how to make Britain a semi absolutist monarchy

It's a misconception if you think Saudi Arabia is an absolute state. The 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 is kind of nonsensical the way you're choosing what is an absolute monarchy. The situation where the head of government is completely unopposed and is without the need for the input of those below them is at its base quite rare. One could point to Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany as absolute (which they were) but another could say due to the competing factions underneath especially in the various intelligence operatus forcing leaders to at least take on input from their underlings to maintain there position on top.

From Wikipedia, an "Absolute monarchy, or despotic monarchy,[1][2] is a form of monarchy in which one ruler has supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs." Whether or not the exercise of power needs to be made through a conferred ruling (which it does not in Saudi Arabia) or not what matters is whether there are any laws or bodies legally capable of stopping that execution of power once the executing branch of government has decided to do so.

The line "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is often treated as an axiom when frankly it isn't. It's simply a saying.

From this site, "This idiom means that those in power often do not have the people’s best interests in mind. They are primarily focused on their own benefits, and they may abuse their position of power to help themselves. If you follow the thread that absolute power corrupts absolutely, you can believe that monarchs—those with the most authority—have the least amount of morals. Kinder souls would be found among poorer, less influential people.

Naturally, this is not always the case, as there are many examples of kind and good leaders. Of those who are corrupted, it is it is hard to distinguish whether the power corrupted the man or the men who were drawn to power were already corrupted."

I'm not saying it is even close to an ideal form of government but one should not immediately dismiss things that seem foreign to them as a lot of what's normal is based on what has been normal our entire lives. The most likely examples of what you would paint as an absolute state would include very few examples of actual absolute monarchies but mostly dictatorships of which most if not all were installed through military intercession in someway.

  • Fun fact: There is a considerable variety of opinion by historians on the extent of absolutism among European monarchs. Some, such as Perry Anderson, argue that quite a few monarchs achieved levels of absolutist control over their states, while historians such as Roger Mettam dispute the very concept of absolutism. In general, historians who disagree with the appellation of absolutism argue that most monarchs labelled as absolutist exerted no greater power over their subjects than any other non-absolutist rulers, and these historians tend to emphasize the differences between the absolutist rhetoric of monarchs and the realities of the effective use of power by these absolute monarchs.
  • Another fun fact: Qatar and the UAE are also absolute monarchies by above definition with the UAE having a few 'elected positions' that are essentially hereditary. I didn't know that.
  • To cover my ass - I know my state apparatus comparison is not the most solid but it stands.
 
In general, the earlier the POD, the easier it is to get away from OTL.

No Magna carter is easiest for a powerful English monarchy.

Henry V established a powerful monarchy, still reliant on Parliament for taxation but it had a considerable source of land income. If he lives, it's easier to imagine centralization, but we need to make sure the monarchy doesn't become too French!

For a British monarchy, ironically after the union of the crowns is easier. An English conquest of Scotland is probably doable, but would likely ruin the English economy and take 3+ decades. So before the Union of the crowns, we would need to come up with a way of putting English royal blood on the Scottish throne followed by the death of either the English or Scottish branch. Or something simple like Queen and King marrying each other, uniting the realms.

Averting the English Civil War might ironically not be a great idea for the goal. After Cromwell, the populace of England was like "yeah... let's not do that again" and cue the Restoration. The Convention Parliament was very royalist and the monarchy was given an aura of legitimacy.

James II not converting to Catholicism is easy to maintain a powerful monarchy, but it is an executive monarchy with some limitations. He had popular support among people and parliament before conversion, the trick is continued centralization after his death and Mary's ascension (or a Protestant son if he has an ahistorical offspring).

James II converting and then destroying the opposition requires some imagination but would likely make a more powerful monarchy. He was still popular in 1680 in London, the rural areas, and Scotland if you were not an MP.and he was a known Catholic. His Catholicism and association with France made him a really easy smear target even before Charles II kicked the bucket. With another rebellion but James only punishing the obvious conspirators instead of all Protestants (as the propaganda was like "he's looking for the first excuse to force the papacy on us) makes this fall flat. He would get support by giving loyalists the traitors' land and get his old popularity back (whatever caused his old popularity that he retained even after Conversion, the reason is probably still there and the smear campaign is hollow now). Until this happens William needs to not get involved in the coup since the smear campaign is sufficient that many of wavering Protestants would go over once they see him.

From there, we have many directions. We might see centralization for a generation followed by monarchs becoming more laid back and a path not too dissimilar to OTL. We might see a see-saw of monarch power as strong kings consolidate power and weak kings give concessions like OTL of the period from Henry II to... James II really. A see-saw could end up like OTL constitutional monarchy, it could end up like an executive monarchy of the Stuarts, it could end up full blown turning Parliament into a rubber stamp who only had advisory duties, overseeing regencies, and having veto on succession law changes (I seriously doubt a British monarch would ever be able to unilaterally change the succession after the nine day queen fiasco), or it could end up going full Saudi Arabia.

This is the latest possible POD. Monarch power was a ratchet after Parliament set the precedent of being able to change succession law on its own and getting rid of an inconvenient monarch. Monarch power can only go down from here, so we aren't getting any stronger than Anne's executive monarchy.
 
Okay interesting, I’d argue that today’s monarchy is merely parliamentary not really constitutional. But I agree with the large amount you’ve said there
 
Okay interesting, I’d argue that today’s monarchy is merely parliamentary not really constitutional. But I agree with the large amount you’ve said there

Frankly there needs to be a genocidal cabinet to push Liz into doing something without the British 30 years in the future frowning on her. I remember some king of Romania plotting for years to get rid of his pro-Nazi government and finally did it and Romanians today usually approve of that (although sadly not enough for a restoration). Merely making Britain some embarrassments in diplomacy, depriving the disadvantaged areas of their safety nets, causing a self induced recession, or decreasing economic potential for decades to come are not bad enough for it to make sense for the monarchy to interrupt. Given how Britain evolved in OTL, it's best for Britain that she takes the advice of her cabinet both when they were smart and... when they did some less than smart things. We don't need to send this into the chat forum to say which cabinet things which fell into which examples...
 
Frankly there needs to be a genocidal cabinet to push Liz into doing something without the British 30 years in the future frowning on her. I remember some king of Romania plotting for years to get rid of his pro-Nazi government and finally did it and Romanians today usually approve of that (although sadly not enough for a restoration). Merely making Britain some embarrassments in diplomacy, depriving the disadvantaged areas of their safety nets, causing a self induced recession, or decreasing economic potential for decades to come are not bad enough for it to make sense for the monarchy to interrupt. Given how Britain evolved in OTL, it's best for Britain that she takes the advice of her cabinet both when they were smart and... when they did some less than smart things. We don't need to send this into the chat forum to say which cabinet things which fell into which examples...
The ,ast chance for that I’d say was 1979. Now the people are too stupid
 
I remember some king of Romania plotting for years to get rid of his pro-Nazi government and finally did it and Romanians today usually approve of that (although sadly not enough for a restoration).
Mihai I. The last living holder of the Soviet Order of Victory (at least the last one to die, on December 5, 2017). Now his daughter (he had no sons to inherit) enjoys the honorific "Custodian of Crown of Romania".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_I_of_Romania
 
The ,ast chance for that I’d say was 1979. Now the people are too stupid

No that was still too late if you are talking about bring Britain to a semi-absolutist monarchy instead of merely trying to fix individual dumb mistakes. Interfering at that point might at best get historians to say"well, policy wise Liz was probably right for Britain's prosperity, but she reallllly shouldn't have broken constitutional conventional and stay out of it)" The best thing she can do is give Britain and the Commonwealth a popular face/personification. Constitutional convection (it's complicated to explain... basically gentleman's agreements) is kind of a powerful thing and violating it might just make another James II. Even if she didn't go that way, it would cause disruption to the economy as people pay attention to that instead of the economics for a decade.
 
Last edited:
No that was still too late if you are talking about bring Britain to a semi-absolutist monarchy instead of merely trying to fix individual dumb mistakes. Interfering at that point might at best get historians to say"well, policy wise Liz was probably right for Britain's prosperity, but she reallllly shouldn't have broken constitutional conventional and stay out of it)" The best thing she can do is give Britain and the Commonwealth a popular face/personification. Constitutional convection (it's complicated to explain... basically gentleman's agreements) is kind of a powerful thing and violating it might just make another James II. Even if she didn't go that way, it would cause disruption to the economy as people pay attention to that instead of the economics for a decade.
The labour and torie governments were dictated to by mobs, and terrorists and the economy tanked during the seventies. Honestly, if some sort of shit storm happened that necessitated the crown stepping in that likely is the only way it could happen lost 1714.
 
The labour and torie governments were dictated to by mobs, and terrorists and the economy tanked during the seventies. Honestly, if some sort of shit storm happened that necessitated the crown stepping in that likely is the only way it could happen lost 1714.

Possibly you are right if the economy was juuust a bit worse if we are talking about stepping in and fixing a few bad decisions. Getting to what you wanted in the OP... nah.
 
And if there was complete anarchy in the streets?

Then the power would be temporary until the crisis was averted, and likely implemented by a military-parliamentary council in the Monarch's name under Emergency Powers. But it'd be the Monarchy granting said temporary powers rather than wielding it themselves
 
Then the power would be temporary until the crisis was averted, and likely implemented by a military-parliamentary council in the Monarch's name under Emergency Powers. But it'd be the Monarchy granting said temporary powers rather than wielding it themselves
That makes no sense to me aha
 
That makes no sense to me aha

Imagine a bunch of key Parlamentary figures, intelligence community members, and military brass in a council room making decisions. They have near absolute authority to use all national and sub national resources and give any orders they feel nessicery so long as there is still anarchy in the streets. When the anarchy is over, power goes back to where it was before
 
Imagine a bunch of key Parlamentary figures, intelligence community members, and military brass in a council room making decisions. They have near absolute authority to use all national and sub national resources and give any orders they feel nessicery so long as there is still anarchy in the streets. When the anarchy is over, power goes back to where it was before
Oh no I get that. I just don’t understand why the monarch as head of state wouldn’t step in when there’s anarchy
 
Oh no I get that. I just don’t understand why the monarch as head of state wouldn’t step in when there’s anarchy

Well, they WOULD... but it'd be by acting as a symbol and having real power in the hands of somebody else. In practice, that really isen't a semi-absolute monarchy with the monarchy making actual decisions.
 
Well, they WOULD... but it'd be by acting as a symbol and having real power in the hands of somebody else. In practice, that really isen't a semi-absolute monarchy with the monarchy making actual decisions.
Yeah that’s the bit I don’t get, why put real,power in other peoples hands?
 
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.

Late to the party, but Charles I was a second son. Have Prince Henry survive to become King. That might be change enough...
 
Yeah that’s the bit I don’t get, why put real,power in other peoples hands?

Because A) You actually care about getting a good result and they have a particular set of skills and knowledge to achieve said result that you don't. B) Because you wouldn't be able to excersie that power because the second you start hoarding it some faction will take it from you. C) because the real power would cease to exist if you don't have the "keys" to execute it, retain legitimacy, ect. Seem"Rules for Rulers"
 
Because A) You actually care about getting a good result and they have a particular set of skills and knowledge to achieve said result that you don't. B) Because you wouldn't be able to excersie that power because the second you start hoarding it some faction will take it from you. C) because the real power would cease to exist if you don't have the "keys" to execute it, retain legitimacy, ect. Seem"Rules for Rulers"
Who says a good result cannot be had with the monarch being advised by military and secret service?
 
Top