Oliver I Emperor of Britons

If at some point during the Commonwealth Cromwell had, like Bonaparte 140 or so years later taken the title of Emperor rather than Lord Protector (or in Nappy's case Consul) would it have granted enough legitimacy for his son to follow him? Lord Protector was a title no one knew how to relate to. What were his powers to be, and what checks on those powers, if any to be?

While there would still have been those questions, it was understood by the educated, that an Emperor was more than a King.
 
Calling yourself an Emperor is far more presumptuous than Lord Protector.

The later at least gives the impression that you're protecting the realm on someone's behalf.
 
Calling yourself an Emperor is far more presumptuous than Lord Protector.

The later at least gives the impression that you're protecting the realm on someone's behalf.

One of the life-long questions I had in my life is exactly this: how the hell did Napoleon succeeded in pulling this "Imperial" showing-off? I mean, people weren't used to republicanism and they were terrified (no pun intended) by the Terror Regime, but I wonder how many French brows were raised and the guy who was then a Consul now decided to crown himself full-Rome style.

Anyways, to the OP, I don't believe that proclaiming himself Emperor would work so greatly, as the problem was the lack of legitimacy that people believed was directly related to bloodline. Hereditarity was much more than having "the son of that guy will be the king", it was about "the son of that guy is the product of various generations of noble marriages and has a prestigious lineage that extends through centuries". It would hardly change the fact that Cromwell rose to power by violence and revolution. The legitimacy of the revolutionary regimes derives from their own ideological perspectives that rupture with preexisting conceptions; in that case, it was the rupture with the Stuart absolutism and the enforcement of a Parliamentarian preeminence in the political decision-making of the State, and cemented by religious discord between the Protestant radicalism against the perceived threat of Catholic monarchies. Putting a crown in his head would not change Cromwell's purpose (or of his faction, anyway), but it might create some quirky exaggerations of his own OTL regime, in relation to his relationship with the strengthened Parliament. Curiously enough, it might be, in the long run, that a lasting Cromwellian dynasty actually results in the Parliament gaining even more power, due to the role that their progenitor playing in securing its purpose.

Now that I think about the question I did in the paragraph above, the comparison with Napoleon is useful. Even if his coronation as Emperor was unprecedented, his legitimacy was more grounded in his personal charisma, and in his military genius. Had he failed to live up to his fame as a victorious emperor, or had he failed to uphold the ideals of the Revolution (for example, reimposing absolutism and restoring institutions of the Ancien Regime), I believe that either he would have been deposed sooner (and by internal agents in France) or his rule would have degenerated into something worse. Basically an earlier version of Charles X.
 
On the other hand Cromwell was the man who united England, Scotland and Ireland into a single entity, the Commonwealth. True he did it under the rule of the Major Generals, but that was more than anyone had ever done. The reality of his position was that he was the ruler of an empire of three separate (more or less) countries with their own Parliaments and legal structures, a Principality (Wales) that was to all intents and purposes part of England and a few scattered colonies.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Calling yourself an Emperor is far more presumptuous than Lord Protector.

The later at least gives the impression that you're protecting the realm on someone's behalf.

Declaring himself emperor would be totally out of character for Oliver Cromwell, in OTL he declined the offer being made King. Cromwell was interesting that he consider himself as a servant of god as opposed to god's vice-regent on Earth.
 
Cromwell is probably the most complicated character in British History, in my opinion, and easy answers aren't often applicable in his case. But I'll try and give a couple of reasons why I don't think he would make this move:

1. Practicalities - Why does he need to? He already has power over the country through the Major General system and is trying to consolidate a working relationship with Parliament. Why risk everything with such an inflammatory move that is, essentially, little more than window dressing?

2. The Army - A number of the Army commanders that Cromwell relied upon were...not keen. Not keen at all on the idea. According to Thurloe, Cromwell's Secretary of State:

Protectoral Privy Councillors General John Lambert (one of the principal opponents of the offer of the crown to Cromwell) and Colonel William Sydenham...[spoke]...‘very earnestly against it and very few of the soldiers pleased with it so far as could be perceived’.

I can't find the reference but when one Colonel heard of the Humble Petition that offered Cromwell the Crown OTL he essentially swore and said something along the lines of "over my dead body".

3. Public Sentiment - the nation had just been through a Civil War and was starting to calm down. But it was still politically, socially, and culturally volatile. It's only been five years since fighting in the Third Civil War ceased and tensions are high.

4. Cromwell's own beliefs - hardest to get to and most controversial of the reasons, but a problem indeed. Would Cromwell, who was conflicted deeply over the idea of being King, really go further and go for something as extreme as "Emperor"?

Cromwell and Napoleon's cases are very, very, different in terms of circumstance, context, and character.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Cromwell is probably the most complicated character in British History, in my opinion, and easy answers aren't often applicable in his case. But I'll try and give a couple of reasons why I don't think he would make this move:

1. Practicalities - Why does he need to? He already has power over the country through the Major General system and is trying to consolidate a working relationship with Parliament. Why risk everything with such an inflammatory move that is, essentially, little more than window dressing?

2. The Army - A number of the Army commanders that Cromwell relied upon were...not keen. Not keen at all on the idea. According to Thurloe, Cromwell's Secretary of State:



I can't find the reference but when one Colonel heard of the Humble Petition that offered Cromwell the Crown OTL he essentially swore and said something along the lines of "over my dead body".

3. Public Sentiment - the nation had just been through a Civil War and was starting to calm down. But it was still politically, socially, and culturally volatile. It's only been five years since fighting in the Third Civil War ceased and tensions are high.

4. Cromwell's own beliefs - hardest to get to and most controversial of the reasons, but a problem indeed. Would Cromwell, who was conflicted deeply over the idea of being King, really go further and go for something as extreme as "Emperor"?

Cromwell and Napoleon's cases are very, very, different in terms of circumstance, context, and character.

I agree with you broadly, although Oliver Cromwell could have made himself King with little effective opposition and considerable popular support. However the main reason why he decided not to that apart from potential opposition from the Army, was that a King in England had powers which were limited by convention. As Lord Protector Cromwell's effective powers exceeded that of any King of England which preceded him.

If Oliver Cromwell had say the personality of Napoleon Bonaparte, he would have declared himself say Great Protector or even Emperor of Great Britain and created one government for the whole of the British Isles administrated through institutions which administered the whole of British Isles not just England, Scotland and Ireland. The whole system of governance towards the end of Cromwell's rule would be very similar to that of England's after the glorious revolution. Cromwell could have done all of this without too much opposition at least in England, if any opposition arose to the new regime in Scotland and Ireland his army would deal with it very effectively.

Incidentally that was the long term goal of the James I and VI, namely create one united nation out of Scotland and England. England would be the dominant nation in this Empire of Great Britain. If the restoration occurs there would be little reason why Charles II would not just accept this system governance for the whole British Isles, which England is dominant. Therefore; Charles II would become in this TL King or Emperor Charles I of Great Britain.
 
Last edited:
Top