Jews and England without Cromwell

Thande

Donor
Nowadays we tend to instinctively think of England (and henceforth Britain) as being relatively tolerant towards the Jews in the 18th-20th century period at a time when persecution across most of Europe was, if usually less intense than in the 17th century, still a very real factor. However, in many ways this is simply because the Jews were expulsed from England in 1290 and then only allowed back in from 1655 because Cromwell agreed to a proposal from an influential rabbi - therefore for a big chunk of its history, England didn't have any Jews to persecute and thus fell out of the habit.

Now the return of the Jews, it can be argued, only happened because Cromwell was convinced and as dictator he knocked heads together - the Puritans in power at the time were strongly divided, some factions violently in favour of religious toleration of the Jews, others violently against it for more traditional reasons, and the suppressed conservative Anglicans and Catholics generally opposed.

So if we have a TL with either (1) no English Civil War due to better royal management, e.g. Henry Stuart survives, or (2) a relatively democratic republican Commonwealth of England is established and Cromwell doesn't become dictator, or even just (3) Cromwell says no to the rabbi...what would be the result? If the Jews weren't allowed back into England then, when would they be? Perhaps not until Catholic emancipation came in in the early 19th century? If England/Great Britain was still 'judenfrei' (officially at least) as late as the 18th century, how would that affect how the country was seen from a European perspective - not so much a home of liberty?

(Furthermore, how would this affect the Act of Union, as there were plenty of Jews in Scotland all throughout the time they were banned from England?)

Just a thought for discussion.
 

MrP

Banned
The first thing that comes to mind is the Napoleonic Wars and all that.

British war effort and Napoleon

The basis for the Rothschild fortune was laid during the latter stages of the Napoleonic Wars. From 1813 to 1815, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London was instrumental in the financing of the British war effort, handling the shipment of bullion to the Duke of Wellington's army in Portugal and Spain, as well as arranging the payment of British financial subsidies to their Continental allies. Through the commissions earned on these transactions, the Rothschild fortune grew enormously.

The four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold and information across Europe. This private intelligence service enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers.[3]

Nathan Mayer Rothschild started his London business, N. M. Rothschild and Sons in 1811 at New Court in St Swithin's Lane, City of London, where it trades today. In 1818, he arranged a £5 million loan to the Prussian government, and the issuing of bonds for government loans formed a mainstay of his bank’s business. He gained a position of such power in the City of London that by 1825–6 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a market liquidity crisis.

But that's obviously long after the PoD, so . . .
 

Thande

Donor
The first thing that comes to mind is the Napoleonic Wars and all that.



But that's obviously long after the PoD, so . . .

Nonetheless it is relevant, as Cromwell was persuaded on the basis that allowing Jewish traders to settle would help build the post-Civil War country's economy back up, and in the long run that obviously proved correct.

Another thing: I wonder if this would affect Huguenot immigration, presuming the Edict of Nantes is still repealed in France.
 
Nonetheless it is relevant, as Cromwell was persuaded on the basis that allowing Jewish traders to settle would help build the post-Civil War country's economy back up, and in the long run that obviously proved correct.

Another thing: I wonder if this would affect Huguenot immigration, presuming the Edict of Nantes is still repealed in France.

I'm not sure, but I think they would treat the Huguenots differently than the Jews. After all, not only they were also Christians, but shared religious points of view.

About the migration, I think that in Western Europe the Netherlands would have a even bigger Jewish population, and they would be the only major country were their presence would have great tolerance. Many of them could end in Dutch colonies around the world. Recife, in Dutch Brazil, and New Amsterdam had important Jewish communities IOTL. Maybe we could see a Jewish settlement in the Cape, or the Dutch colonies in Asia? The Ottomans would also receive more Jewish immigrants also.
 

Keenir

Banned
Nonetheless it is relevant, as Cromwell was persuaded on the basis that allowing Jewish traders to settle would help build the post-Civil War country's economy back up, and in the long run that obviously proved correct.

is it true that part of why the Jews were allowed to return was in hopes that their return would spur the arrival of the End Times?
 

Thande

Donor
I'm not sure, but I think they would treat the Huguenots differently than the Jews. After all, not only they were also Christians, but shared religious points of view.
Yes, but I mean how the Huguenot migration would be viewed later on. OTL we see it as just another group of immigrants, mentioned in the same breath as say the Poles after WW2. If Cromwell didn't allow the Jews back, however, the Huguenot migration might be seen as a one-off event allowed just on religious grounds.
About the migration, I think that in Western Europe the Netherlands would have a even bigger Jewish population, and they would be the only major country were their presence would have great tolerance. Many of them could end in Dutch colonies around the world. Recife, in Dutch Brazil, and New Amsterdam had important Jewish communities IOTL. Maybe we could see a Jewish settlement in the Cape, or the Dutch colonies in Asia? The Ottomans would also receive more Jewish immigrants also.
It's an interesting thought, and one wonders if the Dutch would profit from this.
 
I would have to correct Britain not having any Jews- they did exist, just not in the numbers of elsewhere.
But anyway...
I'd think they would continue to seep in in larger and larger numbers. It just makes no sense to exclude them in rational, enlightenment England. They don't present the kind of threat that the Catholics do so arguments against letting them in can solely be based upon traditional religious intolerance.
 

Thande

Donor
I would have to correct Britain not having any Jews- they did exist, just not in the numbers of elsewhere.
But anyway...
I'd think they would continue to seep in in larger and larger numbers. It just makes no sense to exclude them in rational, enlightenment England. They don't present the kind of threat that the Catholics do so arguments against letting them in can solely be based upon traditional religious intolerance.

"Rational enlightenment England"? Is this the same rational enlightenment England whose government tried to pass a law in 1753 allowing Jews the same rights as Christian citizens but was forced to withdraw it the following year due to massive public protest?

Don't backward-project a whiggish historiographical view, it's as bad as Flocc's rant about the Ameriteens and Meiji Japan in the Middle Ages.
 
I would have to correct Britain not having any Jews- they did exist, just not in the numbers of elsewhere.

If they did, it was illegally. They were expelled in 1290, and any left would have been Jewish in secret (this includes a fairly large number of Spanish crypto-Jews who moved in after the Inquisition).
 
"Rational enlightenment England"? Is this the same rational enlightenment England whose government tried to pass a law in 1753 allowing Jews the same rights as Christian citizens but was forced to withdraw it the following year due to massive public protest?

Don't backward-project a whiggish historiographical view, it's as bad as Flocc's rant about the Ameriteens and Meiji Japan in the Middle Ages.

Oh yeah, it wasn't perfect of course. But it wasn't "OMG Jews, they bite!" medieval times.

If they did, it was illegally. They were expelled in 1290, and any left would have been Jewish in secret (this includes a fairly large number of Spanish crypto-Jews who moved in after the Inquisition).
Which the OP says.
 

Susano

Banned
Oh yeah, it wasn't perfect of course. But it wasn't "OMG Jews, they bite!" medieval times.
Because the English Jews already had been expelled, as Thande has said, not due to some special English attitude.
 
Because the English Jews already had been expelled, as Thande has said, not due to some special English attitude.

I disagree, the Dutch were the most similar to the English and they didn't have such anti-Jewish feeling either.
 
Top