DBWI: the monarchy is restored after Cromwells death?

i know a lot of historians say it was unlikely to happen, but what if Charles I's son, Charles Stuart, had returned to England after Oliver Cromwell's death?

some argue that if Richard Cromwell, rather than Charles Fleetwood, had become lord protector following Oliver's death, that the monarchy might have been restored
 
But Charles Stuart was a catholic by then (to maintain support from Louis XIV) .
No way would he be accepted as King unless he recanted ( a reverse Henri IV? London is worth not having a mass?)
 
Last edited:
i know a lot of historians say it was unlikely to happen, but what if Charles I's son, Charles Stuart, had returned to England after Oliver Cromwell's death?

some argue that if Richard Cromwell, rather than Charles Fleetwood, had become lord protector following Oliver's death, that the monarchy might have been restored

I'd kinda disagree with you there. Sure, Fleetwood was the man for the job at the time, but just look at the rest of the 17th century! One bigoted Puritan General after another, right up until Churchill's Revolt. If the 'rightful' King had been anywhere in Europe at the time, it would have been incredibly easy for some perfidious traitors to bring Charles 'II' or Henry 'IX' back to Scotland and start the Fourth English Civil War or whatever. Nah, it was Charles Stuart's departure for Virginia in 1656 (or 1657? I can't recall) that neutered the Royalist cause.

So let's say Charles stays in France and lands in Cornwall or somewhere in 1658 or (more likely) 1659. Obviously Lord Protector Fleetwood will lead the New Model Army against him, so will Charles even gather more than a couple of thousand peasants to his cause? I doubt it. He's going to need a high-profile defection, like Fairfax, Monck or even Henry Cromwell. Just my 2 krone, anyway.

Also, how does Sir George Booth's rising play out?

Damn, Ninja'd: Charles was a Catholic as well as in America now.
 
I'd kinda disagree with you there. Sure, Fleetwood was the man for the job at the time, but just look at the rest of the 17th century! One bigoted Puritan General after another, right up until Churchill's Revolt. If the 'rightful' King had been anywhere in Europe at the time, it would have been incredibly easy for some perfidious traitors to bring Charles 'II' or Henry 'IX' back to Scotland and start the Fourth English Civil War or whatever. Nah, it was Charles Stuart's departure for Virginia in 1656 (or 1657? I can't recall) that neutered the Royalist cause.

So let's say Charles stays in France and lands in Cornwall or somewhere in 1658 or (more likely) 1659. Obviously Lord Protector Fleetwood will lead the New Model Army against him, so will Charles even gather more than a couple of thousand peasants to his cause? I doubt it. He's going to need a high-profile defection, like Fairfax, Monck or even Henry Cromwell. Just my 2 krone, anyway.

Also, how does Sir George Booth's rising play out?

Damn, Ninja'd: Charles was a Catholic as well as in America now.

I would expect that would be the case, he would need a major defection to be able to help his cause.

Although it should be remembered that until the English enlightenment in the 1720s, the population of England were fundamentaly conservative in thought, and theres was little strong support for the radicalism of groups like the levellers.

Bizzarre to think, considering that levellism is the fundamental political theory that dominated commonwealth politics until the 1950s!
 
Well, Ireland would definitely be in a lot better shape today. The mass killing by Commonwealth forces from the 1600s to 1900s would probably not have happened, which means none of that Irish National Front stuff. The Irish Emergency (1956-1969) really messed up the island with the Catholics killing all the settlers and Protestants retaliating.
 
I would expect that would be the case, he would need a major defection to be able to help his cause.

Although it should be remembered that until the English enlightenment in the 1720s, the population of England were fundamentaly conservative in thought, and theres was little strong support for the radicalism of groups like the levellers.

Bizzarre to think, considering that levellism is the fundamental political theory that dominated commonwealth politics until the 1950s!

True, but the majority of Englishmen were vaguely pro-Commonwealth at the time (at least, that's what I was taught in school) so why would they flock to a Catholic King? Even in Cornwall, recusancy wasn't worth dying for. So he really needs Henry Cromwell to come down from Ireland to help him, kind of like when he stormed London in 1672 to take the Protectorate.

And remember, the 'Duke of York' tried the same thing OTL and look what happened to him! The Readeption of Charles II is looking pretty Alien Space Weevil here, IMHV.
 
If it had been restored, the backlash against Puritanism would have been considerable. The Puritans might even have had to flee the country! That's a worst-case scenario, of course, but a lot of the more repressive laws would almost certainly have been struck down. Extreme conditions breed extreme responses, so a nation-wide period of hedonism and license doesn't seem unlikely. Of course, that might have done bad things for industry and education. England might not have become quite the power it did IOTL, though it would probably be necessary to become at least a second rank nation, if not necessarily a first.
 
i know a lot of historians say it was unlikely to happen, but what if Charles I's son, Charles Stuart, had returned to England after Oliver Cromwell's death?

some argue that if Richard Cromwell, rather than Charles Fleetwood, had become lord protector following Oliver's death, that the monarchy might have been restored

Well, I dunno. I suppose that, had Charles returned to England, Virginia might not have become a quite the strongly authoritarian craphole that it did before the Republican Revolution of 1774 finally kicked the damned Stuarts out for good(and even then, it took over a century more to get rid of slavery and other things that prevented it from being a fully First Rank nation before the 1880s.) The monarchy *really* screwed things up quite a bit down there, and people wonder why so many Virginians ended up fleeing for the Ohio Country, Maryland + Delaware and Penn. after a while.

But then again, in that same scenario, it's quite possible that England would have had many of the same issues, even if not as severely thanks to the lack of a planter class.

On the other hand, would my home country of Canada still have so many people of Irish descent, without hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Commonwealth atrocities?

OOC: This does sound like it'd make an interesting TL.
 
Well, I dunno. I suppose that, had Charles returned to England, Virginia might not have become a quite the strongly authoritarian craphole that it did before the Republican Revolution of 1774 finally kicked the damned Stuarts out for good(and even then, it took over a century more to get rid of slavery and other things that prevented it from being a fully First Rank nation before the 1880s.) The monarchy *really* screwed things up quite a bit down there, and people wonder why so many Virginians ended up fleeing for the Ohio Country, Maryland + Delaware and Penn. after a while.

Call me crazy, but perhaps a Cavalier Readeption would butterfly the American Anarchy, with all those different countries and colonies? No King in Virginia means that the Chesapeake colonies stay with the Commonwealth - OTL Fendall's Revolt in Maryland was put down, but if Charles Stuart hadn't been around to stop it, the entire Eastern Seaboard would have fallen to the Commonwealthsmen. After that, who knows? An independent American Republic? And then what happens with New Amsterdam and New Sweden?

Pennsylvania is another interesting butterfly: if Lord Protector John Lambert hadn't sent Penn to colonise that vital bulwark against Virginian aggression, well, it probably wouldn't exist at all! Think of the knock-on effects of that! No Pennsylvanian War of Independence, no Good King John Penn...

On the other hand, would my home country of Canada still have so many people of Irish descent, without hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Commonwealth atrocities?

Maybe. Irish Catholics are going to want to escape to a Catholic territory even if it is a French colony. Let's not pretend that the Stuarts were pro-Toleration here.

OOC: Research is Fun!
 
Call me crazy, but perhaps a Cavalier Readeption would butterfly the American Anarchy, with all those different countries and colonies? No King in Virginia means that the Chesapeake colonies stay with the Commonwealth - OTL Fendall's Revolt in Maryland was put down, but if Charles Stuart hadn't been around to stop it, the entire Eastern Seaboard would have fallen to the Commonwealthsmen. After that, who knows? An independent American Republic? And then what happens with New Amsterdam and New Sweden?

There's several republics around today, actually. Canada's just one of them(although we're the largest, and by far, the most significant of all the North American nations, rivalled only by Mexico). There's also Columbia(of which the long gone New Amsterdam is a key part of. BTW, I hear New York City is lovely this time of year.), Carolina, and even Virginia is a republic today as well.

Although, of course, if you wanted a timeline with all of these others as part of one unit, maybe you've already heard of Annetta Jones's "The Story of a Nation"?

Pennsylvania is another interesting butterfly: if Lord Protector John Lambert hadn't sent Penn to colonise that vital bulwark against Virginian aggression, well, it probably wouldn't exist at all! Think of the knock-on effects of that! No Pennsylvanian War of Independence, no Good King John Penn...

John Penn was really only King in name only, though. He never actually accepted this title and continued to rule as governor until his death.

Maybe. Irish Catholics are going to want to escape to a Catholic territory even if it is a French colony. Let's not pretend that the Stuarts were pro-Toleration here.

Well, the province of Quebec *was* a French colony, anyway, up until about 20 years before the Canadian Revolution anyway.

OOC: Let's just assume that the Royal Brits briefly got ahold of New Amsterdam and some colonial administrator wanted to rename the colony after the city of York or Yorkshire, for some reason, and got his wish. Also, why would there still be colonies in North America in the 21st Century? :confused:
 
There's several republics around today, actually. Canada's just one of them(although we're the largest, and by far, the most significant of all the North American nations, rivalled only by Mexico). There's also Columbia(of which the long gone New Amsterdam is a key part of. BTW, I hear New York City is lovely this time of year.), Carolina, and even Virginia is a republic today as well.

Thank you for informing me. I had literally no idea. ;)

OOC: Let's just assume that the Royal Brits briefly got ahold of New Amsterdam and some colonial administrator wanted to rename the colony after the city of York or Yorkshire, for some reason, and got his wish. Also, why would there still be colonies in North America in the 21st Century? :confused:

OOC: I left the 'American Anarchy' open-ended so that the colonies could gain independence at any point. Or not. A PoD in the 1600s means Decolonisation in the 1900s is questionable.
 
Top