bishop's War, does this prevent the civil war itself, or does he still need to summon Parliament to help with the monetary issues? If so, how does his victory in the Bishop's War effect said civil war?
 
I'd argue that a win in the Bishops war prevents the civil war.

What's often missed is that most of the most constant critics of Charles were old men, a lot of the younger men were on his side. If he'd survived a little longer without needing parliament, demographics were on his side.
 
I'd argue that a win in the Bishops war prevents the civil war.

What's often missed is that most of the most constant critics of Charles were old men, a lot of the younger men were on his side. If he'd survived a little longer without needing parliament, demographics were on his side.

Interesting, so he wins the Bishop's War, wins significant enough prestige to keep doing as he's doing, and perhaps avoids a civil war in the short term, or long term?
 
Oddly enough what I could see happening (if Charles I plays his cards right) is that he might very well get the Absolutist 'French-style' state that he always wanted and be the English version of Louis XIV and pass it on to his son Charles II, who would be comparable to Louis XV, a fun loving, larger than life figure, but one who preferred his own pleasures to ruling and inadvertently lay the foundation for Revolution, especially if Charles II's successor is inadequate for the role.
 
Oddly enough what I could see happening (if Charles I plays his cards right) is that he might very well get the Absolutist 'French-style' state that he always wanted and be the English version of Louis XIV and pass it on to his son Charles II, who would be comparable to Louis XV, a fun loving, larger than life figure, but one who preferred his own pleasures to ruling and inadvertently lay the foundation for Revolution, especially if Charles II's successor is inadequate for the role.

Hmm interesting.

I do wonder, what one need to do to change Charles to make him still be absolutist leaning but less of a bumbling fool
 
Interesting, so he wins the Bishop's War, wins significant enough prestige to keep doing as he's doing, and perhaps avoids a civil war in the short term, or long term?

I'd say he avoids it in the short term and a 75% chance there might be a parliamentary power faction that breaks into open conflict. It might not even be a full fledged civil war. Time was on Charles' side up until the war started. in the case a conflict does happen, I don't expect the war to last more than three years, and it might even be a single battle conflict where a decisive royalist win makes the other side ask for "uhhh... how about you let all but the three ringleaders go, and we don't go to prison? You can even take some of our estates and give them to our bothers/ sisters/ nephews/ sons who didn't participate in this mess"

In short, winning the Bishops war prevents conflict in the short term. In the longer run, two things go his way. One is that he has more prestige to keep doing what he's doing. Another is that some of his would be supporters would succeed on estates.
 
Top