WI Cromwell brought Electoral Reform to britain a couple of hendred years earlier than otl?

[merlin]

My knowledge of history of the time is probably a bit hiazy - maybe too influenced by the film Cromwell'. Nevertheless, Cromwell became for a short time a virtual dictator, after dissolving Parliament.
Could he I wonder, have done away with 'gerrymandering', the 'Rotten Boroughs', and redefined voting rights (even if not OMOV).
Also, with his problem with the King - when Parliament (or more likely - certain people in the Lord),, what a 'King' to return, could Cromwell put in place rules that would have brought in a Constitutional Monarchy again much earlier than otl.

And if so, how different might British history have evolved?

 

[Mikestone8]

My knowledge of history of the time is probably a bit hiazy - maybe too influenced by the film Cromwell'. Nevertheless, Cromwell became for a short time a virtual dictator, after dissolving Parliament.
Could he I wonder, have done away with 'gerrymandering', the 'Rotten Boroughs', and redefined voting rights (even if not OMOV).
Also, with his problem with the King - when Parliament (or more likely - certain people in the Lord),, what a 'King' to return, could Cromwell put in place rules that would have brought in a Constitutional Monarchy again much earlier than otl.

And if so, how different might British history have evolved?

He did reform Parliamentary constituencies, but this was abandoned on his death. And of course changes by him would not have received the Royal Assent, so would in any case have lapsed at the Restoration.

 

[Analytical Engine]

If anything, any perceived association with Cromwell may have hindered parliamentary reform in Britain IOTL.

 

[general]

If anything, any perceived association with Cromwell may have hindered parliamentary reform in Britain IOTL.

Agree. The connotations of his Commonwealth were so strong, that when Australia federated, the choice of the title "Commonwealth of Australia" brought strong opposition and pressure to change it, from Queen Victoria and the British political establishment. This was almost 250 years later!

 

[UCB79]

And considering how Cromwell governed when he got the chance- he was a king without the robes- I just
can’t see him advocating much in the way of democratic reform anyway(Thomas Jefferson he was not!)
In the long run Cromwell did undoubtly advance the democractic cause in Britan by showing
future monarchs- in an unforgettable & very clear way- that there were now substantial limits on their
powers & they could no longer rule as they pleased. But this came about only after Cromwell’s death.

 

[piratedude]

So to summarize, the only way this could happen would be for the protectorate commonwealth to be more politically stable, such as adopting a workable constitution, actually holding a parliamentary election, and lasting at least one more generation before a 'restoration'. which might look like the way napoleon iii came to power: one of the royals gets elected Lord Protector of the Commonwealth and from there leverage his influence to be made a proper king though still maintaining a constitutional arrangement

 

[NedStark]

protectorate commonwealth to be more politically stable, such as adopting a workable constitution, actually holding a parliamentary election, and lasting at least one more generation before a 'restoration

The problem is that if all of these stuffs happen and the Commonwealth lasts at least one more generation, it is extremely likely that it would have lived on - see the Third Republic, it only had to survive the formative years (the 1870s). An ATL version of Napoleon III trying that in say, 1890, would have failed big time.

 

[piratedude]

The problem is that if all of these stuffs happen and the Commonwealth lasts at least one more generation, it is extremely likely that it would have lived on - see the Third Republic, it only had to survive the formative years (the 1870s). An ATL version of Napoleon III trying that in say, 1890, would have failed big time.

Fair enough. Suppose then that everything except the generation thing happens; the constitution & elections work out fine, but after Cromwell dies Charles ii gets elected Lord Protector bc Richard Cromwell declines or whatever. The Stuarts are back in power, but now they have to deal with a much more powerful parliament and a Republican faction that is influential

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Also, broadening the franchise was simply not in cromwell's interest.

Poorer people tended to be pro-monarchy and anti-Puritan. An expanded franchise would result in him being voted out, and the king and bishops restored.

So, no.

 

[NedStark]

Also, broadening the franchise was simply not in cromwell's interest.

Poorer people tended to be pro-monarchy and anti-Puritan

It is more complicated. Merchants, craftment and other groups of urban population tended to be pro-Roundhead. Meanwhile, rural landlords and peasants tended to be more pro-Royalist. So, he could extend franchise to a certain degree.

Charles ii gets elected Lord Protector bc Richard Cromwell declines or whatever. The Stuarts are back in power

Well, running for a popular election would have been against the mindset of a typical 17th century monarch, who expected his kingship to be a birthright.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Agree. The connotations of his Commonwealth were so strong, that when Australia federated, the choice of the title "Commonwealth of Australia" brought strong opposition and pressure to change it, from Queen Victoria and the British political establishment. This was almost 250 years later!

Why did they choose it then?

 

[general]

As I understand it, it was chosen to indicate exactly the name, that the benefits were to be common to all ( at least if you were European origin/descent). Our founders were in some ways quite radical for their time - 1 person, one vote, universal suffrage ( again if you were white basically, although the people of Chinese descent already here had the vote), secret ballot.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Could Monck have forced it as part of the restoration deal with Charles?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

It is more complicated. Merchants, craftment and other groups of urban population tended to be pro-Roundhead. Meanwhile, rural landlords and peasants tended to be more pro-Royalist. So, he could extend franchise to a certain degree.


Well, running for a popular election would have been against the mindset of a typical 17th century monarch, who expected his kingship to be a birthright.

Unless he was King of Poland, Prince of Transylvania, or Holy Roman Emperor. The King of Bohemia was elected, but the Habsburgs made it de facto hereditary.

Of course none of these were popular elections.

 

[NedStark]

Of course none of these were popular elections.

That's why I said "popular elections", not just elections. The first one who attempted to crown himself king through running in a popular election was Napoleon III, who lived in the 19th century.

 

[Mikestone8]

Could Monck have forced it as part of the restoration deal with Charles?

Why would he? The Levellers were dead and gone by then (literally in some cases. Google "Cromwell" and "Burford") Monk, even if so inclined, had no reason to resurrect a dead issue.
It was also against his philosophy. As he once put it "Soldiers received orders [from the civil power] but gave one". To his mind, if Parliament needed reforming, then Parliament, not an army officer, must do it.

 

[piratedude]

Well, running for a popular election would have been against the mindset of a typical 17th century monarch, who expected his kingship to be a birthright.

Ah, not a popular election so much as elected by parliament. Which probably looks little different from an absolutist position and probably would have Charles complaining in private about being brought down to the level of a minister, though in truth itd be more equivalent to the dutch stadtholder

 

[Mikestone8]

Ah, not a popular election so much as elected by parliament. Which probably looks little different from an absolutist position and probably would have Charles complaining in private about being brought down to the level of a minister, though in truth itd be more equivalent to the dutch stadtholder

Though if the first post-Restoration election is anything like OTL, it will produce a massively Cavalier Parliament which will probably leave the king broad powers.

 

[Al-Za’im]

I would agree with those postulating that Cromwell expanding the franchise was not in his interest. A man of England's landed elite, he displayed little interest in such means of social reform. Various Parliaments throughout the Republican Era maintained conservative majorities who perceived any dilution of their authority as a slide into anarchy. Even membership of the Nominated Assembly which was ridiculed for comprising of lowly tradesmen unfitting of office, was dominated almost entirely by the Gentry. At the maxim, I could envision a slight expansion of the franchise to incorporate members of the mercantile class (many of whom were children of prominent Gentlemen) and certain elements of the artistinal urban population, although the Gentry would remain predominate. Perhaps certain other reforms are possible, I would imagine such would be neither overtly significant or transformative yet certainly notable.

 

[Simreeve]

I would agree with those postulating that Cromwell expanding the franchise was not in his interest. A man of England's landed elite, he displayed little interest in such means of social reform. Various Parliaments throughout the Republican Era maintained conservative majorities who perceived any dilution of their authority as a slide into anarchy. Even membership of the Nominated Assembly which was ridiculed for comprising of lowly tradesmen unfitting of office, was dominated almost entirely by the Gentry. At the maxim, I could envision a slight expansion of the franchise to incorporate members of the mercantile class (many of whom were children of prominent Gentlemen) and certain elements of the artistinal urban population, although the Gentry would remain predominate. Perhaps certain other reforms are possible, I would imagine such would be neither overtly significant or transformative yet certainly notable.

University graduates would probably have been the easiest category to add, because as access to a university education in those days required money &/or influence most of those probably had 'gentle' blood -- if not actually ''noble' blood -- no more than two or three generations back.