WI: No English Restoration

The English Restoration saw the crowning of King Charles II of England and the return of a monarchy to the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. The republic was, as most of you will most likely know, from the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, of which the English Civil War (compromising of three consecutive conflicts) was the most prominent. It left the British Isles firmly under the rule of a Puritan military dictatorship formed from Cromwell's tough New Model Army (of which can be argued as the predecessor western modern armies, due to the effectiveness of the force). Points to take in account is the fact that it was, while only having two leaders, a crowned republic with Oliver Cromwell passing his title of Lord Protector down to his son Richard. After Richard was found to be incompetent, the Rump Parliament removed him from power. I don't know exactly how it was governed after this, but I think the top men were the Council of State (although this was replaced by the Committee of Safety, an overall Orwellian sounding body) who probably ran it as an oligarchy that listened to the Parliament.

More notes: The Rump Parliament was formed from Pride's Purge, the only military coup d'etat in English history, whereby Colonel Thomas Pride forcibly removed and arrested the MPs that weren't loyal to the Grandees of the NMA.

With an arguably very strong and disciplined military in the form of the NMA (which may or may not last) and many other factors that may change to favour the republic, let us assume that the English Restoration would not happen, nor an event like it within one hundred or so years. How would a now fundamentalist Puritan England which had banned things like theatre and Christmas evolve? Would they eventually become more liberal? Would universal or partial suffrage come earlier to Britain? Furthermore, what would the ripple effects be of this type of Britain on the rest of Europe and the world?
 
They have to liberalize soon; religious fervor of the intensity necessary to kill kings, burn witches and colonize Ulster is difficult to sustain, and nearly impossible to transmit across generations. A seldom spoken but basic reason the Restoration succeeded was that the people were tired of the austerities of the Commonwealth, and the government was aware of how much its support had waned among the populace.

What is needed, it seems, is a theoretical basis for a Republic; "it's necessary to protect you from those 'orrible Catholics" isn't working as a justification for the government's actions anymore. The second decade is the hard one - get to 1670 and you have a rising generation to whom monarchy seems unnatural because they've never lived under one (in name). This probably requires an extension of the franchise, as that follows naturally from the position that it is normal and natural for a common man of uncommon ability to rise through military ranks to rule a nation.
 
Any substantial continuation of the united Commonwealth does it for Scottish independence. Some of the principal reasons Scotland was restored as a kingdom in 1660 were that most major reforms of the W3K period were being undone; as a sweetener to the Scots by an insecure regime; and because it was desired by a variety of colonial-commercial interests, mostly in England. The first two obviously don't apply, and the last, without a major political disjoint to give them their chance, will whither away just as they did after 1707. Scotland will still be included in the Navigation Acts, and that will mean the Scottish economic will become more and more intertwined with that of England and the English colonies until the customs union is a fact of life, which strengthens the political one.

With Scotland governed by a centralised regime in London, you won't see any magnate rule like we got under William III, certainly. The Killing Time will migrate from the Presbytarian southwest into the Highlands, I'd imagine, which can't exactly enhance the power of the clan chiefs, although the growth of state power in the Highlands was always ongoing, politics and religion aside. Overall, we'll end up very Presbytarian. Nae Bishop.

People seem to be exagerrating the Commonwealth's repressiveness. It was austere, yeah, but (monarchist that I am) it's been being systematically smeared since the Restoration. A lot of countries in 17th century Europe, Catholic and Protestant and all the rest, had austere religious laws and a fondness for persecution.

Also, the Ulster Plantations had lagrely wound up when Cromwell turned up. They were unconnected to his conquest of the island: indeed, the Ulster Planters were still so intimately connected to Scotland as to be merely the Covenant's men in Ireland, and they didn't benefit from the Commonwealth's regime in Ireland nearly as much as firm backers of the Independent agenda.

The consequences for Europe will be major. Cromwell's diplomacy was aggressively, even anachronistically "Protestant": even if the ardour faded under his successors, they would never pursue the same policy as Charles II, which was if anything less "Protestant" than that of Charles I. France was being built up as the Universal Monarchy bogeyman by Protestant opinion from the moment Louis XIV took the throne: the process of switching to France as enemy #1 may well be slower if it isn't also a stick to beat the regime, but the balance had shifted heavily in favour of France, and it won't take the Commonwealth until 1688 to recognise that.
 
Last edited:
Cast it as a blessed Isle (plus Ireland), cut off from the absolutist monarchies of the Continent (And the evil, greedy commercial rivals in the Netherlands). This would likely require, as Shawn said, liberalisation, extension of franchise... eventually the end of military rule in Scotland at least, Ireland in due time...

I wonder how the original Commonwealth would have fared in the game of imperialism. Would it try to snatch more Spanish colonies? India? Indonesia? North America?
 
Why does everyone assume that the Commonwealth needs some grand ideological underpinning other than "it's not Catholic" and "it works"? As long as the regime is effective in sustaining itself (let's wave our hands and say Tumbledown Dick tumbles down the stairs and is replaced by Henry Cromwell), why should it need to become "liberal" all of a sudden?

The Restoration regime outlived the Commonwealth by a factor of more than two, and it was never stable. After his first Dutch War, Charles was genuinely worried about revolt; and while Commonwealth rule in Ireland could only rest on force, the same is true of Restoration Episcopacy in south-west Scotland, what with the mass Presbytarian outdoor sermons, religious executions, all the rest of it.

If the Commonwealth had had the Restoration's twenty-eight years, then some key facts (Union, no titular monarchy) could easily become the status-quo.

Cast it as a blessed Isle (plus Ireland), cut off from the absolutist monarchies of the Continent (And the evil, greedy commercial rivals in the Netherlands).

That's an interesting one. Cromwell's foreign policy really was based firstly on Protestantism (whereas at every point after him, "Protestant policy" meant what the government wanted it to): look at Savoy. He wasn't very enthusiastic about his Dutch war, and saw it as only paving the way for his anti-Spanish crusade.

The Navigation Acts weren't even felt that much by the Dutch trading interest (Cromwell's Dutch war was a military stalemate, so the recognition of the Navigation Acts hardly constituted a huge Dutch concession). The Second-Anglo Dutch War was basically aggression from us, provoked by elements in England with reasons of their own to be against the Dutch (James of York, for one) and sanctioned by a monarchy looking for a short victorious war in the Elizabethan swashbuckling tradition to bolster it.

By the time it was being fought, the French rise was already apparent (Clarendon had already made a brief approach to the Dutch), and it ended with the Dutch pretty much enforcing an anti-French league on us. So, I'd think that the thinking of a Commonwealth would be to join with fellow Protestants against the Universal Monarchy.

But then, that's hardly certain. Without Charles' first Dutch War, there are rather more conflicts in various parts of the world to strain our relations. The Indonesian spice-race, and New Netherland, which was a handy hole in the Navigation Acts and so will become more offensive the more important Virginia becomes economically...

It could go either way, and as we saw OTL, it can seesaw right from "England helps France dig the Netherlands' grave" to "the Dutch conquer England and the English approve" in no time at all.
 
Last edited:
But then, that's hardly certain. Without Charles' first Dutch War, there are rather more conflicts in various parts of the world to strain our relations. The Indonesian spice-race, and New Netherland, which was a handy hole in the Navigation Acts and so will become more offensive the more important Virginia becomes economically...

I thought the English already lost the Indonesian Spice-race. I believe that during the second Anglo-Dutch war the Dutch only got one island of the British (Rum, I believe). The new Netherlands might be a problem, but it seems like a problem two allies can handle, certainly if both are fighting the French to the north.

Anyway, if Cromwell is willing to make an alliance with the Dutch , I believe the Dutch will accept, as a large part of the foreign policies of the Dutch were trying to find allies against the French. The offer for friendship might even come from the Dutch themselves.

One thing from the Dutch site that might be interesting. Without the second and certainly the third Anglo-French war, the Dutch might get rid of the stadholder altogether, as Willem III only became stadholder after the year of disaster during the third Anglo-Dutch war. Even if France manages to occupy more than half of the Netherlands (something I am far from certain if the Dutch have English support), without the English war Holland behind the waterline isn't as bad as OTL. So there will not be so good an opertunity for Willem III to reclaim the stadholdership.
 
I thought the English already lost the Indonesian Spice-race. I believe that during the second Anglo-Dutch war the Dutch only got one island of the British (Rum, I believe). The new Netherlands might be a problem, but it seems like a problem two allies can handle, certainly if both are fighting the French to the north.

I'm inclined to agree, and I'm sure you're right about Indonesia: not really my area of expertise.

Anyway, if Cromwell is willing to make an alliance with the Dutch , I believe the Dutch will accept, as a large part of the foreign policies of the Dutch were trying to find allies against the French. The offer for friendship might even come from the Dutch themselves.

I think so, certainly. The danger of France was obvious to the the Dutch and to a lot of public discourse in England. You guys, being decidedly the winners of the commercial contest, had no natural conflict of interest with us, it was just that we kept trying to usurp you; and a Commonwealth regime is going to be way less Francophile and colonially-minded than Charles II.

One thing from the Dutch site that might be interesting. Without the second and certainly the third Anglo-French war, the Dutch might get rid of the stadholder altogether, as Willem III only became stadholder after the year of disaster during the third Anglo-Dutch war. Even if France manages to occupy more than half of the Netherlands (something I am far from certain if the Dutch have English support), without the English war Holland behind the waterline isn't as bad as OTL. So there will not be so good an opertunity for Willem III to reclaim the stadholdership.

Now that is an interesting butterly.

There's a lot of fun things going on in various parts of the world if the Commonwealth survives: Charles II got Bombay for his dowry, for instance, so its fate will be dramatically differant. I wonder what will happen to Virginia: I'd quite forgotten it was the Royalist "Old Dominion".
 
Guys

While I agree with I Blame Communism that the Protectorate needed be less restrictive I think the easiest approach would be as Shawn said a more politically liberal one. Possibly instead of crushing the Levellers to appease mercantile/aristocratic interests their supported in. In which case the republic could well have a much firmer base and could well be pretty damned restrictive because a sizeable proportion of the population believe in its rules. [This could be very bad for the Irish as instead of land going to landlords employing Catholic peasants as labourers you could see mass immigration from England as well as Scotland, possibly even a settling of veterans from the NMA]. Coupled with a more competent successor than Richard, possibly because its more clearly republican and you may establish the basis for a long lasting mistrust of monarchy, say something along Swiss lines. Or at least if a monarchy re-appears it could be something like the Dutch model with more restrictions on its power earlier.

I'm feeling that if you had such a broader based republic it may be less aggressive overseas, simply because far more power is invested in relatively ordinary people who's concerns are with day to day matters and the common grind. As such possible a lesser presence in the colonial expansion, at least at this point. There would still be a strong mercantile interest [although possibly restricted at times by religious/social hostility] and the wealth of trade, plus threats like the growth of France under Louis XIV will [hopefully] prevent the country becoming too introvert.

Could end up with something very nasty without the check of a limited monarchy or something that with a slower start becomes far more energised later on. [Although without Dutch William would we have a lot of the banking reforms that helped release a lot of resources for the long wars against France and Spain]

Steve
 

Cook

Banned
Perhaps if Oliver’s Cromwell’s son Oliver had lived, or if maybe Henry had been chosen as O.C.’s successor instead of Richard the House of Cromwell would have survived.

Richard “Queen Dick” Cromwell just wasn’t made of the same stuff as his father.
 
Considering there were plenty of oligarchical republics in Europe in the early modern period, it was hardly an unnatural system doomed to failure. Have Cromwell leave no successor, forcing the Army and Parliament to elect a new LP. Charles Fleetwood, his son-in-law was a strong candidate, indeed he was quietly asked to overthrow Richard but respected Oliver's wishes even to the Commonwealth's death.

Franchise expansion, or other reforms aren't nessecary. Constituencies had already been sorted (only to be messed by Charles 2.0 and left til 1832), the House of Lords had been reformed into a 'life peer' institute oddly similar to the present one, and a Cabinet system was forming around the President of the Council all by the time of Cromwell's death.

The only liberalisation nessecary is to get Parliament to call a bloody election! If Britain's sainted course to democracy takes place ITTL, the Commonwealth might evolve into a semi-Presidential system, with the Lord Protector as a largely ceremonial head of state. Give him power to call elections and the worst excesses of the Commonwealth might be averted in later years.

On the religious front, there was definately a ground swell to see a more tolerant, relaxed atmosphere. The Puritanical zeal is often overstated but it was still overwhelmingly influential in Parliament. Get more Indies in and we may even see a secular state! At least for the Protestants anway...

The fall of the Commonwealth really was a case of an unsure system be handed to the nonentity of Richard Cromwell and Charles II looking like a pragmatic alternative. Notably the newly elected Parliament that brought him back was basically 50-50 in terms of Royalists and Republicans, however pragmatism ensure Charlie a quick return home. So as Shawn says, given another generation the Commonwealth will be safe as houses.

Would be intriging to see the effects of a unitary state on Ireland and Scotland from the 1650s onwards, Ireland in particular given that its technical independece was snuffed out at the beginning of popular nationalism IOTL. Without Monarchist propaganda, and more importantly Republican propganda will the Irish hold less of a grudge against Cromwell?

Beyond no monarchy, maybe a less entrenched national church and maybe a more militarist society (or just an earlier professional army 'ethic'), the Commonwealth might not even effect British history that much on a grand level. Its still a largely plutocratic state, engaged in international Great Power games and battling to become the world's dominant trade empire.

Still butterflies as they are...

American history may also be intriging. Would a unitary Commonwealth accept Yankee MPs? Would they even raise the taxes that encouraged such demands?

An Anglo-American Commonwealth under the Semi-Presidential secular power of the Commons, kicking two shades of shit out of the French and Spanish across the globe. That my friends is what wanks are made of... :rolleyes:
 
I thought the English already lost the Indonesian Spice-race. I believe that during the second Anglo-Dutch war the Dutch only got one island of the British (Rum, I believe).
Spice-race....:) (Channelling my inner Aussie,... no, that'd be spice-rice...)

So the Dutch got spice, and the Brits got Rum (Rum show, what?) (and then got drunk on it?)

Sorry. (OK, so I'm not really. I just couldn't resist.)
 
They have to liberalize soon; religious fervor of the intensity necessary to kill kings, burn witches and colonize Ulster is difficult to sustain, and nearly impossible to transmit across generations.

You know, in between eating the heads of Irish babies, Cromwell also let the Jews back into England, and it was a time of unprecedented toleration of dissenting Protestants.
 
I feel it must be noted that Cromwell actually offered a Union with the Dutch (as a solution to the Anglo-Dutch war). It was not accepted. XD
 
I feel it must be noted that Cromwell actually offered a Union with the Dutch (as a solution to the Anglo-Dutch war). It was not accepted. XD

Of course it wasn't accepted. You usually don't just join another nation, certainly not if you ended an 80 year war for independence a couple of years earlier and certainly not if you just fought a war with the country asking you to join. Anyway, the offer does show that Cromwell was willing to be friendly with the Dutch, so some kind of alliace at a later stage does seem possible.
 
Top