|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Jul 4, 2017 21:47:30 GMT
So assuming that the Royalists eke out a narrow win in the English Civil War, how would England be shaped politically, culturally and socially? The victory of the Roundheads gave way to Parliamentarianism and a brief experiment with Republicanism.
If the Royalists win, would absolutism become stronger or remain the same as OTL prior to the English Civil war? |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jul 4, 2017 23:36:02 GMT
So assuming that the Royalists eke out a narrow win in the English Civil War, how would England be shaped politically, culturally and socially? The victory of the Roundheads gave way to Parliamentarianism and a brief experiment with Republicanism.
If the Royalists win, would absolutism become stronger or remain the same as OTL prior to the English Civil war? Absolutism would become stronger for a while as Charles I would have effectively destroyed Parliaments power to restrain him. However I suspect it wouldn't be too long before his eagerness to gain such power and probably to tax to excess as a result would have prompted further rebellion. Not to mention even if he won the war in England he would have to find the resources to suppress the parallel revolts in Ireland and Scotland so I could see his regime becoming very unpopular very quickly. Unless he did what his son did and sought to become a French satellite, which could have very nasty effects for both Britain and Europe.  Again however that would have been deeply unpopular in the country and in the 1640's France wasn't the threat it was a generation or so later under Louis XIV. In fact at this time its determinedly supporting the Protestants against Hapsburg attempt to control the HRE so it may well not have the spare resources or interest to support Charles I's autocracy. It might end up with even more chaos, possibly with Ireland becoming formally independent and the Scots being able, at least for a while, to force acceptance of their Kirk and Calvinism on England as they tried to do OTL. Again in the longer term this is unlikely to be successful as England has markedly more wealth, population and resources but you could see a crucial weakening of Britain at a vital period in European history. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Jul 5, 2017 23:45:23 GMT
So assuming that the Royalists eke out a narrow win in the English Civil War, how would England be shaped politically, culturally and socially? The victory of the Roundheads gave way to Parliamentarianism and a brief experiment with Republicanism.
If the Royalists win, would absolutism become stronger or remain the same as OTL prior to the English Civil war? Absolutism would become stronger for a while as Charles I would have effectively destroyed Parliaments power to restrain him. However I suspect it wouldn't be too long before his eagerness to gain such power and probably to tax to excess as a result would have prompted further rebellion. Not to mention even if he won the war in England he would have to find the resources to suppress the parallel revolts in Ireland and Scotland so I could see his regime becoming very unpopular very quickly. Unless he did what his son did and sought to become a French satellite, which could have very nasty effects for both Britain and Europe. Again however that would have been deeply unpopular in the country and in the 1640's France wasn't the threat it was a generation or so later under Louis XIV. In fact at this time its determinedly supporting the Protestants against Hapsburg attempt to control the HRE so it may well not have the spare resources or interest to support Charles I's autocracy. It might end up with even more chaos, possibly with Ireland becoming formally independent and the Scots being able, at least for a while, to force acceptance of their Kirk and Calvinism on England as they tried to do OTL. Again in the longer term this is unlikely to be successful as England has markedly more wealth, population and resources but you could see a crucial weakening of Britain at a vital period in European history. I'm not sure if Charles I has supporters in Scotland and Ireland, but if there were, I suspect that the Scottish Royalists would try to make compromises with Charles while Irish loyalists who support Charles I would demand more religious freedom. Barring that, I could also see Ireland become either a French or Spanish satellite while England and Scotland remain in their dynastic union. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jul 6, 2017 8:45:44 GMT
Absolutism would become stronger for a while as Charles I would have effectively destroyed Parliaments power to restrain him. However I suspect it wouldn't be too long before his eagerness to gain such power and probably to tax to excess as a result would have prompted further rebellion. Not to mention even if he won the war in England he would have to find the resources to suppress the parallel revolts in Ireland and Scotland so I could see his regime becoming very unpopular very quickly. Unless he did what his son did and sought to become a French satellite, which could have very nasty effects for both Britain and Europe. Again however that would have been deeply unpopular in the country and in the 1640's France wasn't the threat it was a generation or so later under Louis XIV. In fact at this time its determinedly supporting the Protestants against Hapsburg attempt to control the HRE so it may well not have the spare resources or interest to support Charles I's autocracy. It might end up with even more chaos, possibly with Ireland becoming formally independent and the Scots being able, at least for a while, to force acceptance of their Kirk and Calvinism on England as they tried to do OTL. Again in the longer term this is unlikely to be successful as England has markedly more wealth, population and resources but you could see a crucial weakening of Britain at a vital period in European history. I'm not sure if Charles I has supporters in Scotland and Ireland, but if there were, I suspect that the Scottish Royalists would try to make compromises with Charles while Irish loyalists who support Charles I would demand more religious freedom. Barring that, I could also see Ireland become either a French or Spanish satellite while England and Scotland remain in their dynastic union. Charles had some supporters in Scotland but that country was already in rebellion against him before England did and the pro-royalist forces were defeated by ~1643 TTRC. The Scots later made agreements with both Charles and after his execution his son to help restore them to the English throne in return for imposing their Presbyterianism on the entire realm. Given how much Charles I was committed to his divine right and how often he broke his word I couldn't see such a pact lasting if it had succeeded. In this case if he wins in England the Scots would definitely fight to prevent him imposing his will on them. With Ireland, other than a couple of hard line Protestant lords there was no 'native' support for him. There was a royalist army in Ireland but that had been sent from England to suppress a Catholic Irish rebellion and for most of the civil war [in England] it had a tacit truce with the rebels and just held an area of the Pale around Dublin. When Cromwell invaded to end the fighting in Ireland and Irish raids on English shipping the royalists and rebels were in loose and nervous alliance against him but that was about the limit of their co-operation. As such if Charles had won in England he would still have to find the funds and men to fight to regain control of his other kingdoms. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Jul 7, 2017 5:46:17 GMT
I doubt that there would have been any way to change Charles's personality in order to prevent any segment of English absolutism from declining, even with his reckless spending habits. It's not like James VI-I would have any other surviving sons who might be raised in the same vein as OTL Charles I, minus the reckless lack of frugality. I suspect that the English colonization of Ireland would have taken a different direction with a different successor to James VI-I, with Leinster taking Ulster's place as the "Northern Ireland" of this scenario (although English Leinster would in reality be called Eastern Ireland, not Northern Ireland).
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jul 7, 2017 10:44:26 GMT
I doubt that there would have been any way to change Charles's personality in order to prevent any segment of English absolutism from declining, even with his reckless spending habits. It's not like James VI-I would have any other surviving sons who might be raised in the same vein as OTL Charles I, minus the reckless lack of frugality. I suspect that the English colonization of Ireland would have taken a different direction with a different successor to James VI-I, with Leinster taking Ulster's place as the "Northern Ireland" of this scenario (although English Leinster would in reality be called Eastern Ireland, not Northern Ireland). Leinster was the area that contained the traditional pale of English settlement and possibly you could have seen another wave of English settlement strengthening its hold on the area. Alternatively a successful Stuart dynasty that turns towards Catholicism could win support from the Catholics in Ireland, including the 'Old English' descended from settlers in earlier centuries. Although of course this is likely to further increase unrest in England and Scotland. If the Scots stay rebellious then there is less chance of the OTL large scale settlement from Scotland into Ulster so it may stay predominantly Catholic and Irish speaking. |
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 14, 2017 20:25:18 GMT
So assuming that the Royalists eke out a narrow win in the English Civil War, how would England be shaped politically, culturally and socially? The victory of the Roundheads gave way to Parliamentarianism and a brief experiment with Republicanism.
If the Royalists win, would absolutism become stronger or remain the same as OTL prior to the English Civil war? Could we see another civil war in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jul 15, 2017 15:45:29 GMT
So assuming that the Royalists eke out a narrow win in the English Civil War, how would England be shaped politically, culturally and socially? The victory of the Roundheads gave way to Parliamentarianism and a brief experiment with Republicanism.
If the Royalists win, would absolutism become stronger or remain the same as OTL prior to the English Civil war? Could we see another civil war in the future. With the character of Charles 1st and the ongoing rebellions in Scotland and Ireland I suspect another English rebellion would also be likely. Possibly a markedly more extreme one in which popularist interests win out over the smaller gentry and merchant types as OTL. Something possibly in some ways more compared to the French revolution. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Jul 18, 2017 19:43:23 GMT
During Cromwell's time, he repealed the law that forbade Jews from living in England, paving the way for them to return. I don't know if the English monarchs were virtual anti-Semites, but I can imagine that a Royalist victory would have kept the Jews out much longer. Perhaps it is the Netherlands that becomes the center of global commerce instead of London.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jul 18, 2017 22:15:16 GMT
During Cromwell's time, he repealed the law that forbade Jews from living in England, paving the way for them to return. I don't know if the English monarchs were virtual anti-Semites, but I can imagine that a Royalist victory would have kept the Jews out much longer. Perhaps it is the Netherlands that becomes the center of global commerce instead of London. Actually it was already. It was partly the reforms and economic changes during William III's reign that boosted the English fiscal system and the strain on the Dutch of the long wars with Louis XIV that resulted in London supplanting Amsterdamn as the primary financial centre in Europe. You might have had Britain replace the Netherlands in that role with the Stuarts still in power in Britain - although technically William was also a Stuart but I do mean the main branch continuing in power. However its going to be a lot more difficult if you have a monarchy that manages to reduce the power of Parliament and other elements of society with greater autocracy. That tends to lead to more spending by the monarch on things that appeals to him and little regard for debt management and repayment, which can do great damage to a countries economy. |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Jul 20, 2017 11:11:48 GMT
Just to clear up some of the misconceptions about Ireland here, there were 3/4 forces in Ireland during the War of the Three Kingdoms. You had the Royalists, the Parliamentarian/Covenanter force, you had the "British" forces made up of allied Scottish and English settlers in Ulster, and you had the Irish Catholic Confederacy. The Confederates are the guys being referred to as the "Irish rebels".
The Confederates, as far as they cared to tell anyone, still swore allegiance to Charles. They were very clear about that in all their statements, Sir Phellim O'Neil claimed to be massacring Scots under direct orders from Charles when they whole thing started, the Confederates formed an "Assembly" rather than a Parliament because they knew parliaments needed royal approval (which they didn't technically have), hell a good portion of the Confederate leadership were the Old English and they were very serious about staying true to their king rather than being cut adrift with the barbarous Gaels. No the problem was a religious one, divided loyalties between Rome and the London, swearing allegiance to a sovereign who was technically a heretic, and also all the Anglicans being shipped to Dublin to take over the running of Ireland from the Old English.
Now provided on the type of victory Ireland is probably going to stay loyal to Charles. If the Royalists secure a quick victory then the Old English will turn against the Gaels in a heartbeat rather than risk further restrictions to their positions. If an alliance is secured (as was attempted several times) then Charles will have to make some serious concessions to the Irish, there will likely be a mass expulsion of settlers from Ulster (possibly just confined to the Scots but maybe not), there will be a reversal of laws against Catholics holding various political positions within the Kingdom of Ireland, and basically Ireland will become a very autonomous English protectorate with strong ties to Spain and the Papacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jul 20, 2017 15:38:21 GMT
Just to clear up some of the misconceptions about Ireland here, there were 3/4 forces in Ireland during the War of the Three Kingdoms. You had the Royalists, the Parliamentarian/Covenanter force, you had the "British" forces made up of allied Scottish and English settlers in Ulster, and you had the Irish Catholic Confederacy. The Confederates are the guys being referred to as the "Irish rebels". The Confederates, as far as they cared to tell anyone, still swore allegiance to Charles. They were very clear about that in all their statements, Sir Phellim O'Neil claimed to be massacring Scots under direct orders from Charles when they whole thing started, the Confederates formed an "Assembly" rather than a Parliament because they knew parliaments needed royal approval (which they didn't technically have), hell a good portion of the Confederate leadership were the Old English and they were very serious about staying true to their king rather than being cut adrift with the barbarous Gaels. No the problem was a religious one, divided loyalties between Rome and the London, swearing allegiance to a sovereign who was technically a heretic, and also all the Anglicans being shipped to Dublin to take over the running of Ireland from the Old English. Now provided on the type of victory Ireland is probably going to stay loyal to Charles. If the Royalists secure a quick victory then the Old English will turn against the Gaels in a heartbeat rather than risk further restrictions to their positions. If an alliance is secured (as was attempted several times) then Charles will have to make some serious concessions to the Irish, there will likely be a mass expulsion of settlers from Ulster (possibly just confined to the Scots but maybe not), there will be a reversal of laws against Catholics holding various political positions within the Kingdom of Ireland, and basically Ireland will become a very autonomous English protectorate with strong ties to Spain and the Papacy. eDGT Doesn't that assume two things?: a) That Charles will stop attacking them and accept their requests. b) That he will keep any deal he makes. Which given his track record is doubtful. Plus even if both of them happen you will have war between the majority Irish community and the Old English/Royalist alliance you mention. Do agree that if Charles is willing to make a deal with them they will prefer allying with him rather than the Gaels, but doubtful if he would make such concessions or keep his word after the Gaels were defeated. Especially if he had his position [and ego] boosted by a quick victory over the Parliamentary forces in England/Wales. If such events did occur he's also going to deeply oppose any of his subjects having loyalties or connections to any foriegn bodies. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Jul 20, 2017 21:15:56 GMT
eDGT Doesn't that assume two things?: a) That Charles will stop attacking them and accept their requests. b) That he will keep any deal he makes. Which given his track record is doubtful. Plus even if both of them happen you will have war between the majority Irish community and the Old English/Royalist alliance you mention. Do agree that if Charles is willing to make a deal with them they will prefer allying with him rather than the Gaels, but doubtful if he would make such concessions or keep his word after the Gaels were defeated. Especially if he had his position [and ego] boosted by a quick victory over the Parliamentary forces in England/Wales. If such events did occur he's also going to deeply oppose any of his subjects having loyalties or connections to any foriegn bodies. Steve A) Yeah I already covered that in my comment, the Royalists would likely turn against the Confederates if the situation allowed it. B) Considering everything else Charles would have had to deal with I expect he would have gone for the light-touch style of Irish ruler that most British monarchs have preferred if he won after a more drawn out war. If Ireland will stay stable in exchange for at base minor concessions whilst he deals with unrest in England and Scotland then Ireland can be ignored until a later date. Reagrdless if he wants a Confederate alliance he needs to hold up his end, otherwise the Irish armies will not be forthcoming, or they might decide to runamock in England should their commanders learn of betrayal in the field. The whole problem Charles had with the Old English was literally down to their "loyalties or connections to any foreign bodies". For peace to be achieved then that needs to be addressed, and Charles will have to concede their connection to the Catholic Church or he gets nothing. Anyway there is no war with the Gaels at present, the Gaels are supporting Charles as well, just not as wholeheartedly as their half-English cousins. |
|
wendy
New Member
Posts: 14 
|
Post by wendy on Aug 1, 2017 14:23:38 GMT
Alternately they could have learnt. You can see it with Queen Elizabeth waving past protocol with Princess Diana's funeral. The "loss" of the american colonies caused a rethink of how to deal with dependent colonies, and the US independence on 1 June 1783, really is more the 'start' of the modern british empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 1, 2017 17:41:24 GMT
Alternately they could have learnt. You can see it with Queen Elizabeth waving past protocol with Princess Diana's funeral. The "loss" of the american colonies caused a rethink of how to deal with dependent colonies, and the US independence on 1 June 1783, really is more the 'start' of the modern british empire. Its possible but the biggest incentive for such changes is when you lose or receive some other sort of set-back. In this Charles has won, most definitely in his eyes. Also he's committed to the idea that as a king anointed by god he has a divine right to rule and anything he does is automatically the right thing. He seems only to have accepted alternative viewpoints when he absiolutely had to, with the intent of reversing such a 'set-back' as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Aug 9, 2017 5:33:24 GMT
I could imagine that if Charles I did win, would he deport the troublesome Parliamentarians to the English colonies in America? Or would he have to find some other remote location to dump them in?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 12, 2017 2:07:32 GMT
I could imagine that if Charles I did win, would he deport the troublesome Parliamentarians to the English colonies in America? Or would he have to find some other remote location to dump them in? He would probably execute the main leaders, or at least seize their lands for the wealthy and seek to control access to the press. The rank and file might have been transported as many of those who supported the Duke of Monmouth were after his rebellion was defeated. In that case I think it was largely as bounded labour to the Caribbean islands rather than the mainland American colonies. |
|
Again however that would have been deeply unpopular in the country and in the 1640's France wasn't the threat it was a generation or so later under Louis XIV. In fact at this time its determinedly supporting the Protestants against Hapsburg attempt to control the HRE so it may well not have the spare resources or interest to support Charles I's autocracy.
