Plausability Check: Slightly Longer Protectorate of England

Fairly simple question, I think. I'm writing an AH story set in London in 1666, and I'm just wondering if there's a simple way to keep the Protectorate of England running to about that year (the story mostly dealing with the Great Plague, the Great Fire of London, and destabilization of the Protectorate Government). I'm not looking to do a whole TL here, just a few stories happening 1665-1670 or so.

I have no great knowledge of the English Civil War, however. Wikipedia's (hey, I think it's decent for preliminary research, as is AH.com...) telling me that Cromwell may have died of Malaria, and that his son became the next Lord Protector, but had no power base, and was forced to give up his power.

"Cromwell is thought to have suffered from malaria (probably first contracted while on campaign in Ireland) and from "stone", a common term for urinary/kidney infections. In 1658 he was struck by a sudden bout of malarial fever, followed directly by an attack of urinary/kidney symptoms. A Venetian physician tracked Cromwell's final illness, saying Cromwell's personal physicians were mismanaging his health, leading to a rapid decline and death, which was also hastened by the death of his favourite daughter Elizabeth Cromwell in August at age 29. He died at Whitehall on 3 September 1658, the anniversary of his great victories at Dunbar and Worcester." -- Wikipedia

So, let's *handwave* away his malaria and "stone," making him a bit more healthy. Or, no, better yet, let's not. Let's not have his physicians "mismanage his health," and have him have a nonterminal brush with illness. During this period, he'll realize not just the fragility of his own life, but of all the Protectorate. He's still pushing sixty, so he must have thought of this. I don't know his character in history, but in my story I'm thinking of him like a bit of a Lenin-analogue -- genuinely interested in the good of the people, but also genuinely interested in his own power and willing to go to vicious lengths to achieve both of those things. So, he grooms a successor -- likely his own son, Richard. So, when Oliver finally passes away in 1662, Richard is ready to take over control of the government, and, well, for the purposes of my story, he only needs to stay in power for four years or so -- bonus points if there's open warfare again in England in 1666, between Charles II and Richard Cromwell (who, hopefully, has retained some of his father's strategic insight).

So, how plausible is this? What effect would it have on the Anglo-Dutch Wars?
 
Last edited:

67th Tigers

Banned
Yes, don't make Richard Cromwell successor. Cromwell named Lambert as his successor, and he could have held the United Republic together. Richard Cromwell was placed on the "throne" by factions trying to recreate a Monarchy.

Yes, Lambert as LP would make a great POD....
 
I've been writing an Alt-History Narrative set in a Republican England c. 1666 myself and from my research Charles Fleetwood his son-in-law, not General Lambert who Cromwell quite disliked and disagreed with, would have become Lord Protector.

Lambert supported a monarchy, or at least a hereditary Protector so I can't see him either being picked by Cromwell as his successor due ot their differences or opposing Richard Cromwell regardless of Junior's weaknesses.

Several sources state Fleetwood was all but in-writing the heir to the 'throne' and was very close to Cromwell Snr. not to mention strong in the Army and a keen supporter of the Commonwealth. Only Oliver's failure to pick a successor and men like Lambert banking on a more monarchal system got Richard Cromwell the leadership

EDIT: Indeed, further reading shows Lambert had actually refused to swear allegience to Cromwell and retired to private life by the time of Cromwell's death. A personal reconcilliation between the two men did take place but apart from sitting in Parliament he didn't return to much power under Richard's rule.
 
Last edited:
@Jape: Lambert's power came from being a Major-General, not from anything else. In modern terms the Commonwealth was a junta, remember. Richard was kept in power basically on Lambert's say-so. If Lambert had wanted to become protector on his own, there was nobody who really could have stopped him (except maybe Monck, but that's just going into Civil War III, which I imagine is not what SRT wants).
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Indeed, it was Charles Fleetwood, not John Lambert. Don't know how I got those two confused.

Lambert was no royalist though, he led the Republican Army against Monck....
 
Lambert was no royalist though, he led the Republican Army against Monck....

Oh I agree, I didn't mean pro-Stuart by monarchists but he backed Oliver to become King and despite the Cromwell family as a whole balking at the idea he constantly suggested at least a hereditary Lord Protectorate.

@ VJ: He held the rank of Major-General and played a major part at the Battle of Dunbar, plus the Ireland campaign before becoming C-in-C of the New Model Army in the 1650s. As an administrator, along with his general outlook, he was something of a radical- he led the Cromwellian Plantation of Ireland and pushed the case of Puritans over more moderate Anglicans. Very much a disciple of Cromwell in his authoritarian bent and foriegn policy. All in all I could see some moderate Generals dumping him eventually but for SRT's purposes he's the most logical heir in a continued Republic.

@ Zyzzyva: Lambert was a powerful General, particularly popular with the rank and file but he flexed little muscle during Richard's reign, while Charles Fleetwood acted as the power behind the throne. Remember Lambert before Richard's reign even began was a private citizen, eventually becoming a member of Parliament but doing little while there.
 
Thanks for your input. I'll be making more serious inquiries in the next few days, as I visit my college's library, etc.

Another question, though -- does the Second Anglo-Dutch War take place in this TL? Wikipedia is telling me that Oliver Cromwell tried to smooth things over with the United Provinces, but that after the restoration of Charles II, people were more gung-ho to start a war.
 
The trouble is only Cromwell could hold together the disperate parties of the Commonwealth. The army radicals trusted his religion and thought he would in the end support the saints against the sinners, the gentry trusted his position in the world and thought in the end he would revert to type, pretty much everybody else realised he was the only one stopping renewed anarchy. That is why when he died they recalled Charlie, not because they needed a king but because nobody could follow Oliver.

I find it hard to imagine anybody else succeding in holding the Commonwealth together, least of all Richard.

Incidently that is why (apart from his own scuples) Cromwell never took the crown, the radicals would have lost faith and the system would collapse.

So my solution is keep Cromwell alive, do not try to change the structure of society drastically as the house of cards would come down and either we get Charles II or anarchy. Perhaps if he lived long enough people would get used to the situation and some of the old guard would die off and he could hand pick a successor.
 
Although it's not quite what was asked for, perhaps a successful resolution to the Rump Parliament and the calling of elections in, say, 1652, could lead to a longer lasting British Commonwealth.
 
Although it's not quite what was asked for, perhaps a successful resolution to the Rump Parliament and the calling of elections in, say, 1652, could lead to a longer lasting British Commonwealth.

Elections were held. Cromwell simply didn't like the results.

Basically, the New Model Army (NMA) was created to fight the Civil War for Parliament, but it became a power unto itself, and led by Cromwell executed the king, disbanded Parliament and ruled until 1660.

The POD could be that Cromwell's older sons survive. Both died of smallpox. The second son was an officer in the army when he died. If the second son lives then he probably becomes involved in his father's regime, and would be well positioned to maintain the NMA's favor and continue the Commonwealth.

The problem that you have is that the Commonwealth was a naked dictatorship. Cromwell ruled as a benign tyrant, with no constitutional checks on his power, not even having to answer to a weak parliament. And since the Commonwealth was not a hereditary monarchy, it had none of the institutional stability that the monarchial forms can bring to a dictatorship. If the officer-son survives, and becomes involved in his father's regime, then a de facto hereditary succession, with the approval of the Army elite, would occur, and you can continue the Commonwealth's monarchy-in-all-but-name.

If this son is secure in his power, then he may introduce more republican forms to his rule, as the Civil War-era Army officers die off. The monarchy-in-all-but-name would lend legitimacy to Cromwell II's rule, and he could undertake the following: The new generation of Army officers could constitute a re-formed "House of Lords"- probably this body will be called the "Council of State" while elections are held for a new House of Commons. Most power could be vested in the "Council of State" allowing for a wider franchise for the House of Commons.
 
Last edited:
Top