No Cromwell: Effect on British Republicanism?

Just a question, if Cromwell and the Commonwealth had never happened, what would the effect be on Republicanism in Great Britain?
 
Well IMO Cromwell never really had a negative effect on Republicanism IOTl, the only reason it's stayed relatively unpopular since then is due to the monarcy having the approval of the majority of the people (ie not Catholic), having their power greatly restricted by Parliament, and successive governments ability to see the writing in the wall and react before anyone came up with a new British Republican anthem.

I'm not that knowledgable on this era, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say that, so long as the Civil War goes the same way with the monarch in exile for a while before returning, it wouldn't have any huge effect bar.
 
Well IMO Cromwell never really had a negative effect on Republicanism IOTl, the only reason it's stayed relatively unpopular since then is due to the monarcy having the approval of the majority of the people (ie not Catholic), having their power greatly restricted by Parliament, and successive governments ability to see the writing in the wall and react before anyone came up with a new British Republican anthem.

I'm not that knowledgable on this era, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say that, so long as the Civil War goes the same way with the monarch in exile for a while before returning, it wouldn't have any huge effect bar.
Well I was thinking that without Cromwell, and the Commonwealth, the Stuarts would have remained on the throne, pushing for more absolutist control. After a coupel decades of that, I think the British people would be singing a different tune.
 
I'm not sure how If Edt's shown us anything it's that charles the second jerkiness is hard to contain.
 
Well I was thinking that without Cromwell, and the Commonwealth, the Stuarts would have remained on the throne, pushing for more absolutist control. After a coupel decades of that, I think the British people would be singing a different tune.

Well I think Parliament would get sick of Charles I's shit at some point, even without Cromwell there's going to be some sort of change in the system.
The king was an arrogant shite, and Parliament was led by arrogant shites, they're gonn a come to blows sooner or later.
 
I think as soon as we get to an open adoption of Catholicism, perhaps by Charles I, more likely Charles II or James II as OTL, we get the breaking point for Parliament and likely the invitation of Elizabeth of Bohemia or Sophia of Hanover to take the throne as OTL. We could therefore see a rather bizarre situation where the English Civil War becomes a War of the English Sucession and perhaps as an extension of the 30 Years War.
 
Well firstly the troubles between Parliament, the more extreme Protestant groups in England, Charles I's issue with the Scottish Presbyterianism etc have little to do with an obscure East Anglian MP called Oliver Cromwell.

It is arguable whether without Cromwell Parliament would have defeated the Royalists but even a Royalist victory in the English Civil War would not definitely mean a move to some form of Anglo Catholic Absolutism that in turn would have probably lead to some form of revolution at a later date that resulted in an English/British Republic.

One or two issues - the period of the 1640s and 50s is diverse groups clamouring for power and influence - arguably the extreme radicalism both politically and religiously of many of these groups was enough to turn most moderates back towards monarchy (as long as it was limited in some form).
It is also worth remembering that the most extreme members of Parliament that launched the first civil war in reaction to Charles I's politics etc never had any intention of creating a republican future for England


You could say Cromwell was ironically the saviour of the British Monarchy without his failed Republic monarchy might not have looked so appealing.
 
This is a common misconception - Charles I was a devout Anglican - granted like his father he had a deep distaste for non-conformist protestantism and certainly implied to those that his favour for high anglicanism was pseudo catholicism but he certainly was not intending to return England to the Roman Catholic fold.


I think as soon as we get to an open adoption of Catholicism, perhaps by Charles I, more likely Charles II or James II as OTL, we get the breaking point for Parliament and likely the invitation of Elizabeth of Bohemia or Sophia of Hanover to take the throne as OTL. We could therefore see a rather bizarre situation where the English Civil War becomes a War of the English Sucession and perhaps as an extension of the 30 Years War.
 
The Civil War still happens. Scotland was in revolt before parliament was recalled at all, and Cromwell did not become the parliamentary leader until after Pym died.

It's harder for parliament to win the war because it just lost one of its two best generals (it still has Fairfax) but it still has more resources than the Royalists so it shouldn't lose.
 
Cromwell didn't really kill republicanism. Right up until Victoria Britain looked to be the most likely country to go republican. It is quite surprising historically that so many other countries flipped whilst the British monarchy remained.
Reading sources from before the industrial revolution the Brits really did have quite the reputation for being a bunch of anti-authoritarian anarchists.
 
Top