eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586 
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Sept 24, 2020 3:08:28 GMT
Let's assume King Charles I us born a different person and becomes savvy, lucky, and talented enough to win an early and decisive victory in the British Civil Wars, even if not enough to defuse or prevent a conflict that had been brewing to some degree since the beginning of his father's reign, if not even before. The Parliamentarian rebels suffer a crushing defeat, the Puritans and the Covenanters are purged. The ascent of Parliamentary supremacy is averted, and British constitutional evolution takes a different direction. The British Isles are spared a generation of civil wars, military dictatorship, and Puritan mores being forcibly imposed on everyone else. Oliver Cromwell and the rest of the Parliamentarian, Puritan, and Convenanter leaders are executed, exiled, or killed in battle. I am interested in discussing the consequences of this event. For one, I surely expect Charles exploits the situation to implement the Union of the Crowns 60 years earlier or so. The new constitutional settlement of Britain is set up to guarantee the Crown a sufficient and reliable financial supply through various standing taxes that the Parliament cannot refuse to authorize. The King's sole authority to choose his ministers, command the armed forces, suspend laws or dispense from them, and establish bylaws by decree is explictiy affirmed. However, the King still needs the Parliament's assent to enact major changes to taxation or the laws of the Realm.
Defeated British Calvinists and radical Protestants flee to sympathetic or at least tolerant areas of Europe (e.g. the Netherlands, Switzerland, Scandinavia) or North America, and Charles is able to impose a religious settlement favourable to Episcopalianism. I am not sure about Ireland's lot, but I expect it stays bound to Britain, perhaps even with an early imposition of Union. Its Catholic population cannot expect real tolerance but neither it suffers the brutal persecution of the Commonwealth's regime. Being less distracted by its domestic issues, Britain is a bit more successful in the colonial field; e.g. it is the great power that ends up colonizing Canada instead of France (gonna have a place to dump all those Puritan zealots besides New England). Since Charles' sons do not spend their youth in exile, the conditions that brewed the Glorious Revolution never develop, since James never becomes a Catholic. For that matter, Charles II might well get another bride who is able to give him legitimate children. Let's say ITTL the Portuguese Rebellion fails and is suppressed like the Catalan one, the Iberian Union endures, so Charles never marries a member of the House of Braganza.
Opinions? Comments? Other likely consequences I missed to notice?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 24, 2020 9:49:04 GMT
Let's assume King Charles I us born a different person and becomes savvy, lucky, and talented enough to win an early and decisive victory in the British Civil Wars, even if not enough to defuse or prevent a conflict that had been brewing to some degree since the beginning of his father's reign, if not even before. The Parliamentarian rebels suffer a crushing defeat, the Puritans and the Covenanters are purged. The ascent of Parliamentary supremacy is averted, and British constitutional evolution takes a different direction. The British Isles are spared a generation of civil wars, military dictatorship, and Puritan mores being forcibly imposed on everyone else. Oliver Cromwell and the rest of the Parliamentarian, Puritan, and Convenanter leaders are executed, exiled, or killed in battle. I am interested in discussing the consequences of this event. For one, I surely expect Charles exploits the situation to implement the Union of the Crowns 60 years earlier or so. The new constitutional settlement of Britain is set up to guarantee the Crown a sufficient and reliable financial supply through various standing taxes that the Parliament cannot refuse to authorize. The King's sole authority to choose his ministers, command the armed forces, suspend laws or dispense from them, and establish bylaws by decree is explictiy affirmed. However, the King still needs the Parliament's assent to enact major changes to taxation or the laws of the Realm. Defeated British Calvinists and radical Protestants flee to sympathetic or at least tolerant areas of Europe (e.g. the Netherlands, Switzerland, Scandinavia) or North America, and Charles is able to impose a religious settlement favourable to Episcopalianism. I am not sure about Ireland's lot, but I expect it stays bound to Britain, perhaps even with an early imposition of Union. Its Catholic population cannot expect real tolerance but neither it suffers the brutal persecution of the Commonwealth's regime. Being less distracted by its domestic issues, Britain is a bit more successful in the colonial field; e.g. it is the great power that ends up colonizing Canada instead of France (gonna have a place to dump all those Puritan zealots besides New England). Since Charles' sons do not spend their youth in exile, the conditions that brewed the Glorious Revolution never develop, since James never becomes a Catholic. For that matter, Charles II might well get another bride who is able to give him legitimate children. Let's say ITTL the Portuguese Rebellion fails and is suppressed like the Catalan one, the Iberian Union endures, so Charles never marries a member of the House of Braganza. Opinions? Comments? Other likely consequences I missed to notice?
Unfortunately that's replaced by several decades at least of autocratic dictatorship, widespread suppression of any human rights and a markedly harsher military dictatorship. Your got Britain suffering the fate of France and other autocratic states. Its not likely to be much better, if any for Ireland than OTL as Charles had an army seeking to suppress rebellion there when the Scottish and then English revolutions began. In fact the need to pay for that army and insistence on not having any check on royal power by either Parliament, was the primary spark that ignited those rebellions.
Given that Charles has won such a crushing victory over both Parliaments and as you say win fiscal security why would he concede Parliament any power at all? It would need a later revolution or possibly a more rational successor monarch who decided that ruling by decree and continually suppressing dissent wasn't very efficient. Especially considering the traditional identities and independence of the two primary nations. Until then its going to be very bloody until either the monarchy concedes some power or any idea of human rights is pretty much lost.
Steve
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Sept 24, 2020 16:24:42 GMT
Unfortunately that's replaced by several decades at least of autocratic dictatorship, widespread suppression of any human rights and a markedly harsher military dictatorship. Your got Britain suffering the fate of France and other autocratic states. Its not likely to be much better, if any for Ireland than OTL as Charles had an army seeking to suppress rebellion there when the Scottish and then English revolutions began. In fact the need to pay for that army and insistence on not having any check on royal power by either Parliament, was the primary spark that ignited those rebellions. Given that Charles has won such a crushing victory over both Parliaments and as you say win fiscal security why would he concede Parliament any power at all? It would need a later revolution or possibly a more rational successor monarch who decided that ruling by decree and continually suppressing dissent wasn't very efficient. Especially considering the traditional identities and independence of the two primary nations. Until then its going to be very bloody until either the monarchy concedes some power or any idea of human rights is pretty much lost. Well, it is correct that James I and Charles I were outspoken advocates of absolutism on paper, but in practice when they were able to rule w/o the fiscal or poltical support of Parliaments, they did not try to suppress their role or powers entirely. They just sought fiscal security and to keep the executive power the sole purview of the Crown without Parliamentarian interference. Victory in the civil war would guarantee both these objectives as well as early Acts of Union and the selection of a rubber-stamp Parliament purged of radical dissenters. In practice it would be a continuation of the Tudor political and constitutional settlement, only expanded to Scotland, or the early phase of the Restoration when the Parliaments were very supportive of Charles II. For Charles and his father autocracy in practice meant keeping things as they had been under Elizabeth I. It shall be far from ideal by modern standards but nowhere as brutal as the Commonwealth regime where a small minority of Jacobin military officials and Puritan radicals hijacked the revolution to impose its wishes by force on the rest of the nation. A victorious King is going to enjoy a much bigger Royalist power base across the country and hence have less need for brutal force. As it concerns the Irish, the Stuart monarchs obviously wanted to suppress open defiance, but in practice they did not seem interested to impose forced conversion of Ireland or extreme repression of Catholics, so we may expect a continuation of the Tudor-Stuart status quo for them, nothing more, nothing less. In terms of repression, we may expect the usual wave of judicial punishment of traitors that invariably followed failed uprisings in English/British history, and a widespread crackdown and persecution of Puritans. They are gonna be the big losers in this scenario, but their fate does not vary much from the early Restoration one, it only occurs earlier and gets somewhat harsher and more systematic. This is more or less going to be the new status quo for the rest of Charles I's reign. His son, unless TTL circumstances would change his character radically, is probably going to apply a more moderate policy and be open-minded to cooperation with a sympathetic Parliament he'd keep in charge as long as possible when the Tories are dominant. When the Whigs are in upswing, he's to exploit fiscal security and control of the executive to rule without the support of a hostile Parliament he'd neutralize by dissolution. If radical Whigs attempt to overthrow him, however, he is still going to punish and suppress them ruthlessly like he did with the Rye House Plot and his brother did with the Monmouth's Rebellion. What is going to happen if he does not get a legitimate issue and James II succeeds him is an open question, although in all likelihood TTL James won't become a Catholic, and this changes the political equation considerably. Any support for a Glorious Revolution equivalent is going to be much smaller w/o the bogeyman of a Popist King acting as a rallying cry. Chances are any equivalent of William of Orange ends up like Monmouth. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 24, 2020 21:13:13 GMT
Unfortunately that's replaced by several decades at least of autocratic dictatorship, widespread suppression of any human rights and a markedly harsher military dictatorship. Your got Britain suffering the fate of France and other autocratic states. Its not likely to be much better, if any for Ireland than OTL as Charles had an army seeking to suppress rebellion there when the Scottish and then English revolutions began. In fact the need to pay for that army and insistence on not having any check on royal power by either Parliament, was the primary spark that ignited those rebellions. Given that Charles has won such a crushing victory over both Parliaments and as you say win fiscal security why would he concede Parliament any power at all? It would need a later revolution or possibly a more rational successor monarch who decided that ruling by decree and continually suppressing dissent wasn't very efficient. Especially considering the traditional identities and independence of the two primary nations. Until then its going to be very bloody until either the monarchy concedes some power or any idea of human rights is pretty much lost. Well, it is correct that James I and Charles I were outspoken advocates of absolutism on paper, but in practice when they were able to rule w/o the fiscal or poltical support of Parliaments, they did not try to suppress their role or powers entirely. They just sought fiscal security and to keep the executive power the sole purview of the Crown without Parliamentarian interference. Victory in the civil war would guarantee both these objectives as well as early Acts of Union and the selection of a rubber-stamp Parliament purged of radical dissenters. In practice it would be a continuation of the Tudor political and constitutional settlement, only expanded to Scotland, or the early phase of the Restoration when the Parliaments were very supportive of Charles II. For Charles and his father autocracy in practice meant keeping things as they had been under Elizabeth I. It shall be far from ideal by modern standards but nowhere as brutal as the Commonwealth regime where a small minority of Jacobin military officials and Puritan radicals hijacked the revolution to impose its wishes by force on the rest of the nation. A victorious King is going to enjoy a much bigger Royalist power base across the country and hence have less need for brutal force. As it concerns the Irish, the Stuart monarchs obviously wanted to suppress open defiance, but in practice they did not seem interested to impose forced conversion of Ireland or extreme repression of Catholics, so we may expect a continuation of the Tudor-Stuart status quo for them, nothing more, nothing less. In terms of repression, we may expect the usual wave of judicial punishment of traitors that invariably followed failed uprisings in English/British history, and a widespread crackdown and persecution of Puritans. They are gonna be the big losers in this scenario, but their fate does not vary much from the early Restoration one, it only occurs earlier and gets somewhat harsher and more systematic. This is more or less going to be the new status quo for the rest of Charles I's reign. His son, unless TTL circumstances would change his character radically, is probably going to apply a more moderate policy and be open-minded to cooperation with a sympathetic Parliament he'd keep in charge as long as possible when the Tories are dominant. When the Whigs are in upswing, he's to exploit fiscal security and control of the executive to rule without the support of a hostile Parliament he'd neutralize by dissolution. If radical Whigs attempt to overthrow him, however, he is still going to punish and suppress them ruthlessly like he did with the Rye House Plot and his brother did with the Monmouth's Rebellion. What is going to happen if he does not get a legitimate issue and James II succeeds him is an open question, although in all likelihood TTL James won't become a Catholic, and this changes the political equation considerably. Any support for a Glorious Revolution equivalent is going to be much smaller w/o the bogeyman of a Popist King acting as a rallying cry. Chances are any equivalent of William of Orange ends up like Monmouth.
Your making a lot of assumptions and wish fulfillment here. Charles I especially was determined to impose his absolute rule come what may. Charles II was willing to make it a satellite of France if it enabled him to restore absolutism. Under those circumstances there's going to be a lot of repression as they seek to turn the clock back a long way and no reason why any heir would be different.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 25, 2020 10:07:53 GMT
Let's assume King Charles I us born a different person and becomes savvy, lucky, and talented enough to win an early and decisive victory in the British Civil Wars, even if not enough to defuse or prevent a conflict that had been brewing to some degree since the beginning of his father's reign, if not even before. The Parliamentarian rebels suffer a crushing defeat, the Puritans and the Covenanters are purged. The ascent of Parliamentary supremacy is averted, and British constitutional evolution takes a different direction. The British Isles are spared a generation of civil wars, military dictatorship, and Puritan mores being forcibly imposed on everyone else. Oliver Cromwell and the rest of the Parliamentarian, Puritan, and Convenanter leaders are executed, exiled, or killed in battle. I am interested in discussing the consequences of this event. For one, I surely expect Charles exploits the situation to implement the Union of the Crowns 60 years earlier or so. The new constitutional settlement of Britain is set up to guarantee the Crown a sufficient and reliable financial supply through various standing taxes that the Parliament cannot refuse to authorize. The King's sole authority to choose his ministers, command the armed forces, suspend laws or dispense from them, and establish bylaws by decree is explictiy affirmed. However, the King still needs the Parliament's assent to enact major changes to taxation or the laws of the Realm. Defeated British Calvinists and radical Protestants flee to sympathetic or at least tolerant areas of Europe (e.g. the Netherlands, Switzerland, Scandinavia) or North America, and Charles is able to impose a religious settlement favourable to Episcopalianism. I am not sure about Ireland's lot, but I expect it stays bound to Britain, perhaps even with an early imposition of Union. Its Catholic population cannot expect real tolerance but neither it suffers the brutal persecution of the Commonwealth's regime. Being less distracted by its domestic issues, Britain is a bit more successful in the colonial field; e.g. it is the great power that ends up colonizing Canada instead of France (gonna have a place to dump all those Puritan zealots besides New England). Since Charles' sons do not spend their youth in exile, the conditions that brewed the Glorious Revolution never develop, since James never becomes a Catholic. For that matter, Charles II might well get another bride who is able to give him legitimate children. Let's say ITTL the Portuguese Rebellion fails and is suppressed like the Catalan one, the Iberian Union endures, so Charles never marries a member of the House of Braganza. Opinions? Comments? Other likely consequences I missed to notice? Nice, reminds me of this: What if: Charles I had won the Civil War? |
|
mach2
Banned
Posts: 70
Likes: 47
|
Post by mach2 on Sept 26, 2020 8:20:06 GMT
Let's assume King Charles I us born a different person and becomes savvy, lucky, and talented enough to win an early and decisive victory in the British Civil Wars, even if not enough to defuse or prevent a conflict that had been brewing to some degree since the beginning of his father's reign, if not even before. The Parliamentarian rebels suffer a crushing defeat, the Puritans and the Covenanters are purged. The ascent of Parliamentary supremacy is averted, and British constitutional evolution takes a different direction. The British Isles are spared a generation of civil wars, military dictatorship, and Puritan mores being forcibly imposed on everyone else. Oliver Cromwell and the rest of the Parliamentarian, Puritan, and Convenanter leaders are executed, exiled, or killed in battle. I am interested in discussing the consequences of this event. For one, I surely expect Charles exploits the situation to implement the Union of the Crowns 60 years earlier or so. The new constitutional settlement of Britain is set up to guarantee the Crown a sufficient and reliable financial supply through various standing taxes that the Parliament cannot refuse to authorize. The King's sole authority to choose his ministers, command the armed forces, suspend laws or dispense from them, and establish bylaws by decree is explictiy affirmed. However, the King still needs the Parliament's assent to enact major changes to taxation or the laws of the Realm. Defeated British Calvinists and radical Protestants flee to sympathetic or at least tolerant areas of Europe (e.g. the Netherlands, Switzerland, Scandinavia) or North America, and Charles is able to impose a religious settlement favourable to Episcopalianism. I am not sure about Ireland's lot, but I expect it stays bound to Britain, perhaps even with an early imposition of Union. Its Catholic population cannot expect real tolerance but neither it suffers the brutal persecution of the Commonwealth's regime. Being less distracted by its domestic issues, Britain is a bit more successful in the colonial field; e.g. it is the great power that ends up colonizing Canada instead of France (gonna have a place to dump all those Puritan zealots besides New England). Since Charles' sons do not spend their youth in exile, the conditions that brewed the Glorious Revolution never develop, since James never becomes a Catholic. For that matter, Charles II might well get another bride who is able to give him legitimate children. Let's say ITTL the Portuguese Rebellion fails and is suppressed like the Catalan one, the Iberian Union endures, so Charles never marries a member of the House of Braganza. Opinions? Comments? Other likely consequences I missed to notice? The Union of the Crowns was in 1603 when James VI of Scotland ascended the Throne of England, as James I, on the death of his cousin, Elizabeth I. It would be another 100 years before James I & VI great-granddaughter, Queen Anne of Great Britain, signs the Acts of Union, which creates the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. A defeated Charles surrenders to the Scottish Army in May 1646. He devised a plan to try and drive a wedge between the English Parliamentarians and their Scottish allies whilst trying to negotiate with foreign powers for military assistance. Seven months later (January 1647) the Scots, on the promise of a £400,000 indemnity, handed the beleaguered King to the English Parliament or that was the plan. Unfortunately the New Model Army intervened, which caused alarm in Scotland. The thought of 'independents' taking control of the King was too much for some Covenantors and they urged the Scottish Parliament to raise an army to rescue Charles. The Earls of Lanark, Loudoun and Lauderdale paid the King a visit, by this time he was prisoner in Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of White. The King agreed to The Engagement - a deal that would, amongst other things see a union between the Scottish and English Presbyterian Churches for three years. The Scots, of course, were working to secure more influence at Westminster and the eventual unification of the Kingdoms. If Charles wins then he would have to abide by his agreement with the Covenantors as they were essentially propping him up. James, Charles II, brother converted to Roman Catholicism c.1668. James' religion did not influence his politics though and Charles II was tolerant of his brother's religious beliefs long as he continued to take Anglican sacraments and raise his daughters, Mary and Anne, in the Protestant faith. In ATL Charles II would probably be the same (obviously the Presbyterian sacraments) that if James has children. I think events would probably play out pretty much as they have in the ATL as they did in OTL. |
|
