WI: Charles I replaced rather than executed?

When Charles I was captured at the end of the English Civil War, there was some debate amongst the Parliamentarian leaders over what they should do next. One idea was that Charles I should be deposed and replaced with his youngest son, Henry Duke of Gloucester (the other two sons had both fled to France by this point). Obviously this idea came to nothing and Parliament instead opted to execute Charles and set up a republic, but what if they had decided to make Henry king instead?

Bonus question: What if, instead of choosing either of the above options, they decide to take a more "moderate" course of action ("moderate" in that it involves less disturbance to the established rules of succession), and, whilst still deposing Charles I, write to Prince Charles in France offering him the throne? Would Prince Charles accept the offer (possibly because he thinks he'd better be able to keep his father safe from vengeful Parliamentarians)? And with his son on the throne, would Charles I be willing to retire gracefully instead of constantly scheming to get back in power?
 
Hmmm. I like the last part about his son taking the throne and retiring, but my gut says that could still lead to scheming or trying to pull the strings on his son or something. I actually got my signature from someone on this site giving his opinion of the man.
 

samcster94

Banned
When Charles I was captured at the end of the English Civil War, there was some debate amongst the Parliamentarian leaders over what they should do next. One idea was that Charles I should be deposed and replaced with his youngest son, Henry Duke of Gloucester (the other two sons had both fled to France by this point). Obviously this idea came to nothing and Parliament instead opted to execute Charles and set up a republic, but what if they had decided to make Henry king instead?

Bonus question: What if, instead of choosing either of the above options, they decide to take a more "moderate" course of action ("moderate" in that it involves less disturbance to the established rules of succession), and, whilst still deposing Charles I, write to Prince Charles in France offering him the throne? Would Prince Charles accept the offer (possibly because he thinks he'd better be able to keep his father safe from vengeful Parliamentarians)? And with his son on the throne, would Charles I be willing to retire gracefully instead of constantly scheming to get back in power?
Why not send him into Exile?
 

Kaze

Banned
You might have to nerf Oliver Cromwell in order to have it happen. Oliver would want a say in what happens to the king or about the replacement - I could see where the replacement is nothing more than Oliver's figurehead.
 
Hmmm. I like the last part about his son taking the throne and retiring, but my gut says that could still lead to scheming or trying to pull the strings on his son or something. I actually got my signature from someone on this site giving his opinion of the man.

Yeah, maybe. That would probably be more likely with Henry, since he was still quite young and hence presumably more open to outside pressure. (Indeed, that's part of the reason why he was the favoured candidate to replace Charles.) I'm not sure how Parliament would react if he did so -- execution would run the risk of alienating the new King, who'd be sure to try and get his revenge when he was able to, so maybe exile.

Why not send him into Exile?

I was assuming that Henry or Charles II wouldn't be too keen on sending their dad into exile, though I guess they could be made to accept it if Parliament made it clear that it was that or execution/imprisonment/something else very nasty.

You might have to nerf Oliver Cromwell in order to have it happen. Oliver would want a say in what happens to the king or about the replacement - I could see where the replacement is nothing more than Oliver's figurehead.

Admittedly it's been a while since I've read up on this period, but as I recall Cromwell was still just one of several leading Parliamentarians at this point, and hadn't yet reached the pre-eminent position he'd come to enjoy later on. Plus, he was initially undecided about what to do with Charles, and only came to support execution after the King was found out in one scheme too many. So if you can restrain Charles' scheming for a while (a big ask, I grant you), it's possible that Cromwell might come to support crowing a new King rather than abolishing the monarchy altogether.
 
So if you can restrain Charles' scheming for a while (a big ask, I grant you), it's possible that Cromwell might come to support crowing a new King rather than abolishing the monarchy altogether.

I read somewhere (Antonia Fraser's book maybe?) that Cromwell was one of the leaders who would support Prince Henry as the new King. I've always wondered how this would turn up, if I'm not mistaken Henry grew up as a staunch Protestant, nothing at all like his brother James. Then again, he died young so there's no real way to judge his character especially since most writers use him as a contrast to James (and of course, to quote Harvey Dent "You die a hero or live long enough to be the villain").

I'd say he would have been an acceptable King for the Puritans, assuming he didn't inherit Charles I's stupidity and stubbornness. Also once upon a time I wanted to write a timeline titled "England's 3 Henrys: King Henry Stuart, Lord Protector Henry Ireton and Captain-General Henry Cromwell!" XD

That being said, Cromwell eventually decided that the monarchy had to go ("I will not rebuild Jericho"), perhaps influenced by anti-monarchy sentiments of the Army officers (including his son in law Henry Ireton), so this wouldn't really worked. There's also Prince Henry himself who would never agree to usurp his older brothers, having promised Charles I on the day before the King was beheaded ("I'll be torn to pieces first!" were his words, according to a memoir written by his sister).

Perhaps you'd need a POD where both Charles II and James died first (yikes) for Henry to agree to be king, but even then I'd doubt he'd accept being part of a government that chopped off his father's head!
 
Perhaps you'd need a POD where both Charles II and James died first (yikes) for Henry to agree to be king, but even then I'd doubt he'd accept being part of a government that chopped off his father's head!

He could pull a Richard II, pretending to acquiesce but actually looking for an opportunity to assert his authority and take his revenge on the killers.
 
From what I understand while Protestant Henry was also staunchly royalist and wouldn't usurp his brother's title.
So if he's Regent what's to stop him inviting his dad and brothers back?
 
The biggest problem with this scenario is what you do with Charles I. Since 1648, arguably since the Windsor Prayer Meet of that year among New Model Army leadership, there had been a general resolution that they were going to bring Charles to account for his perceived crimes. Letting him melt away into a quiet retirement would anger a great many on the Parliamentary side, but putting him on trial effectively ends your ability to control young Henry beyond making him very obviously your hostage puppet King. Remember to that Charles OTL made Henry promise not to usurp him - you might argue that they would crown him anyway, but the Parliamentarians craved political consensus after the war. Crowning a screaming, struggling, child and having that fact widely known in the country doesn't do their new regime any favours in terms of legitimacy.

Also, a wider problem is what you do about Charles II and James. Do you declare them traitors? Do you try and lure them back? How do you deal with the fact that your Monarch's two older brothers are very much alive and well?

You also butt up against the problem of Charles I's belief in the Divine Right of Kings. Why should he accept this situation being forced on him and, if it is forced regardless, why shouldn't he scheme against it? He is, after all, answerable only to God...
 
I believe I remember reading some where that “Charles I” requested his youngest son Henry promise not to accept the crown in accordance with his brother’s godly right.
 
Top