Continued Tudors: what next?

i have been stuck since, like, february trying to figure out what direction i should go with my ASB ATL's britain. should there be an english civil war or not? who should win? what will this affect? GAAAAHH!!!! :mad:

*ahem* anyway, a long time ago i asked for a rough idea about what the timeline could potentially be like if cromwell didnt exist (or something like it) and was lead to The Bloody Man

however, i thought i'd ask around for something(s) else instead:

  1. If an English Civil War still occurs ITTL, and goes in mostly the same direction, what do you all suppose would be the consequences of a Royalist victory?
  2. A change ITTL that I've already decided on is that Elizabeth I actually does have a child (who's existence is kept a secret until her death) named Henry who presides over Britain's early colonial period ITTL (his reign is from 1603 to 1643). With this in mind, does anyone think a persisting Tudor dynasty could alter the potential occurrence or outcome of an English Civil War?
 
The divine right of kings vs people power. This roughly sums up the English Civil War.

If there was a monacist victory it would go one of two ways:

1) If it was phyric then the monach may have to let go some of the power volenterrily, for instance confirming parliments power in tax rasing, whilst keeping control of the army. This would lead to a situation such as when Charles II came back in the Restoration.

2) If the king won easily we would move towards the French style of monachy, and we all know where that lead.
 
If Elizabeth has a child out of wedlock then that child's chances of taking the throne are effectively nil, least of all if the father is unknown.

Neither would anyone believe for an instant that such a person would not be known to exist until his mother's death.
 
The divine right of kings vs people power. This roughly sums up the English Civil War.

If there was a monacist victory it would go one of two ways:

1) If it was phyric then the monach may have to let go some of the power volenterrily, for instance confirming parliments power in tax rasing, whilst keeping control of the army. This would lead to a situation such as when Charles II came back in the Restoration.

2) If the king won easily we would move towards the French style of monachy, and we all know where that lead.

I don't know if #2 would necessarily go all the way to that end. Even a weakened Parliament is still relevant, I think.
 
any ideas exactly what the king would have to do after TTL's English Civil War in order to keep it from happening again, short of going down the road of the french monarchy
 
any ideas exactly what the king would have to do after TTL's English Civil War in order to keep it from happening again, short of going down the road of the french monarchy

Not sure. There is the possibility of King and Parliament cooperating, but this king seems to be convinced that's not the case - thus his measures up to this point.
 
James I wasn't actually that bad a King. He wasn't great but he was average, similarly Charles II was in some ways quite a good King. He managed to kill of the idea of Republicanism and cement the principle of continued Monarchy. The only really bad Kings were Charles I and James II.
 
Top