WI: Charles I Stuart spared, but imprisoned

[Emperor Lucas I]

Let just say that first English Civil War happened like OTL, but while Commonwealth is estabilished, leaders or anti-royalist opposition decide that Charles Stuart, former King of England should'nt be executed (let just say that they don't want to make martyr out of him) but instead he should spend the rest of his life as prisoner of Tower. So, there is no first execution of ruling king by subjects, and Charles (II) James and other kids of king are no children of the convict. How stable Commonwealth would be, assuming thast former king is alive and relatively well? And how different post-restoration England would be?

 

[UCB79]

I think the Commonwealth would have lasted for even less time than it did IOTL.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Have Fairfax rise to the top of the Parliamentarian cause instead of Cromwell.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

There is a reason why overthrown monarchs were usually killed, unless they could get away to another country.

In English history, the Yorkists tried to keep Henry VI alive and imprisoned. The next coup released Henry VI from prison and attempted to reinstate him as a figurehead. Later, James II left or was allowed to leave, and his successors had to deal with two rebellions. Its surprising Edward VIII was allowed to die of old age in France.

Charles I also seemed to be determined to go down as a martyr, which wound up working to secure the throne for his son. A POD where he goes quietly into exile, and stays there, has a good chance of averting the restoration.

 

[UCB79]

There is a reason why overthrown monarchs were usually killed, unless they could get away to another country.

In English history, the Yorkists tried to keep Henry VI alive and imprisoned. The next coup released Henry VI from prison and attempted to reinstate him as a figurehead. Later, James II left or was allowed to leave, and his successors had to deal with two rebellions. Its surprising Edward VIII was allowed to die of old age in France.

Charles I also seemed to be determined to go down as a martyr, which wound up working to secure the throne for his son. A POD where he goes quietly into exile, and stays there, has a good chance of averting the restoration.

I’m sorry Galba but I have one question. Didn’t Edward VIII notoriously abdicate the throne in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

If the medieval practice had remained in place, Edward VIII would have been beheaded, after a trial showing to everyone he was a German spy.

Allowing prominent leaders and key supports of defeated political factions to live out their lives is really a modern thing. It was sometimes attempted in the past, but it was really risky to let defeated leaders live.

 

[NedStark]

Charles I could be exiled to Virginia for the rest of his days (he could be thrown into the sea during the trip to the New World).

Charles I also seemed to be determined to go down as a martyr, which wound up working to secure the throne for his son. A POD where he goes quietly into exile, and stays there, has a good chance of averting the restoration.

Or he "disappears".

 

[NedStark]

Whether Restoration would occur or not depends on averting Pride's Purge and successful demobilization of New Model Army, rather than Charles' fate.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Its surprising Edward VIII was allowed to die of old age in France.

Not surprising at all.
Leaders who are overthrown have a good chance of being killed. Ones that abdicated, not so much.

Plenty of examples of both overthrown and abdicated living.
Charles V of the Habsburg empire
Phillip V of Spain
Charles IV of Spain
Napoleon III, France
Manuel II, Portugal
Pedro I and II, Brazil

These are just the ones that immediately come to mind. There's a few residing in my foggy memory bank that I can't pull out right now, but I'm sure if I put some effort in, I could find them, and other examples. Ditto for dictators.

Violent ends are not uncommon, but neither are exiles.

The British Monarchy of 1930s was not as ceremonial as today, but it also wasn't truly running the empire. There was little need of bumping off Edward III, and most likely would have been massively counter productive.

As to the OP, this was the era of execution, when it was acceptable to settle a threat with an axe. A republic (especially if it had any struggles) would be at extreme risk from a monarch in chains. It might be easier to re-ignite monarchial sentiment if a deposed King were still alive. Whether OTL republic would collapse quicker, or hold on a little longer, probably doesn't make much difference overall. The end result is likely the same.