Saving the Commonwealth after the death of Oliver Cromwell

How could the restoration of the monarchy in Britain have been avoided after the death of Oliver Cromwell? With the monarchy never being restored.
 
Well we'd need Charles Fleetwood to be the next Lord Protector, seeing as Richard Cromwell had no experience in anything like that. Fleetwood could've suppressed any revolutions. Also a stronger parliament and the Lord Protector being more like a President than a Monarch probably would've helped.
 
Following the death of his father on September 3, 1958, Richard Cromwell states that he is unqualified by temperament and character to assume the responsibilities of Lord Protector and recommends that Charles Fleetwood assumes that post. Fleetwood becomes Lord Protector. He dissolves the Long Parliament, and elections are held to the House of Commons which would draw up a constitution for a British republic.

Fleetwood enters into negotiations with Edward Hyde (the future Earl of Clarendon) who agrees to his support for the government in return for lifting all financial and other penalties on royalists. Hyde returns to London and is given a position in Fleetwood's government. Fleetwood allows the Book of Common Prayer to be used in churches and chapels.
 
By the time Cromwell died it was too late for the Commonwealth to survive. There were numerous attempts prior to Cromwell's death to institute a truly Republican constitution, and to hold new elections for a Parliament that would represent the will of the English people. Attempts were then made to regularize Cromwell's rule by making him the new King. Both attempts were also blocked by Cromwell. It is clear that from at least 1653 he was set to make the Commonwealth dependent on him alone, on his person outside of any constitutional arrangements.

I think that if you remove Cromwell earlier, having him die of malaria while on the Irish Campaign perhaps, you could have the Republic survive. I doubt anyone would be able to replace Cromwell (in terms of sticking close to OTL), and at the same time the leading men of the Republic are also regicides and have no interest in seeing the monarchy reinstated. That is a good combination for some kind of republican constitution being adopted. Also, if Cromwell is gone, I don't think any other figure would be able to keep the New Model Army together following the defeat of Charles II during the Scottish campaign. A split in the Army, combined with a new constitution, could give Britain a true Republic.
 
No real contributions as to what's likely or plausible, but could I put in a request? I've been researching John Lilburne and the Levellers. Only a few of them were evidently true early modern socialists, and many of them advocated (and died for advocating) notions that really everyone living in a liberal society today would take for granted. They used petitions, for God's sakes!

So it would be fun to see a timeline in which Britain did not return to monarchy (and I will refrain here from the rather picturesque turn of phrase Wordsworth used to describe the analogous moment in the French Revolution when those awful Bourbons came back to the roost), but went all-out people-power. Enough so that say the tensions between motherland and colonies in the eighteenth century exists more along the lines of the colonial planters attempting to retain the privileges of birth at the far reaches of the polity where the long arm of Parliament couldn't quite reach, and the English radicals attempting break down the planter aristocracy. So that Washington, Jefferson and company are conservatives.

The more I think about this the more I like.
 
Originally posted by Matthias Corvinus
I think if you remove Cromwell earlier, having him die of malaria on the Irish campaign perhaps, you could have the Republic survive.

In OTL Cromwell returns to England from Ireland on November 26, 1650 and never returns again to Ireland. At this time he is one of the 41 members of the English Council of State ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Council_of_State) is therefore the de jure head of government/ head of state. ) which is the executive government of the Commonwealth of England. Its membership includes three earls and two lords. The elected President of the Council is John Bradshaw - http://www.nndb.com/people/135/000102826 , who is the de jure head of government (and head of state?)

Following the death of Cromwell in Ireland in this scenario, there would probably be a contest between Charles Fleetwood and Henry Ireton for real power in the Commonwealth.
 
No real contributions as to what's likely or plausible, but could I put in a request? I've been researching John Lilburne and the Levellers. Only a few of them were evidently true early modern socialists, and many of them advocated (and died for advocating) notions that really everyone living in a liberal society today would take for granted. They used petitions, for God's sakes!

So it would be fun to see a timeline in which Britain did not return to monarchy (and I will refrain here from the rather picturesque turn of phrase Wordsworth used to describe the analogous moment in the French Revolution when those awful Bourbons came back to the roost), but went all-out people-power. Enough so that say the tensions between motherland and colonies in the eighteenth century exists more along the lines of the colonial planters attempting to retain the privileges of birth at the far reaches of the polity where the long arm of Parliament couldn't quite reach, and the English radicals attempting break down the planter aristocracy. So that Washington, Jefferson and company are conservatives.

The more I think about this the more I like.

Getting the Levellers in charge of England is difficult. If you look at English politics during the Civil War, what it basically came down to was what the Army wanted. Cromwell decided what the Army wanted OTL, but that control was threatened at the Putney Debates. At the Debates the newly elected Agiatators (representatives of the enlisted men) argued in favor of the First Agreement of the People (a Leveller produced document) being the Army's manifesto. The Debates ended with an agreement to have a mass-meeting of the Army, where a new manifesto would be sworn to. However, the mass-meeting never took place, and convienently, Charles I escaped, restarting the Civil War and allowing Cromwell to purge the most outspoken pro-Leveller officers.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=79097
 
In the not-quite Dr Who spin-off "Republica" its John Lambert who gets the succession to Cromwell. This then nudges history into a lasting Commonwealth, with a dynasty of Lamberts

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
In order to establish permament legitimacy an English republican government would need the support of moderate royalists such as Edward Hyde and moderate parliamentarians such as Lord Fairfax. This would require a policy of religious toleration towards all Christian churches and sects (except Roman Catholics) which do not want to overthrow the Commonwealth.

There would also need to be a skilful propaganda campaign in which Charles Stuart (the eldest son of Charles I) is characterised as hardly more than a boy - irresponsible, a debauched whore-monger with a string of mistresses (and the contemporary equivalent of a playboy), in contrast to the sober, God-fearing, responsible, politically experienced, family man John Bradshaw and other members of the Council of State.

The execution of Charles I is presented as a "cruel necessity", something undertaken with the utmost reluctance because there was no alternative. Parliament had endeavoured for two years to come to a satisfactory agreement with Charles which would preserve his life and his throne, but he acted in bad faith by starting the Second Civil War in 1648. He could erven be compared favourably with his son. Perhaps John Milton writes some pamphlets for the government.

If after the failure of Charles Stuart's attempt to claim the throne and Royalist armies are defeated at Dunbar in 1650 and Worcester in 1651, and Charles returns to the Continent as in OTL, the Council of State must disband the army in order to avoid a military dictatorship. It would be advantageous to pay all troops who are not officers their arrears and possibly a pension based on their years of service in the army.

The Council of State dissolves the Long Parliament in Spring 1652 and elections are held to the House of Commons. A republican constitution for the Commonwealth is discussed and passed by the new House and approved by the Council of State.

Models which are available for a non-monarchical form of government include the Swiss Republic, Venice, the Judges of Israel, and the Roman Republic.

If the republican government rules efficiently, copes as well as it can with the Great Plague in 1665 and the Fire of London in 1666, and avoids disastrous foreign wars, by the 1680s it will have achieved widespread acceptance at home and abroad.

James Scott (the Duke of Monmouth in OTL) renounces his claim to the English throne and returns to England in the 1670s or 1680s. He has a successful political career and becomes a prominent member of the government.

As in OTL, an English or British republican government would have an anti-French foreign policy. There would be the same alliances in the Spanish War of Succession and the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War in North America), with the same problems arising in the American colonies after that war.
 
In order to establish permament legitimacy an English republican government would need the support of moderate royalists such as Edward Hyde and moderate parliamentarians such as Lord Fairfax. This would require a policy of religious toleration towards all Christian churches and sects (except Roman Catholics) which do not want to overthrow the Commonwealth.

There would also need to be a skilful propaganda campaign in which Charles Stuart (the eldest son of Charles I) is characterised as hardly more than a boy - irresponsible, a debauched whore-monger with a string of mistresses (and the contemporary equivalent of a playboy), in contrast to the sober, God-fearing, responsible, politically experienced, family man John Bradshaw and other members of the Council of State.

The execution of Charles I is presented as a "cruel necessity", something undertaken with the utmost reluctance because there was no alternative. Parliament had endeavoured for two years to come to a satisfactory agreement with Charles which would preserve his life and his throne, but he acted in bad faith by starting the Second Civil War in 1648. He could erven be compared favourably with his son. Perhaps John Milton writes some pamphlets for the government.

Royalists are royalists- they support the Stuarts and a return to monarchy. Under any Constitution they will be excluded from government- if you look at the various constitutional schemes offered post-execution all exclude both Catholics and Royalists from any participation in government. Anyone who wants a Republic is a regicide, and they can't risk royalists and a restoration.

Fairfax was appointed the head the judges who were to try Charles I. However, he thought the fix was in for Charles and refused to participate in the proceedings. He shortly thereafter resigned from the Army and stayed at his estate through the rest of the interregnum. He did not want to participate in a government of regicides, which

If after the failure of Charles Stuart's attempt to claim the throne and Royalist armies are defeated at Dunbar in 1650 and Worcester in 1651, and Charles returns to the Continent as in OTL, the Council of State must disband the army in order to avoid a military dictatorship. It would be advantageous to pay all troops who are not officers their arrears and possibly a pension based on their years of service in the army.

The Council of State dissolves the Long Parliament in Spring 1652 and elections are held to the House of Commons. A republican constitution for the Commonwealth is discussed and passed by the new House and approved by the Council of State.

Models which are available for a non-monarchical form of government include the Swiss Republic, Venice, the Judges of Israel, and the Roman Republic.

Has Cromwell died in this scenario?

The Long Parliament is no longer sitting following Pride's Purge, it has been turned into the Rump Parliament. Neither has the support of the Army though, the first opposing Army policy and the second an unhappy creature of the Army.

The Council of State was dominated by the Army, by the officers who are going to need the Army in order to disband Parliament and control the country until new elections can be held.

I think the best that could be done would be that instead of Pride's Purge and the Rump Parliament executing the King, the Long Parliament be forced to pass a Redistricting Bill, a Franchise Bill and an Elections Bill be disbanded, and new elections held in 1649. Catholics and Royalists can be excluded from voting or running for Parliament, and the Army enfranchised. Basically, force Parliament to pass some kind of Heads of/Agreement of the People Compromise. The new Parliament will have the legitimacy of the People, and be in a better constitutional position to execute the King.

By excluding Royalists and keeping the Army in the field, the Army Council would be able to basically control the election, accusing anyone too opposed to their agenda of Royalist sympathies. A constitution must be passed which will do what the Army wants it to do, and a Parliament must be elected the Army trusts not to try and prevent them from getting any owed pay or pensions. This kind of arrangement never existed (or was never allowed to exist) OTL.

After that, the Army can probably be pensioned off with land seized from royalists in England, and with most of Ireland.

If the republican government rules efficiently, copes as well as it can with the Great Plague in 1665 and the Fire of London in 1666, and avoids disastrous foreign wars, by the 1680s it will have achieved widespread acceptance at home and abroad.

As in OTL, an English or British republican government would have an anti-French foreign policy. There would be the same alliances in the Spanish War of Succession and the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War in North America), with the same problems arising in the American colonies after that war.

Actually, the Commonwealth allied with France, and New Model Army troops fought in France for the monarchy during the Spanish Fronde (Turenne versus Conde). The Commonwealth viewed Spain as their larger enemy- Cromwell wanted to conquer Spanish America.
 
Originally posted by Matthias Corvinus
Has Cromwell died in this scenario [as quoted above in his message]?

He dies of fever on the Irish campaign in 1649 or 1650.

Originally posted by Matthias Corvinus
I think that the best that could be done would be that instead of Pride's Purge and the Rump Parliament executing the king, the Long Parliament be forced to pass a Redistricting Bill, a Franchise Bill and an Elections Bill be disbanded, and new elections held in 1649.

Would the Redistricting Bill abolish the pocket and rotten boroughs and give representation to growing areas of population? Would the Franchise Bill extend the franchise beyond the 40 shilling freeholders in the county constituencies, and regularise it in the borough constituencies. Of course women would not be enfranchised, nor would servants or paupers. There would be a requirement to own or rent property, perhaps above a minimum value.

I would imagine that the attitude of royalists to the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in this TL ranges from those who desire to see it restored, but do no more than voice their opinions to their family or very close friends only (the sentimental royalists), to those who would take an active part in armed Royalist uprisings if the opportunity ever arose (the militant royalists). As time goes by the militant royalists would come to accept the Commonwealth, as it establishs its legitimacy and the realistic prospect of a Stuart restoration disappears to vanishing point.

Any Protestant English or British government would oppose the expanionist aims of Louis XIV and would be in the anti-French coalition in the War of the League of Augsburg and the War of the Spanish Succession. Also an English or British republic would still be a rival to France in North America, India and other places in the 18th and 19th centuries.
 
He dies of fever on the Irish campaign in 1649 or 1650.

Would the Redistricting Bill abolish the pocket and rotten boroughs and give representation to growing areas of population? Would the Franchise Bill extend the franchise beyond the 40 shilling freeholders in the county constituencies, and regularise it in the borough constituencies. Of course women would not be enfranchised, nor would servants or paupers. There would be a requirement to own or rent property, perhaps above a minimum value.

Something like that, along with giving veterans of the Army the right to vote regardless of property qualifications.

I would imagine that the attitude of royalists to the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in this TL ranges from those who desire to see it restored, but do no more than voice their opinions to their family or very close friends only (the sentimental royalists), to those who would take an active part in armed Royalist uprisings if the opportunity ever arose (the militant royalists). As time goes by the militant royalists would come to accept the Commonwealth, as it establishs its legitimacy and the realistic prospect of a Stuart restoration disappears to vanishing point.
Royalists OTL launched multiple rebellions after the their initial loss in the First Civil War. Instigating the Second Civil War is what Charles I was put on trail and executed for. Even after Charles II had been defeated and Scotland subdued there was another rebellion in 1655. With the harsh suppression of Ireland under Cromwell and Ireton, that island is also going to be a source of continual rebellion, probably done in the name of whomever the English Pretender is.

Royalists were excluded from all the constitutional schemes drawn up during the Commonwealth and Protectorate, and rightfully so, they didn't recognize the basic tenet the Commonwealth was resting on- that government's legitimacy derived from the People, not from the King. So royalists, like Catholics, wouldn't be able to participate in any Commonwealth government

Any Protestant English or British government would oppose the expanionist aims of Louis XIV and would be in the anti-French coalition in the War of the League of Augsburg and the War of the Spanish Succession. Also an English or British republic would still be a rival to France in North America, India and other places in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I agree they probably would, but I think that the ripples from a successful English Commonwealth might significantly affect Europe during this time as well. For instance, with the English constitution as an example the Dutch could well officially end the rule of the House of Orange, which would really change who is on which side during the reign of Louis XIV.
 
In this TL in which Oliver Cromwell dies in December !649 of fever while campaigning in a wet Irish autumn, Sir Henry Vane the Younger ( http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Vane_the_Younger )would have played a more prominent role than he did in OTL.

In OTL he was placed on the Council of State in February 1649 on which he was a leading member of the committee dealing with foreign policy, and commissioner of the navy. In domestic politics he advocated religious toleration and was opposed to a state church. On 9th January 1650 he published his report on elections. He wished to reform the franchise on the property basis, to disfranchise some of the existing boroughs, and to give increased representation to the large towns. This was opposed by Cromwell who wanted an entirely new Parliament under the control of the army.

In this TL there is no dissolution of Parliament by Cromwell as he did in OTL on 20th April 1650, and Vane would not have retired to his estates. He continues to be a prominent member of the Council of State. In May 1659 (in OTL) he advocated for a Senate. If John Bradshaw is the equivalent of President of the Commonwealth, Vane would be a leading contender to succeed him on his death in October 1659. With no restoration of Charles II he would not be executed for high treason. He would have been influential in pushing the policy of the Commonwealth in a liberal direction and for a Parliament supreme over the army.

He was born in 1613, if he lived as long as his father who died at the age of 65, he would have died in 1678 or 1679.

By the end of the 17th century rudimentary political groupings of conservatives and liberals would have developed. Compared with OTL, the franchise would be wider than before the 1832 Reform Act but narrower than after the 1884 Reform Act. However the landed gentry and mercantile intersts would have a major influence in the House of Commons, and in the Senate if one is established, probably at least until the mid 19th century. I would expect the secret ballot to be introduced earlier than it was in OTL (1872).

The Slave Trade would probably have been abolished earlier than in OTL (1807) though probably not until the last quarter of the 18th century.

A liberal British republican government would welcome the French Revolution, at least until the Reign of Terror, if it happens as in OTL. I expect it would ally with the Revolutionary government in its wars with the European powers in the 1790s, or be neutral. Although if Napolean seizes power as First Consul in 1799 as in OTL, the British government would probably oppose his empire building war policy.

I would expect British colonisation of North America to continue more or less as in OTL. As regards the relationship between the Thirteen Colonies and Britain by the 1760s it is feasible that a British republican government would be willing to give them autonomy in an Anglo-American federation.
 
Tony Jones' website has one form of this possibility. In this one, Charles I is not executed but instead is exiled, and he eventually returns and drives Cromwell from power. Cromwell and his followers go into exile in New England, and eventually form a New Commonwealth with Boston as the capital. It ends up occupying most of North America, New Zealand, eastern Australia, Japan, as well as Britain and Ireland, and is invading France at the end of the timeline.

http://www.clockworksky.net/puritan_world/ah_pw_top.html
 
Top