Radicals get their way- the election of 1649

WI, for whatever combination of reasons, "The agreement of the people" is enacted and there is an election under manhood suffrage in England in 1649.

I have a suspicion that most voters would be very small farmers of agricultural labourers. I wonder if they might have voted for folk wanting Charles the second back asap.
 

Thande

Donor
I have a suspicion that most voters would be very small farmers of agricultural labourers. I wonder if they might have voted for folk wanting Charles the second back asap.

That seems very likely, given the undercurrent of royalism among poorer voters - which is probably why Cromwell made sure there wouldn't be an election.

Hard to see how this could happen. I suppose there might be a coup by Levellers who are too ideologically blinded to realise that giving the vote to everyone would only put royalists in power?
 

Deleted member 5719

Yes, what about it?

Royalism amongst the poor of 17th century England, I was unaware of the poor having a Royalist bias at the time. I know that Ranters and Levellers found support amongst the poor, but if you have evidence for lumpenroyalism I would be genuinely interested to her about it.

Whereas if you are taking a (debatable) premise that the modern poor back the monarchy more than other classes, then it would be anachronistic and irrelevant to the topic in question.

Re suffrage... An election would be difficult to conjure up.

Maybe we could have a more mutinous Putney Debates, with a limited extension of the franchise conceded by Cromwell? This could then be extended, but for democracy to survive we would need Cromwell off the scene, if he couldn't hack the landowning rump parliament, what would he make of a crowd of newly elected Levellers?
 
Top