WI: Oliver Cromwell chose to become King?

[Scarlet-Left]

I've always had great admiration for, and fascination with, Oliver Cromwell (I remember seeing his statute as a child and being, immediately, taken with it).

However, I don't think he would've allowed his self to be crowned (to say nothing of how successful a Cromwellian King would've been). He was a deeply religious man and I believe his convictions, and reasons for refusing the throne, were genuine.

“I would not seek to set up that which Providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, and I would not build Jericho again.”

The best chance for maintaining some semblance of a republic in Britain would've been, first, for the Stuart line to have been extinguished as best a possible and, second, for Cromwell to have chosen a competent successor; either John Lambert or, better yet, Thomas Fairfax (if he could be convinced to rule for the good of the country, he might help to heal that nation's wounds).

 

[Thoresby]

I'm not so sure. Cromwell is still regicidal, which is not looked well upon. Most monarchs still treated the throne as sacred, and there were contemporary examples of non-monarchies even in Europe.

Cromwell taking the throne is going to be seen as a direct insult to the sanctity of their position - he basically killed the previous king, and then declared himself king. That goes against much of what they believe, or at least try to make the peasants believe. I suspect that they'd find the popular belief that you can kill the king and then become king yourself much more dangerous.

A good comparison is the simultaneous Portuguese Restoration War which saw the Portuguese kick out the Hapsburgs and crown the House of Braganza, now obviously Phillip III/IV wasn't killed but he was effectively overthrown and the rest of Europe had no problem allying with the Braganza's. Now of course the House of Braganza had a better claim to the Portuguese throne than the Cromwell's but there are some similarities.

 

[Saphroneth]

either John Lambert or, better yet, Thomas Fairfax (if he could be convinced to rule for the good of the country, he might help to heal that nation's wounds).

Now that would be interesting.

 

[Alex1guy]

Oh!

So CalBear stands for "California Bear!"

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH I get it

Came here from the Hall of Infamy... *Reads title* Oh okay Cromwell.

Well wouldn't he be disposed fairly soonish as per OTL anyway King or Lord Protector? I imagine he'd still look to turn Britain into the most boring country on the planet and be kicked out in another revolution.

 

[Morty Vicar]

I know it's not exactly the premise of the thread, but I can I ask without going into any depth, is there any way for Britain to maintain its de facto Republic status after Cromwell?

 

[Mikestone8]

I know it's not exactly the premise of the thread, but I can I ask without going into any depth, is there any way for Britain to maintain its de facto Republic status after Cromwell?

By the time Cromwell dies England wasn't a "de facto republic" It was effectively a monarchy again except hat the Monarch's title had been changed to "Lord Protector". The only outstanding question was what family should provide the Monarch?

 

[Mikestone8]

The best chance for maintaining some semblance of a republic in Britain would've been, first, for the Stuart line to have been extinguished as best a possible and, second, for Cromwell to have chosen a competent successor; either John Lambert or, better yet, Thomas Fairfax (if he could be convinced to rule for the good of the country, he might help to heal that nation's wounds).

The Stuart family was pretty extensive in the 1650s, so unlikely to die out. Even were Charles I's entire family to do so, his sister Elizabeth had a sizeable brood - all of them safely Protestant at that date.

Fairfax, iirc, supported Monk in 1660, so if brought to power would probably have done much the same.

As for Lambert, neither he nor any other general had a tenth of Cromwell's prestige. What exactly would be the advantage of having him on the throne instead of Charles II?

 

[Scarlet-Left]

As for Lambert, neither he nor any other general had a tenth of Cromwell's prestige. What exactly would be the advantage of having him on the throne instead of Charles II?

I wasn't comparing him to Charles II but to Richard Cromwell.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

WI: Oliver Cromwell decided that the only way to gain a stable government in the British Isles was with a monarchy, so instead of becoming 'Lord Protector', he accepted the Crowns of England and Scotland, becoming King Oliver I?

How would he fare as King compared to 'Lord Protector'? Would he keep the thrones separate or found the UK early? How long would his dynasty last? Would his supporters be more comfortable with his son as 'Richard IV' if they could re-limit his authority (much as William and Mary were in OTL)? Or would they demand a different successor?

Yeah not gonna happen. For one a King would be bond by the magna carta and other laws. A Lord Protector, with no laws defining its power whatsoever, would have all the powers that Napoleon (the closest example I can think of) had.

And the other, it would make Cromwell a complete hypocrite. He had constantly harped against monarchy since 1648, and basically orchestrated Charles I's execution. I think that any attempt for Cromwell to actually become King would end up like Yuan Shikai's attempt to become Emperor of China in 1915/16: he would have no support from the Royalists and would be abandoned by the new model army that is the base of his support.

The only thing this would accomplish would be an earlier restoration. After all, why have a fake King when the real one is still alive?

 

[Valena]

Yeah not gonna happen. For one a King would be bond by the magna carta and other laws. A Lord Protector, with no laws defining its power whatsoever, would have all the powers that Napoleon (the closest example I can king of) had.

And the other, it would make Cromwell a complete hypocrite. He had constantly harped against monarchy since 1648, and basically orchestrated Charles I's execution. I think that any attempt for Cromwell to actually become King would end up like Yuan Shikai's attempt to become Emperor of China in 1915/16: he would have no support from the Royalists and would be abandoned by the new model army that is the base of his support.

The only thing this would accomplish would be an earlier restoration. After all, why have a fake King when the real one is still alive?

What colleague Constantine said. It is kinda illogical WI from Cromwell's point of view.

 

[Mikestone8]

I wasn't comparing him to Charles II but to Richard Cromwell.

But is that a relevant comparison?

Lambert might be more impressive than Richard (who wouldn't be?) but where prestige is concerned he's still not a patch on Oliver. His position won't go unchallenged for any length of time. So it becomes a question of how long the English government keeps on passing from one second-rate general to another before someone finally takes the line of least resistance and brings back the King?

 

[bobsimmo]

IMHO think him trying to make himself king would fail as one of the major linchpins of Monarchism is legitimacy. as a Lord Protector he can claim to be different from a monarchy (however that was meant to be anything than medieval re-branding) but as a monarchy? their's a long queue sat outside for the crown with more legitimate claims than ol'olly

 

[WanderingWanderer]

It's too bad Prince Henry died, if he could be persuaded to be a figurehead monarch with Cromwell as Lord Protector, I'd say England would have been all the better for it. I've always wanted to write a TL of "Three Henrys ruling England: King Henry IX, Lord Protector Henry Ireton and Captain General Henry Cromwell". Ah, one day...

Then again, asking someone to ally with the folks who cut off your dad's head, even when said dad deserved it, is a bit much to ask, eh?

As for Oliver Cromwell, he himself has said the he would not "rebuild Jericho", he wouldn't accept the title king. He could have chosen a better successor, but as many writers pointed out, ol' Oliver is a conservative at heart, not a radical. He would have chosen his eldest son as successor, despite many other better candidates (many point to Henry Cromwell, Oliver's second son, if he had wanted a better candidate with his bloodline).


EDIT: From nationalarchives.gov.uk, Cromwell's own words on being king:

"...as far as I can, I am ready to serve not as a King, but as a constable...a good constable to keep the peace of the parish".

And damn, the "debate" at the begninning of this thread....well, Cromwell is a nice scapegoat to be hated, but his policy is not all that different from many other English rulers with regards to Ireland. I certainly think there's not much different between Cromwell and Churchill (Black and Tans, a great idea!). Coincidentaly both are in the poll of top Brits voted, Cromwell's number ten methinks, with Churchill number one. Heh, and of course Churchill wanted to name a ship Cromwell but was vetoed by the monarch, gee wonder why

 

[Thoresby]

It's too bad Prince Henry died, if he could be persuaded to be a figurehead monarch with Cromwell as Lord Protector, I'd say England would have been all the better for it. I've always wanted to write a TL of "Three Henrys ruling England: King Henry IX, Lord Protector Henry Ireton and Captain General Henry Cromwell". Ah, one day...

Not going to happen, literally the last thing his father, King Charles I said to him was don't let the Parliamentarians set you up as a puppet Monarch ahead of your older brothers and there was never any indication that he wavered on that.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

Not going to happen, literally the last thing his father, King Charles I said to him was don't let the Parliamentarians set you up as a puppet Monarch ahead of your older brothers and there was never any indication that he wavered on that.

Even IF his brothers all died before him (yikes, what happened in that TL to achieve such a scenario?) it's very very hard for me to see Henry working together with the folks who cut off his father's head! Maybe a scenario where Charles dies at the hand of the Scots and somehow two older bros died, leaving Henry alive and in Parliamentary hands....

BTW, I remember that scene of Charles 1 saying goodbye to Elizabeth and Henry in the 1970s movie 'Cromwell', where Alec Guiness played King Charles. A great scene, had to blink back tears when little Henry promised his father he won't let Parliament make him king. One of Guiness' best roles IMO (also, Richard Harris played Cromwell. Yes, it's essentially Dumbledore vs Kenobi, the movie!).

 

[Thoresby]

Yeah this is an account of Charles I's last words to his Prince Henry and Princess Elizabeth the evening before he was executed:

He bid us tell my mother that his thoughts had never strayed from her, and that his love would be the same to the last. Withal, he commanded me and my brother to be obedient to her; and bid me send his blessing to the rest of my brothers and sisters, with communications to all his friends. Then, taking my brother Gloucester on his knee, he said, 'Sweetheart, now they will cut off thy father's head.' And Gloucester looking very intently upon him, he said again, "Heed, my child, what I say: they will cut off my head and perhaps make thee a king. But mark what I say. Thou must not be a king as long as thy brothers Charles and James do live; for they will cut off your brothers' heads when they can catch them, and cut off thy head too at the last, and therefore I charge you, do not be made a king by them.' At which my brother sighed deeply, and made answer: 'I will be torn in pieces first!' And these words, coming so unexpectedly from so young a child, rejoiced my father exceedingly. And his majesty spoke to him of the welfare of his soul, and to keep his religion, commanding him to fear God, and He would provide for him. Further, he commanded us all to forgive those people, but never to trust them; for they had been most false to him and those that gave them power, and he feared also to their own souls. And he desired me not to grieve for him, for he should die a martyr, and that he doubted not the Lord would settle his throne upon his son, and that we all should be happier than we could have expected to have been if he had lived; with many other things which at present I cannot remember.

After that I really doubt Prince Henry would be a practical "Parliamentary" Monarch.

 

[Cahaya Purnama]

I'm absolutely not a fan of Oliver Cromwell but a.) he wasn't a genocidal maniac and b.) anyway as the career of dozens of other Kings and Emperors shows being a genocidal maniac is no obstacle to founding a successful dynasty. Just ask Qin Shi Huang, Babur or Timur/Tamerlane.

As to the OP I think he wouldn't change much about King Oliver's reign but it would be crucial for his son. I still think Richard wasn't a strong enough character to keep the show on the road but as King he would be much harder to sideline and depose.

but their dynasty are weak after their death just ask Qin shi huang ;-)

 

[Bee]

Richard Cromwell's failure was partially due to his lack of prestige among his father's followers arising from his complete lack of military experience. The Cromwellian faction might have stood a better chance if Oliver Cromwell's younger surviving son, Henry, had succeeded instead. He had, at least, served competently in the army and had been a good administrator in Ireland. Not that he wanted to be king, but maybe he could have been persuaded.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

The Cromwellian faction might have stood a better chance if Oliver Cromwell's younger surviving son, Henry, had succeeded instead. He had, at least, served competently in the army and had been a good administrator in Ireland.

Henry cannot magically step into daddy Cromwell's shoes, there were factions in the army who didn't like him, thought he was too harsh on some religous groups and even too kind to the Irish (!!!!!) as opposed to Oliver Cromwell (note that after the Restoration, Henry was allowed to quietly resign from his position, so clearly he didn't step on too many pro-Royalist toes). Eh...he may have survived longer, but I doubt Henry Cromwell can prevent being deposed by the many factions of the Commonwealth or stop another Restoration.

Also, as I mentioned, Oliver Cromwell is a conservative at heart. If he wanted an heir by blood, there's no way he'd skip his living eldest son. He's not a radical, in many ways the "puritan" Oliver Cromwell is an old fashioned English gentleman ("living neither in considerable height, nor yet in obscurity" to use his own words). Maybe a POD of Richard dying young, but again is Henry prestigious enough and respected enough by the majority of the army...?

The other Henry, Ireton husband of Bridget Cromwell, maybe if he had lived he would have been an acceptable heir. He's the son (in law) of Cromwell who served well, popular with the army IIRC, high ranking to have considerable prestige, especially if he lived long enough to administer Ireland well (I doubt Ireton would face accusations of being kind to the Irish, har har). Cromwell may consider him as an 'eldest son' and have him proclaimed heir. Lord Protector Henry Ireton, hmm?

'I will be torn in pieces first!'

Damn, little Henry actually said that line in real life? That was the line in the movie that had me blinking back tears. Also damn, Charles really did employ brutal honesty to his children, basically saying "Yeah kids, they're gonna cut out daddy's head, but it's alright I'm going to heaven!" Yikes!

 

[Thoresby]

Damn, little Henry actually said that line in real life? That was the line in the movie that had me blinking back tears. Also damn, Charles really did employ brutal honesty to his children, basically saying "Yeah kids, they're gonna cut out daddy's head, but it's alright I'm going to heaven!" Yikes!

In all fairness that quote is from Princess Elizabeth in her posthumous memoirs so it's not exactly 100% solid. But it does give a good idea of sentiment on the Royalist side.