Oliver Cromwell makes himself King

Thing is, what does accepting get him that he doesn't already have? He's already got the powers of the kingdom by being Lord Protector and he's popular with the only army about.

The same question would apply to Bonaparte when he decided to became and emperor and not just the 1st Consul for life (the same position as Cromwell). The answer was given along the lines of continuing transfer of power beyond the life of <whoever>. Unlike Nappy at that time, Cromwell had a son ....
 
While I would say it is unlikely, just like in the American Revolution, people often forget that despite fighting against the former king having a monarch was seen as the proper way to run a country. 90% percent of the populace probably wouldn't even bat an eye at him if he did take it, unless of course they supported the former king, it would only be the most radical people he would have to worry about.

It might be seen as more legitimate on the Continent. Republican* England was radical for a Europe based on Kings with what everyone believed was literal Divine Rule. A new monarchy might just mean a transfer of rule. Same regicide nonetheless, but possibly recast as something excused in the mind of the monarchists.
 
Last edited:
The same question would apply to Bonaparte when he decided to became and emperor and not just the 1st Consul for life (the same position as Cromwell). The answer was given along the lines of continuing transfer of power beyond the life of <whoever>. Unlike Nappy at that time, Cromwell had a son ....
Bonaparte not only had more power than Cromwell but had also conquered imperial land and broken the Holy Roman Empire. The title gave him legitimacy over that, however paper thin, while also being new enough to the French that it wasn't associated with the royal regime nor the directorate.
Cromwell accepting a royal title would have lost him power. Best he could do was have his son selected as next Lord Protector.
 
What better way to protect parliament than acting as the definitive constitutional monarch. - but I agree with your assessment, he made his name being anti-monarch, the 180 would not sell; one of his own people sticks a knife in him.
That nearly happened IOTL during his instatement procession, albeit his disgruntled follower wasn't wielding a knife but a gun, waiting for Cromwell along the processional route before being apprehanded pretty much at the last moment. The change in coin iconography showed pretty clearly that Cromwell was king in all but name, with his portrait on every coin in stark contrast to earlier Commonweath coins which didn't bear portraits at all.

5s53.jpg

Commonwealth coin minted before Oliver Cromwell became Lord Ptrotector

5s58o7.jpg

Commonwealth coin minted after Oliver Cromwell became Lord Ptrotector
 
Bonaparte not only had more power than Cromwell but had also conquered imperial land and broken the Holy Roman Empire. The title gave him legitimacy over that, however paper thin, while also being new enough to the French that it wasn't associated with the royal regime nor the directorate.
Cromwell accepting a royal title would have lost him power. Best he could do was have his son selected as next Lord Protector.

Napoleon's title was not adding anything to the "legitimacy". It was adding something to his legal prerogatives within France and made him formally equal to the top 2 European rulers, which would not be the case with a royal title (and, well, of course, no associations with the old regime). The "thickness" of his <whatever> was defined by his military power, which was anyway but "paper thin". His empire had nothing to do with the HRE because he was an emperor of the French and influence in Germany was formally defined by a different title (BTW, most of the "imperial land", territories to the West from the Rhine) had been conquered by the French Republic, not Napoleon).

Cromwell would lose nothing in the terms of power (Army is there and Parliament is or will be dissolved) but accepting a title would guarantee succession of his son without any kind of election.
 
Cromwell would lose nothing in the terms of power (Army is there and Parliament is or will be dissolved) but accepting a title would guarantee succession of his son without any kind of election.
The Army was fairly republican as was Cromwell. Being King gains him nothing but loses him support.
 
The Army was fairly republican as was Cromwell. Being King gains him nothing but loses him support.

I strongly suspect that most of them never heard word "republic" and, anyway, they did not have any noticeable issues with the restoration of Stuarts. Anyway, Cromwell seemingly did not have problems dealing with the excessively "republican" elements, even the prominent ones like Harrison whom he dismissed and then imprisoned 4 times. The lesser fish always could be executed.
 
I strongly suspect that most of them never heard word "republic" and, anyway, they did not have any noticeable issues with the restoration of Stuarts. Anyway, Cromwell seemingly did not have problems dealing with the excessively "republican" elements, even the prominent ones like Harrison whom he dismissed and then imprisoned 4 times. The lesser fish always could be executed.
Being king still does not get him anything he doesn't already have. Being named king will cost him support. Can you name anything that will counter the costs of being named king that being king will give him?
 
Top