DBWI: No King Oliver

On April 12, 1657, Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell became King Oliver I, ending the Protectorate era and ushering in the Cromwellian dynasty. Most historians think that this was always his plan, and that his apparent vacillation was much like Caesar's political show in turning down the laurel wreath multiple times. But what if it he had decided differently, that in fact he shouldn't be king after all? The obvious first question is what would this mean for "Prince Charles". (Would he be put on the throne as "King Charles II"? Alternately, how much longer would the "protectorate" have lasted? Would Greater England be under a protectorate government today?) However, as I am not English, but a Columbian from Virginia, I would also like to speculate on how the colonial history of Columbia would have progressed differently. When, if at all, would we separate from Mother England ITTL?
 
lol, was I the only person thinking of this guy: king oliver

OOC: You do realize that this is a DBWI, right?

IC: It's well-known that Joe Oliver's nickname arises from the existence of a King Oliver in GE history, and due to the fact that both men were such dedicated practitioners of their respective crafts (war and ruzzo music, respectively). So it's no accident you thought of him.
 
This would have serious repercussions upon the near-modern period to the extent that our modern geopolitical situation would be completely unrecognizable. I think the main differences, however, would come down to England's direct neighbours and her overseas colonies. Even though Cromwell himself only governed as monarch for a single year before his death, he (and his son) directly put in place the institutions that came to define English culture for generations.

Oliver had already created a cult-of-personality around his leadership by the time he anointed himself as King in 1657. As a result, when he passed over to his third son Richard IV (1658 - 1712) government rallied to the new regime rather quickly. The pro-Cromwell loyalties of the newly-renamed Grand Model Army also aided in the turnover, and as a result the opening years of the reinstated monarchy were carved in the final defeats of Confederate Ireland and pro-Stuart forces in Scotland. Had Oliver not declared himself monarch it is likely that the fragile balance of power between those supporting the re-installation of autocracy and those the authority of parliament would have been broken and the Commonwealth collapse.

Due to the length of Oliver's reign, the second Cromwellian King - Richard - is arguably more interesting, and certainly longer! As stated, it was chiefly due to the military complex of Oliver that his son was able to seize the throne as effectively as he did; had the Commonwealth collapsed, it is debatable as to whether the Stuarts would be able to seize the throne. Certainly, Richard was concerned enough about a restoration that the famous execution of George Monck at St. James' Palace brought about a Stuart-scare. It is perhaps more likely that an elective monarchy would be introduced, with a strengthened Parliament nominating an acceptable sovereign - most likely from the Dutch.

As for the colonies abroad, the distant nature of the monarchy would remain relevant with or without the Cromwellian dynasty. Columbia will form in some manifestation, although the centrist policies of the Roundhead Party (that dominated Parliament for most of the period) would likely grate with those supporting a Stuart restoration, for example. It is likely that Commonwealth-like organization would develop in North America, and especially so after the seizure of Dutch and French possessions. It was only after Elizabeth II seized power following her father's death in 1712 that the relationship between England and North America was questioned, and further still after the Succession Crisis in 1731 (that began to sow the seeds for the granting of Colombian independence).

To sum up, I think Ireland would be in much better shape and would be the ultimate victor of this timeline. There might even be considerable Irish emigration to the New World (providing that the famines still occur as OTL). France would probably be stronger - and especially so if they aided in a Stuart restoration. Nevertheless, whilst Britain maintained naval superiority under the Cromwellian dynasty under an alternate House this might not be possible. It is even possible that another Civil War will erupt as the royal authority once again pushes too hard upon the aristocratic landowners and Parliament.
 
On April 12, 1657, Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell became King Oliver I, ending the Protectorate era and ushering in the Cromwellian dynasty. Most historians think that this was always his plan, and that his apparent vacillation was much like Caesar's political show in turning down the laurel wreath multiple times. But what if it he had decided differently, that in fact he shouldn't be king after all? The obvious first question is what would this mean for "Prince Charles". (Would he be put on the throne as "King Charles II"? Alternately, how much longer would the "protectorate" have lasted? Would Greater England be under a protectorate government today?) However, as I am not English, but a Columbian from Virginia, I would also like to speculate on how the colonial history of Columbia would have progressed differently. When, if at all, would we separate from Mother England ITTL?

I think a more fascinating question is, would there still be a Canada? As a citizen of the New World's oldest truly independent & free nation, it's hard to imagine North America without Canada.

In any case, it's not hard to imagine the possibility that things might not turn out all that different for Anglo-America, at least not in the short term, anyway; Oliver rarely involved himself with colonial affairs and it wasn't until the New York Riots of 1724 that *any* British monarch tried to break that mold.
 
I think a more fascinating question is, would there still be a Canada? As a citizen of the New World's oldest truly independent & free nation, it's hard to imagine North America without Canada.

In any case, it's not hard to imagine the possibility that things might not turn out all that different for Anglo-America, at least not in the short term, anyway; Oliver rarely involved himself with colonial affairs and it wasn't until the New York Riots of 1724 that *any* British monarch tried to break that mold.

I think you're right in that the fortunes of Canada have determined the future of North America, although I think things will be considerably different. A Stuart-led England will be more inclined to face Europe rather than the Atlantic - Protestant England was keen to dominate as many of the new opportunities presented by North America as possible. Just think of the new London Bridge built from newly-imported Canadian timbers!

I've always assumed that the role Elizabeth II (the eldest child of Richard IV) played in the colonies was the most important; by declaring her right to the throne above her other less-direct male relatives and the children of Henry Cromwell she inspired the political exodus that led to the numerous independence movements in North America.
 
Hm; I hadn't thought ahead enough to wonder what happens without Elizabeth II, but I guess a Stuart restoration does dragonfly her away too. Do you suppose the independence movement might have happened separately from the womanite movement ITTL?
 
I think you're right in that the fortunes of Canada have determined the future of North America, although I think things will be considerably different. A Stuart-led England will be more inclined to face Europe rather than the Atlantic - Protestant England was keen to dominate as many of the new opportunities presented by North America as possible. Just think of the new London Bridge built from newly-imported Canadian timbers!

I've always assumed that the role Elizabeth II (the eldest child of Richard IV) played in the colonies was the most important; by declaring her right to the throne above her other less-direct male relatives and the children of Henry Cromwell she inspired the political exodus that led to the numerous independence movements in North America.

That may have been the case amongst some West Indian & Southern planter conservatives, but to a very large extent, her claiming the throne above all others actually settled down the overall calls for revolution, as she was the most well-liked of any of the living royals at that time; in fact, it was only her backing off and allowing the insane tax increases for the middle and lower classes & speech laws proposed by the Tories in Parliament to pass, that really set off the Columbian independence movement.

Hm; I hadn't thought ahead enough to wonder what happens without Elizabeth II, but I guess a Stuart restoration does dragonfly her away too. Do you suppose the independence movement might have happened separately from the womanite movement ITTL?

OOC: Womanite? As in feminism? or something else? :confused:
 
I think you're right in that the fortunes of Canada have determined the future of North America, although I think things will be considerably different. A Stuart-led England will be more inclined to face Europe rather than the Atlantic - Protestant England was keen to dominate as many of the new opportunities presented by North America as possible. Just think of the new London Bridge built from newly-imported Canadian timbers!

I've always assumed that the role Elizabeth II (the eldest child of Richard IV) played in the colonies was the most important; by declaring her right to the throne above her other less-direct male relatives and the children of Henry Cromwell she inspired the political exodus that led to the numerous independence movements in North America.

Honestly it wasn't that she was a woman. It was that she was an orthodox Anglican and not a a puritan like her fore bearers.
 
Honestly it wasn't that she was a woman. It was that she was an orthodox Anglican and not a a puritan like her fore bearers.

That is indeed part of the reason that so many conservatives in England and Columbia didn't like her. However, though, again, as most historians agree, that had very little to do with the overall movement for independence in Columbia(even if a few planters *did* use that as an excuse).
 
That is indeed part of the reason that so many conservatives in England and Columbia didn't like her. However, though, again, as most historians agree, that had very little to do with the overall movement for independence in Columbia(even if a few planters *did* use that as an excuse).

Of course, I just think her womanness is a smaller part than the fact she was a liberal reformer. The hatred comes just as much from the Great Reform Act as it comes from what she was.
 
Of course, I just think her womanness is a smaller part than the fact she was a liberal reformer. The hatred comes just as much from the Great Reform Act as it comes from what she was.

She may have been a liberal reformer, but one who was badly hamstrung by Parliament. By the time of the New York riots, even she couldn't stop the chain of events that was beginning to unfold at that point. But to her credit, though, she did a lot of things that prevented the situation from getting even worse. There's a reason why Elizabeth II is the one pre-revolutionary Monarch treated with any real respect in Columbia.
 
Top