Plausability King and People

Assuming Charles I dies other than by formal execution.

In 1648 the army was angry with Parliament. There was the demand for manhood suffrage.

Suppose a subtle King Charles |II suggests he would accept a Parliament elected by all men.

If there could have been a relatively honest election with manhood suffrage might the KING have persuaded a majority of Englishmen to vote for his people rather than anyone else
 
Assuming Charles I dies other than by formal execution.

In 1648 the army was angry with Parliament. There was the demand for manhood suffrage.

Suppose a subtle King Charles |II suggests he would accept a Parliament elected by all men.

If there could have been a relatively honest election with manhood suffrage might the KING have persuaded a majority of Englishmen to vote for his people rather than anyone else

If I understand the question properly, your asking, what would happen if Charles I died of a heart attack in lets say 1545, his successor Charles II, ignoring his war-mongering mother, wishes to call a truce on the English Civil War and negotiates a "Constitutional Monarchy"?

First off it would be a revolutionary idea for the 17th Century Europe, but not ASB.
Charles II would have heard that Olive Cromwell was not just out for victory but blood ... and royal blood at that.

In 1624, Cardinal de Richelieu was often known by the title of the King's "Chief Minister" or "First Minister".
You could have Charles II appoint a "loyal" Parliamentarian to take the office of King's "Chancellor" who has the power to call debates in parliament, controlls the treasury form a council of his choosing as adviser but does not have power in foreign or military policies eg. alliances or declaring war.

The first Chancellor would most likely be Thomas Fairfax, a Parliamentarian who disliked Cromwells tyranical style.
 
If I understand the question properly, your asking, what would happen if Charles I died of a heart attack in lets say 1545, his successor Charles II, ignoring his war-mongering mother, wishes to call a truce on the English Civil War and negotiates a "Constitutional Monarchy"?

First off it would be a revolutionary idea for the 17th Century Europe, but not ASB.
Charles II would have heard that Olive Cromwell was not just out for victory but blood ... and royal blood at that.

In 1624, Cardinal de Richelieu was often known by the title of the King's "Chief Minister" or "First Minister".
You could have Charles II appoint a "loyal" Parliamentarian to take the office of King's "Chancellor" who has the power to call debates in parliament, controlls the treasury form a council of his choosing as adviser but does not have power in foreign or military policies eg. alliances or declaring war.

The first Chancellor would most likely be Thomas Fairfax, a Parliamentarian who disliked Cromwells tyranical style.

Doesn't the King already have a Chancellor who was typically a clergyman? Perhaps a Steward?
 
Having watched the TV programme The Devils Whore, their is a part when Cromwell refuses to hold any form of election as it could mean the King could gain some support within parliament who may then question his authority to kill the king especially as most of the population was against such an action.
 
My thought is a bit later, the King calculating that an election with everyone voting would help him and appealing to radicals in the army
 
Doesn't the King already have a Chancellor who was typically a clergyman? Perhaps a Steward?

That what I was unsure of. I know there is a "secretary of state" so kings secretary is out of the question.
Steward just doesnt sound like a strong political title.


Lord (Regent Prince/Grand Duke) of Westminister?
Protector of the realm? (Mixture of Cromwell's Lord Procter)

You need a title that isn't to over the top but is strong enough to be feared by the king and looked up to by the people

Having watched the TV programme The Devils Whore, their is a part when Cromwell refuses to hold any form of election as it could mean the King could gain some support within parliament who may then question his authority to kill the king especially as most of the population was against such an action.

But with the P.O.D being Charles I is natural death, the enemy is now a 19 year old man who has inherited this war from his father.
I cant see many on the side of Cromwell, screaming for his head.
 
My thought is a bit later, the King calculating that an election with everyone voting would help him and appealing to radicals in the army

But radicals swing both way, some may vote for him to be robbed of his crown but not the head it sits on.
With people living in poverty, like the american revolution, why vote for a man to live in luxury and power when we have nothing.

Could England become a fully constitutionalised republic in the 17th Century.
I think having a constitutional monarchy, with it all in writing would be better :)
 
Suppose a subtle King Charles |II suggests he would accept a Parliament elected by all men.
Why he'd propose universal manhood suffrage when no one else in the world had it is beyond me.

However, if he proposed dropping the property qualification to minimal levels, that might do. It would massively increase the electorate, and the new voters are going to be more favourably disposed toward him. For a while.

HOWEVER
This is a Stuart we're talking about. Stuart kings ranged from having the sense of a 5 year old, to having the sense of a mad bunny.

Also, why would Parliament accept it?
 
Top