WI: Charles I wins the English Civil War?

Unless you (as the originator) giving the people watching this thread permission to contribute to the thread you linked to, I don't think anyone is allowed to do anything but look at it.
 
Unless you (as the originator) giving the people watching this thread permission to contribute to the thread you linked to, I don't think anyone is allowed to do anything but look at it.
There is Private Inbox for that : when you post a thread into the public discussioj board it becomes...well, public discussion, on which onliners can be annoying white noise.
Now can we resume to the discussion?
 
Then (assuming this doesn't';t butterfly his descendants) we have no Glorious Revolution. This might cause religious problems...

Why would Charles I winning butterfly the Glorious Revolution? I'm on the wrong side of the pond to be an expert in British history, but I know the House of Stuart was eventually restored, so James II is king either way.
 
A royalist win for Charles means James II has a much stronger standing. This is assuming that Charles II marries the same person and decides to call his kid "James." If James is butterflied away, we have no Glorious Revolution. If James II still comes, well, he's sitting on a throne with enhanced legitimacy and a treasury not depleted by parliamentary weakening. Also, James is in a much stronger position to... persuade a few others to tolerate him.
 
Just explode the parliament and get away with it

No, jokes apart, I wonder if this would butterfly the british empire, I remember that one of my teachers once said that without Oliver Crowell the british empire never would have been able to expand its colonies, I don't remember the reason tough, it was so long ago....
 
Just explode the parliament and get away with it

No, jokes apart, I wonder if this would butterfly the british empire, I remember that one of my teachers once said that without Oliver Crowell the british empire never would have been able to expand its colonies, I don't remember the reason tough, it was so long ago....

I think that's a load of bollocks.
 
...

why?

(also I love when someone from the united kingdom acts full imperialistic like that :D )

Not sure how that's imperialistic aha.

And because stating that without one man an empire would not have been born is great revisionism. The British Empire didn't start with one man, it started due to countless things over the years that gradually led to the empire forming.
 
Not sure how that's imperialistic aha.

"load of bollocks", there is also the classic "You pleb" and "TAKE THAT WALLES MUAHAHHAHA", the "The british navy would crush them for sure" is also cool

And because stating that without one man an empire would not have been born is great revisionism. The British Empire didn't start with one man, it started due to countless things over the years that gradually led to the empire forming.

Meh, my teacher was a left wing republican anyway, he probably said that of pure ideology
 
Not sure how that's imperialistic aha.

And because stating that without one man an empire would not have been born is great revisionism. The British Empire didn't start with one man, it started due to countless things over the years that gradually led to the empire forming.

Actually, one man was greatly responsible for the ability of the English (and later British) state to be able to leverage its way into an Empire like it did, but it wasn't Oliver Cromwell.

It was John Pym. His ability to direct Parliament, while he lived, well enough to build the foundations of the fiscal-military state that would evolve into the British Empire was almost unique. Charles (and none of the Stuart monarchs, really) would never have been able to corral Parliament (even, and maybe especially in the aftermath of a Royalist victory) in the same way Pym could to pass deeply un-popular but fiscally powerful legislation like the system of excises, at least not anywhere near on the scale that Pym put together.

Without the reign of the Long Parliament and the social precedents set by Pym's tenure as Big Dick therein, the English state probably stays 'small' for a lot longer.

And I agree with what others have been saying about a second Civil War eventually. Winning in England does absolutely zero about the Covenanters in Scotland and Charles' feelings on bishops aren't likely to change after a clear victory in England. His attitudes and policies are going to keep stirring up resentment and there's going to be an explosion at some point.

Meh, my teacher was a left wing republican anyway, he probably said that of pure ideology

No, your teacher had the right of it, mostly. VVD0D95 is just a weirdo crypto-monarchist of some sort with very fringe opinions on things.
 
Actually, one man was greatly responsible for the ability of the English (and later British) state to be able to leverage its way into an Empire like it did, but it wasn't Oliver Cromwell.

It was John Pym. His ability to direct Parliament, while he lived, well enough to build the foundations of the fiscal-military state that would evolve into the British Empire was almost unique. Charles (and none of the Stuart monarchs, really) would never have been able to corral Parliament (even, and maybe especially in the aftermath of a Royalist victory) in the same way Pym could to pass deeply un-popular but fiscally powerful legislation like the system of excises, at least not anywhere near on the scale that Pym put together.

Without the reign of the Long Parliament and the social precedents set by Pym's tenure as Big Dick therein, the English state probably stays 'small' for a lot longer.

And I agree with what others have been saying about a second Civil War eventually. Winning in England does absolutely zero about the Covenanters in Scotland and Charles' feelings on bishops aren't likely to change after a clear victory in England. His attitudes and policies are going to keep stirring up resentment and there's going to be an explosion at some point.



No, your teacher had the right of it, mostly. VVD0D95 is just a weirdo crypto-monarchist of some sort with very fringe opinions on things.

Interesting, and how would one change it so that the Stuarts were more willing to adapt a PYm like mentality?
 
"load of bollocks", there is also the classic "You pleb" and "TAKE THAT WALLES MUAHAHHAHA", the "The british navy would crush them for sure" is also cool



Meh, my teacher was a left wing republican anyway, he probably said that of pure ideology

Lmao then a lot of Brits even the hardcore lefties are imperialists then aha
 
Why would Charles I winning butterfly the Glorious Revolution? I'm on the wrong side of the pond to be an expert in British history, but I know the House of Stuart was eventually restored, so James II is king either way.

Without James' exposure to Catholicism during his continental exile, he might have remained an Anglican, which would certainly butterfly away the GR, at least in anything approaching its OTL form.
 
Actually, one man was greatly responsible for the ability of the English (and later British) state to be able to leverage its way into an Empire like it did, but it wasn't Oliver Cromwell.

It was John Pym. His ability to direct Parliament, while he lived, well enough to build the foundations of the fiscal-military state that would evolve into the British Empire was almost unique. Charles (and none of the Stuart monarchs, really) would never have been able to corral Parliament (even, and maybe especially in the aftermath of a Royalist victory) in the same way Pym could to pass deeply un-popular but fiscally powerful legislation like the system of excises, at least not anywhere near on the scale that Pym put together.

Without the reign of the Long Parliament and the social precedents set by Pym's tenure as Big Dick therein, the English state probably stays 'small' for a lot longer.

And I agree with what others have been saying about a second Civil War eventually. Winning in England does absolutely zero about the Covenanters in Scotland and Charles' feelings on bishops aren't likely to change after a clear victory in England. His attitudes and policies are going to keep stirring up resentment and there's going to be an explosion at some point.

Thanks for the exaplanation, the only difference is that my teacher said something related to a decree that Cromwell made about the navy, but I really do not remember which decreé was that

Lmao then a lot of Brits even the hardcore lefties are imperialists then aha

Ideologically they are not imperialist, but according to the comments I have seen in this site they still sound imperialistic, and this is beautifull

 
Thanks for the exaplanation, the only difference is that my teacher said something related to a decree that Cromwell made about the navy, but I really do not remember which decreé was that



Ideologically they are not imperialist, but according to the comments I have seen in this site they still sound imperialistic, and this is beautifull


Aha, that song always cracks me up.

And for clarification, not a crypto monarchist, I am a monarchist and am proud of it aha.
 
Top