WI Cromwell had accepted the Crown

Because I mean, it took him some time to refuse it, he'd thought about it when talking to ol'Bulstrode, and it wasn't clear what God wanted. Providence seemed enigmatic as ever. So, what if Oliver Cromwell had accepted the highest title in the land in the interest of establishing peace and security in England while avoiding a Stuart restoration.
 
id say itd still have caused alot of tension, and probaly wouldve caused a earlier disintegration of the commonwealth...both within those who were against them, those who saw it as ilegitamate, and those in parliment who would see it as a diminishing their power..

you gotta remember he tried to make his son his heir and that lead to a revolt against him and the restoration....if hed have taken the crown, it wouldve being seen the same way as the senators saw cesars last day...a attempt to make himself absolute monarch
 
Just can't see it. Even he took the Crown he would have to abide by the Magna Carta and all sorts of other royal restrictions.
 
Just can't see it. Even he took the Crown he would have to abide by the Magna Carta and all sorts of other royal restrictions.

Thats not an even, thats the reason he didnt take the crown. The king had defined restrictions and limitations while the Lord Protector was blissfully undefined and allowed effectively absolute power. I could see a less ambitious Cromwell accepting the offer if it came with further restrictions to the kings powers.
 
Thats not an even, thats the reason he didnt take the crown. The king had defined restrictions and limitations while the Lord Protector was blissfully undefined and allowed effectively absolute power. I could see a less ambitious Cromwell accepting the offer if it came with further restrictions to the kings powers.

Which means that we could see a situation where there are no immediate revolts, but when we have weak king Richard IV come to the throne Charles II does a glourious Revolution and returns to the country to reclaim the throne.
 

Thande

Donor
Just because Cromwell takes the crown, it doesn't follow that Richard automatically succeeds him. I could see the exact same period of national introspection and consideration happening that happened in OTL after Cromwell's death (as described by Samuel Pepys in his diary).
 
Which means that we could see a situation where there are no immediate revolts, but when we have weak king Richard IV come to the throne Charles II does a glourious Revolution and returns to the country to reclaim the throne.

Why would they revolt against a weak king? They wanted a weak king so that parliament could basically run the country with the king acting as a more minor political power.
 
Thats not an even, thats the reason he didnt take the crown. The king had defined restrictions and limitations while the Lord Protector was blissfully undefined and allowed effectively absolute power. I could see a less ambitious Cromwell accepting the offer if it came with further restrictions to the kings powers.

Is it possible that he hold both titles. The King being restricted, but Lord Protector, well, not being restricted at all? Might be a possible loophole.
 
Is it possible that he hold both titles. The King being restricted, but Lord Protector, well, not being restricted at all? Might be a possible loophole.

Possibly, as long as he doesnt let his son inherrit the Lord Protector title because parliament would never allow him near the throne if that happened.
 
Actually the suggestion for Cromwell to take the Crown was set out in the Humble Petition and Advice which was actually a codified constitution and clearly set out his powers. For example, the power to appoint members to the Nominated Lords. And the reason Richard failed was because he had never been an army officer. If Cromwell had chosen John Lambert as his heir as the Constitution allowed however...
 
Actually the suggestion for Cromwell to take the Crown was set out in the Humble Petition and Advice which was actually a codified constitution and clearly set out his powers. For example, the power to appoint members to the Nominated Lords. And the reason Richard failed was because he had never been an army officer. If Cromwell had chosen John Lambert as his heir as the Constitution allowed however...

Precisely. Cromwell's seeming intent was the creation of what today we would call a constitutional monarchy. He was a dictator more in the Roman sense than the modern sense. He didn't want absolute or arbitrary power. That's why he convened the Barebone's Parliament and didn't just become dictator after he removed the Rump Parliament and ultimately why he refused the crown because the idea of divine right was connected with it, which he saw as being something that God had put away being that the Parliament had won the Civil Wars. This is not to say he was perfect by any means. He was ruthless and even though he may not have really wanted arbitrary power, it doesn't mean he wouldn't use it under certain circumstances.

The ultimate consequences of Cromwell becoming King would have been Britain having a written constitution. If his dynasty had survived, alot of things would probably be more or less the same as today as far as the state of democracy and freedom in Britain goes even with all the butterflies that would pop up.
 
Top