how to make Britain a semi absolutist monarchy

Interesting, seeing that happen would be fascinating

The later seems like a more permanent solution and puts the kibosh on the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Maybe call it the "Charter of Duties and Prerogatives", similar to the colonial charters that grant Royal authority, and you'd get the government style called Charterism or something
 
The later seems like a more permanent solution and puts the kibosh on the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Maybe call it the "Charter of Duties and Prerogatives", similar to the colonial charters that grant Royal authority, and you'd get the government style called Charterism or something
Hmm very interesting
 
Quite frankly it's not all that difficult. England under Charles II and James II was sliding towards absolutism, either in the French style or at least in the style of the Carolean era of Sweden. The Monarchy of the 1680s was probably the strongest England had experienced sense the civil war; I'd argue that a failed Glorious revolution would easily end in the establishment of a semi-absolute monarchy, if not outright absolutism. The next Parliament would likely be forced to grant perpetual taxation for the regular income and possibily more; the Crown already controlled the judiciary, so it wouldn't be hard to get the Judges to rule in favor of more and more absolutist policies, like the ability to suspend laws and such, until ultimately the Judges ruled that the Monarchy had the power to raise taxes on its own and make laws with the prerogative. It would be unpopular as hell, but doable.

As for the civil war, I think it's very telling that 1660 didn't see any real attempt to curtail the powers of the Monarchy even though Parliament could have attached multiple clauses to the Restoration. Hell I've read that the civil war actually helped the Monarchy later own, as the Stuarts and the Tories could point to it's aftermath as an example of what could happen without the Crown to protect property and religion.
 
Quite frankly it's not all that difficult. England under Charles II and James II was sliding towards absolutism, either in the French style or at least in the style of the Carolean era of Sweden. The Monarchy of the 1680s was probably the strongest England had experienced sense the civil war; I'd argue that a failed Glorious revolution would easily end in the establishment of a semi-absolute monarchy, if not outright absolutism. The next Parliament would likely be forced to grant perpetual taxation for the regular income and possibily more; the Crown already controlled the judiciary, so it wouldn't be hard to get the Judges to rule in favor of more and more absolutist policies, like the ability to suspend laws and such, until ultimately the Judges ruled that the Monarchy had the power to raise taxes on its own and make laws with the prerogative. It would be unpopular as hell, but doable.

As for the civil war, I think it's very telling that 1660 didn't see any real attempt to curtail the powers of the Monarchy even though Parliament could have attached multiple clauses to the Restoration. Hell I've read that the civil war actually helped the Monarchy later own, as the Stuarts and the Tories could point to it's aftermath as an example of what could happen without the Crown to protect property and religion.
I like this, so for example in my current timeline a Britain of panthers, we could see Britain as absolute monarchs under the Oldenburg?
 

Marc

Donor
You all do realize that the end result of absolute states, post-medieval, generally, is either decay and degeneration or violent overthrow?

I'm puzzled by this scenario, is the idea to speculate about an ultimately poorer and sadder Great Britain? Or is this a monarchist fantasy trope?
 
So, this is something I’m trying to figure out, how could one make Britain’s monarch reasonably absolutist? Particularly during the reigns of Charles II and James II? What economic and political reforms would need to be made?and what would be the latest this could happen?
Well, The Silver Knight by @Augenis managed to make Britain's monarchy the pinnacle of absolutism via having France rebel from the Plantagenets (the Hundred Years War were an English victory, creating England-France), causing the rise of a fanatical Catholic sect called the "Puritans" (irony is strong in the multiverse, isn't it) which culminates in England becoming the absolutist Kingdom of Brittania).
 
You all do realize that the end result of absolute states, post-medieval, generally, is either decay and degeneration or violent overthrow?

I'm puzzled by this scenario, is the idea to speculate about an ultimately poorer and sadder Great Britain? Or is this a monarchist fantasy trope?

Eh, France under the Sun King was at the height of its power outside of Napoleon so it work for them up till the Seven Years War and Louis XVI screw everything up.
 
Last edited:
An earlier possibility is have Guy Fawkes succeed in killing James I and Henry, together with a good portion of the English Parliament. That leaves young Charles I, with a terror of Catholics, growing up in a climate where the parliamentary elite have been decimated - no Civil War.
 
I like this, so for example in my current timeline a Britain of panthers, we could see Britain as absolute monarchs under the Oldenburg?

Eh... you COULD, but Parliament or at least some level of decentralization/delegation is pretty much required to have an efficent, effective government which I'm sure the monarch would see. It gives the gentry, clergy, and upper nobility grounds to air their grievances, keep themselves busy, and form factions that can provided guidance and hold each other in check rather than leaving the only recourse if they feel cheated or power-grabby to violently revolt against the monarchy like in the Baron's Revolt. The upper and middle classes are used to having their say: and at the very least those who fought for the rights of the King will expect to not have their rights overly curtailed.
 

Marc

Donor
Eh, France under the Sun King was at the height of France's power outside of Napoleon so it work for them up till the Seven Years War and Louis XVI screw everything up.

France was the largest state in Europe, both in population and size just about since the Franks took over Gaul; which leads inexorably to a pre-eminent position of power and wealth. Absolutism wasn't responsible for that - as a number of extremely powerful French monarchs over quite a few centuries would attest. On the contrary, the general consensus among scholars is that, on the whole 'L'etat c'est moi', was one of the leading causes of the decline of France, certainly vis a vis Great Britain from the 18th century on.
 
Last edited:
Eh... you COULD, but Parliament or at least some level of decentralization/delegation is pretty much required to have an efficent, effective government which I'm sure the monarch would see. It gives the gentry, clergy, and upper nobility grounds to air their grievances, keep themselves busy, and form factions that can provided guidance and hold each other in check rather than leaving the only recourse if they feel cheated or power-grabby to violently revolt against the monarchy like in the Baron's Revolt. The upper and middle classes are used to having their say: and at the very least those who fought for the rights of the King will expect to not have their rights overly curtailed.
This is true, yet if they’re in positions of government and able to bring their families to court and benefit from patronage
 
This is true, yet if they’re in positions of government and able to bring their families to court and benefit from patronage

That's correct, but on the other hand it makes it harder for the monarchy to keep track of movements of power, for factions to lighten his burdens on holding great power by holding each other in check, hear issues the keys to power have and make them feel heard, ect. (Especially if we consider the sticky fact of that the Union of Crowns means the King has three courts to manage in his domain) Of course you have the upper tier of advisors with direct access to His Majesty's ears and get tasked with actually important work and executive decisions, but why not have the drudgery of day to day affairs handled by a less prestigious class not only to keep them busy and feeling still somewhat involved and important, but as a way to prevent any small number in the higher tier from a gathering too much power and ambition?
 
That's correct, but on the other hand it makes it harder for the monarchy to keep track of movements of power, for factions to lighten his burdens on holding great power by holding each other in check, hear issues the keys to power have and make them feel heard, ect. (Especially if we consider the sticky fact of that the Union of Crowns means the King has three courts to manage in his domain) Of course you have the upper tier of advisors with direct access to His Majesty's ears and get tasked with actually important work and executive decisions, but why not have the drudgery of day to day affairs handled by a less prestigious class not only to keep them busy and feeling still somewhat involved and important, but as a way to prevent any small number in the higher tier from a gathering too much power and ambition?
That is true, having parliament be an advisory body would be interesting.
 
I like this, so for example in my current timeline a Britain of panthers, we could see Britain as absolute monarchs under the Oldenburg?

I think removing the religious issue help a lot, having close relatives in Europe with their own absolute state and large armies also help. In fact I think the easiest way to push semi-absolutism through are if we see a second civil war, but parliament loses. If not you need to decide who the king have to bribe to increase his power. In France absolutism build on the king not taxing the Church and nobles, in Brandenburg something similar had happened, but the elector/king later just began to tax them. In Denmark the crown simply couped the nobles in a alliance with the burghers of Copenhagen.
 
I think removing the religious issue help a lot, having close relatives in Europe with their own absolute state and large armies also help. In fact I think the easiest way to push semi-absolutism through are if we see a second civil war, but parliament loses. If not you need to decide who the king have to bribe to increase his power. In France absolutism build on the king not taxing the Church and nobles, in Brandenburg something similar had happened, but the elector/king later just began to tax them. In Denmark the crown simply couped the nobles in a alliance with the burghers of Copenhagen.
This is very true
 
I think removing the religious issue help a lot, having close relatives in Europe with their own absolute state and large armies also help. In fact I think the easiest way to push semi-absolutism through are if we see a second civil war, but parliament loses. If not you need to decide who the king have to bribe to increase his power. In France absolutism build on the king not taxing the Church and nobles, in Brandenburg something similar had happened, but the elector/king later just began to tax them. In Denmark the crown simply couped the nobles in a alliance with the burghers of Copenhagen.

The Danish King also personally owned a lot of the kingdom's land and had direct royal collection of the Sound Tolls; both of which were huge factors in being fiscally independent of his nobles and, indeed, holding THEIR purse strings as a creditor in many cases. Striping Parliament of its taxing authority and making its seats unpaid could be good terms on which to start, and having the Royal house confiscate rebel property and keep it for themselves as opposed to doling it out to supporters (Though, then how do you compensate them?)
 
The Danish King also personally owned a lot of the kingdom's land and had direct royal collection of the Sound Tolls; both of which were huge factors in being fiscally independent of his nobles and, indeed, holding THEIR purse strings as a creditor in many cases. Striping Parliament of its taxing authority and making its seats unpaid could be good terms on which to start, and having the Royal house confiscate rebel property and keep it for themselves as opposed to doling it out to supporters (Though, then how do you compensate them?)

Split the confiscated property 50/50.
 
You all do realize that the end result of absolute states, post-medieval, generally, is either decay and degeneration or violent overthrow?

I'm puzzled by this scenario, is the idea to speculate about an ultimately poorer and sadder Great Britain? Or is this a monarchist fantasy trope?

Tell that to Saudi Arabia. But yeah no, what made Great Britain so powerful was the financial revolution that accompanied the Glorious Revolution. Get an absolutist version of it and Britain still rises to power.
 

Marc

Donor
Tell that to Saudi Arabia. But yeah no, what made Great Britain so powerful was the financial revolution that accompanied the Glorious Revolution. Get an absolutist version of it and Britain still rises to power.

It's a misconception if you think Saudi Arabia is an absolute state. Rule in the Kingdom is more of a collaborative process (even in the context of recent events), between the Al Saud family, the Council of Seniors (the clerical elite drawn exclusively from the extreme Wahhabism movement), and a small number of staggeringly wealthy merchant families. While distinctly non-democratic, it bears little relationship to an absolute state on the lines of say, the Sun King, or Stalin.
I still hold that that Acton's famous line about "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is basically true. Anyone care to debate that, over the long term, historically?
 
It's a misconception if you think Saudi Arabia is an absolute state. Rule in the Kingdom is more of a collaborative process (even in the context of recent events), between the Al Saud family, the Council of Seniors (the clerical elite drawn exclusively from the extreme Wahhabism movement), and a small number of staggeringly wealthy merchant families. While distinctly non-democratic, it bears little relationship to an absolute state on the lines of say, the Sun King, or Stalin.
I still hold that that Acton's famous line about "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is basically true. Anyone care to debate that, over the long term, historically?
One could argue that the kings of Thailand did much to Improve heir country whilst serving as absolute monarchs until a miniroithmof intellectuals demanded democracy. Since then Thailand has had more coups than any other country other than South American ones
 
Top