You could always have the Parliamentarians lose?
This is true, decisive defeat could do itYou could always have the Parliamentarians lose?
So possible for my current timeline? Where James died without male issue. Therefore no glorious revolutionEither Charles II has a legitimate child, or there is no Glorious Revolution.
So possible for my current timeline? Where James died without male issue. Therefore no glorious revolution
Hmm if he never meets Anne Hyde or doesn’t propose to her thay could do the trickCould help.
Another PoD is that James doesn't convert to Catholicism. This would probably require him to have a different first wife, though.
Interesting and I don’t see why with the right system it couldn’t last a good whileThe only option I see is English Civil War ends in favour of Charles I. Any outcome where Charles I loses sets precedent of Parliamentary sovereignty and in no way will parliament give up its prerogatives.
Even after the Restoration, Parliament (i.e. Cavalier Parliament), pushed several policies (non toleration, Test Acts, taxes, Exclusion Bill, war against France, etc) against the wishes of Charles II and taking in account that he had an absolute loyalist majority.
The big question is, For how long does this semi absolutist monarchy lasts? if Charles I wins.
The only option I see is English Civil War ends in favour of Charles I. Any outcome where Charles I loses sets precedent of Parliamentary sovereignty and in no way will parliament give up its prerogatives.
Even after the Restoration, Parliament (i.e. Cavalier Parliament), pushed several policies (non toleration, Test Acts, taxes, Exclusion Bill, war against France, etc) against the wishes of Charles II and taking in account that he had an absolute loyalist majority.
The big question is, For how long does this semi absolutist monarchy lasts? if Charles I wins.
Or Charles II could try to have no parliament after he dissolves the Cavalier Parliament, but kinda difficult in the way the purse was controlled and taxes approved.
I wouldn’t say he was an idiot, no more than any parliamentarian was.The issue with Charles I winning is this: He was a self-destructive idiot who always chose the worst possible option every single time. And even if Charles had won, he couldn't help himself when it came to making enemies and alienating allies. A second civil war would probably break out in another decade or so as his attitudes and policies are going to keep stirring up resentment and there's going to be an explosion at some point.
With Charles II, his daddy already botched that attempt badly so no go.
I wouldn’t say he was an idiot, no more than any parliamentarian was.
As for Charles II, absolutism perhaps not, semi absolutism? Very possible
Sure, the parliamentarians force his hand, but let's be truthfully, Charles I pastime was finding new ways of alienating people who should have been allies to the Royalist cause. Let along he be force to deal with the Covenanters in Scotland.
As for Charles II, either his hire is purely Protestant, and toe the line, or we be seeing the Glorious Revolution or even Civil War 2.0.
Interesting and I don’t see why with the right system it couldn’t last a good while
In order to built the right system Charles II would require, in my opinion, but here are my ideas about it:
a) a disciplined Kings' party.
b) electoral management to elect favourable MPs.
c) more moderates in the style of Lord Clarendon (Edward Hyde) to manage parliament the MPs.
d) Clean the finances and enact reforms in order to not call parliament or at least sell them the idea that reforms were their initiative (Easy if you have a good parliamentary management)
e) Charles II as arbiter in parliamentary splits or conflicts. No need to create a crisis if you know parliament will vote against your proposals. Have them fight themselves in order to appeal to you.
f) Do not try to impose toleration. Accept piecemeals of non toleration specially those useful for parliamentary control. And keep quiet Catholic demands.
g) Get power base in Ireland. Don't know how but is key specially if you allow (or suggest) Irish representation in Parliament. This as part of a deal to annex Ireland.
H) Forget the Scots and allow them to have their Presbyterian Church. If you don't touch their Kirk they won't bother you. Well except for some zealots but you can play the royalist card against Civil War chaos and parliamentary dominations.
What would the reigns of Charles II and James II be called? Semi absolutist or something else?To (roughly) quote one of the prominent Parliamentarians (I can’t remember who - Fairfax?):
“If we win 99 of 100 times, he is still the King. If he wins once, we’re dead.”
All you really need is any POD that results in Charles I not getting beheaded. Prior to that, royalist power was secure; after that, no king would dare risk their neck like that again.
What would the reigns of Charles II and James II be called? Semi absolutist or something else?
Interesting, seeing that happen would be fascinatingThat depends more on the degree to which they flex their power than what it's theoretical limits are. For example, if they start to relay on his ministers/Star Chamber to impliment policy while ignoring Parlament you'd get a very different label than if you write down a physical Constitution explicently laying down what powers Parliament has (And not an ounce behyond that)