Just a question, if Cromwell and the Commonwealth had never happened, what would the effect be on Republicanism in Great Britain?
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 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.
Yes, but I did include in the OP that there is No Commonwealth.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.
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.