Would a weakened English/British Parliament really destroy the British Empire?

But that sort of thing, as opposed to a colonial uprising.

It'd be interesting to see how that would develop in an absolute or semi-absolute England/Britain - Louis XVI and his forebearers paved the way for that by policies that may or may not have been strictly a fault of absolutism.

But even if you avoid that, the issue of "The rights of man" is going to sound very appealing to the common (non-noble) Englishman - which is enough to disrupt things.

Its theoretically possible to have a semi-absolute monarchy and most of what is associated with "the rights of man" coexist (at least #1-8 of the US Bill of Rights do not intrinsically clash with nondemocratic government - #9 is iffy and #10 is probably impossible to have with an absolute monarchy), but I am utterly at a loss as to examples of kings who actually promoted both in practice - not just on paper.

So that leaves us with what kind of kings we are talking about within that framework - Charles I, right or wrong, was not the sort to even handle the issues of the pre-Enlightenment.

I think the main things we need to establish is what era of semi-absolutism are we talking. I mean technically England was a semi-absolute Monarchy up till the Glorious Revolution, with the majority of Government powers invested in the Crown. So are we considering a scenario with a Royalist Victory in the Civil war or more along the lines of Charles II having legitimate children?

If we go down the Charles I wins path, I can eventually see an English/British Revolution, as Parliament will no doubt be stripped of its taxation powers in such a scenario, thus leaving the Crown with little reason to call it.

On the other hand, if we go with Charles II having legitimate heirs (something I find very interesting) then we will no doubt see something completely different. Even if his son doesn't inherit his ability to successfully work with and around Parliament, this son will still (hopefully) remain Anglican, stopping or at least delaying the Glorious Revolution. In such a scenario, however, the relationship between Crown and Parliament will still be undefined, with each wanting to be above the other.

But I agree, either way Charles I was NOT the man for the job.
 
I think the main things we need to establish is what era of semi-absolutism are we talking.

Well, that's on you to determine if you so choose as the one who started this thread.

I think the problem is that in either scenario, you need kings who both value royal authority and who respect the enlightenment - that probably means #1 is out, as it represents a triumph of "I rule by the will of God" ideology.

While still theoretically possible to accept "enlightened" ideas, a king who believes his authority is god-given is not the kind who will think of the masses as the foundation of his power - and thus is not likely to want to go so far as that.

But #2 has problems beyond the issue of Anglicanism.
 
Well, that's on you to determine if you so choose as the one who started this thread.

I think the problem is that in either scenario, you need kings who both value royal authority and who respect the enlightenment - that probably means #1 is out, as it represents a triumph of "I rule by the will of God" ideology.

While still theoretically possible to accept "enlightened" ideas, a king who believes his authority is god-given is not the kind who will think of the masses as the foundation of his power - and thus is not likely to want to go so far as that.

But #2 has problems beyond the issue of Anglicanism.

I'm partial to Charles II, so lets go with #2.

And I know there was a lot more problems besides religion with James II. His attempted absolutism, his going against the established church, his attempt to create a large standing army ex, ex. But the Religious aspect is the main part that gave the nobles and William of Orange the casus belli they needed to invade and depose the King. Without a Catholic Monarch, the "Whig" nobles and William of Orange will lose their reason for invasion.

But anyway, a continuing Stuart line would no doubt continue as semi-absolute Monarchs. Another thing to consider is the growth of the North American Empire under Charles II. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rupert's land were all added to England's colonial empire under Charles. So a son might be inclined to continue to expand the Empire his father began creating. Though I wonder how a semi-absolute England/Britain would deal with India? Would the east India company still become an almost mini state inside India?
 
But anyway, a continuing Stuart line would no doubt continue as semi-absolute Monarchs. Another thing to consider is the growth of the North American Empire under Charles II. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rupert's land were all added to England's colonial empire under Charles. So a son might be inclined to continue to expand the Empire his father began creating. Though I wonder how a semi-absolute England/Britain would deal with India? Would the east India company still become an almost mini state inside India?

I have trouble imagining *Charles III(?) being okay with that, but I couldn't pin down a reason why it couldn't happen.

India is too far away and too big to govern directly, that's for sure.
 
I have trouble imagining *Charles III(?) being okay with that, but I couldn't pin down a reason why it couldn't happen.

India is too far away and too big to govern directly, that's for sure.

Actually, after reading the Wikipedia page on the East India company, it seems Charles II actually strengthened the Company's power. He granted them rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops and form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas. So I guess that East India company would remain relatively the same.

But yes India was way to far to govern directly.
 
What part of the civil list do you mean? The Civil list was essentially (from the time of Charles II I believe) money voted to the Crown by Parliament in loo of the Crown exercising various customs and feudal dues. Or do you mean the Civil list from George III onwards, which was the most significant change to the list and Parliamentary power. Under George III, the hereditary revenues of the Crown Estate were surrendered to Parliament in exchange for an annual income and for Parliament to help with the Royal debt (at least I'm pretty sure they had to help with debts). So which you mean is very important.
I had been thinking of the second. I really should realize how many times the same sets of words have been used over the Trans-Atlantic Anglosphere over the past several centuries. Perhaps another sort of Civil List could be set up. As for your part about debts, I think it may have ended up like with the German companies that got protection from the Nazis from financial failure. They are guaranteed a certain amount of money a year, though they quickly find they would have had a huge surplus if they kept things as they were.
 
I had been thinking of the second. I really should realize how many times the same sets of words have been used over the Trans-Atlantic Anglosphere over the past several centuries. Perhaps another sort of Civil List could be set up. As for your part about debts, I think it may have ended up like with the German companies that got protection from the Nazis from financial failure. They are guaranteed a certain amount of money a year, though they quickly find they would have had a huge surplus if they kept things as they were.

The civil list was mainly created because the Crown estate barely generated any income and it was thought to be smarter to exchange it for money from Parliament. The Crown estate had been depleted by overgenerous monarchs granting lands to various favorites. I suppose a continuing Stuart dynasty might be less generous in to favorites, but again I'm not quite sure what you getting at.
 
The civil list was mainly created because the Crown estate barely generated any income and it was thought to be smarter to exchange it for money from Parliament. The Crown estate had been depleted by overgenerous monarchs granting lands to various favorites. I suppose a continuing Stuart dynasty might be less generous in to favorites, but again I'm not quite sure what you getting at.
Understandable, given the dynasty the second one was created for.
 
Second one :confused:

Originally, the civil list was set at a sum (about 700000L ) that was claimed to be an average of what the prerogative revenues fetched, year on year.


That might not have been quite true but it was not too far out. The revenue from estates was by then negligible, but the bulk of royal income for many years had come from the hereditary excises given the crown in compensation for Chas II surrendering his feudal rights at the abolition of tenure by knight service. It is worth noting that the nobility and squirearchy were by far the enormous gainers by that exchange.
 
Top