AHC: Republican Britain
- Thread starter Wolfpaw
- Start date
you know that for the first 5 months of 1660, the UK was a Republic? (or at lest not a monarchy as such)
I was just about to post that too until I saw he said "by 1660", probably not going to work there. For that you may want to end the deadlock and indecision endemic to the commonwealth before Cromwell took over. Maybe if you could turn Parliament into a kind of merchant republic on steroids (in terms of power politics not in terms of how merchant republicy they are) where commercial interests and the economy are the primary focus of the government.
Of course this also ignores it was still England and Scotland in 1660 not Britain.
with that in mind having done my brush up reading
John Lambert's army doesn't fall apart, being a larger force in early January 1660 they meet George Monck just south of Scotland, beating Monck, the Committee of Safety rules rockily for a time with Lambert or Fleetwood becoming Protector.
Simply make CharlesII publicly catholic like his brother James. No chance the monarchy will be restored and monarchism becomes history.
The Republic carries on but a later generation take over without the puritan enthusiasms of their predecessors and we see a drift closer to OTL until the French Revolution. Where a republican Britain inspires the more moderate revolutionaries to a democratic model and later sponsor democratic revolutions across europe in the early 19th century.
In the (alleged) words of German Vicky to universal male suffrage, 'this will all end in democracy you know.'
The Republic carries on but a later generation take over without the puritan enthusiasms of their predecessors and we see a drift closer to OTL until the French Revolution. Where a republican Britain inspires the more moderate revolutionaries to a democratic model and later sponsor democratic revolutions across europe in the early 19th century.
In the (alleged) words of German Vicky to universal male suffrage, 'this will all end in democracy you know.'
James wasn't Catholic (so far as any one knows) till after the restoration, he first took the Eucharist in 1668 or 9, and didn't ever go public as such, he refused to take the oath that he disavowed transubstantiation and stepped down as Lord High Admiral in 1673, that was his "coming out" so to speak, any ways maybe Charles II kicks the can earlier, in 1683, the Rye House Plot thus manages to get off the ground and leads to a republic
I think he means Queen Victoria, though the name is more fitting for her Mother the Duchess of Kent who really was German.
It says not earlier, not by, so in fact your original intended post was more relevant.
Thande
Donor
Republican sentiments ran highest in Britain OTL around the 1870s-1880s. I don't know, maybe if Victoria had died then and Albert/Edward had made more of a hash of it than OTL? Or there's the situation in EdT's Fight and Be Right where both of them are killed in a terrorist attack and it passes to less capable men, and (spoilers!) Britain does indeed eventually end up as a republic, albeit for not entirely related reasons.
We have had some really unpopular monarchs since Charlie II came to the throne, but that is not the issue.
The issue is that after the Glorious Revolution no Parliment would stand against the monarch as it had too much power to loose if there was a shake up at the top. The powers of the British PM are much greater than those of any other PM and indeed quite a few Presidents - none is going to give this up.
A Republic therefore either has to over throw BOTH Parliment and the Crown (and how likely is it that they are both going to be unpopular at the same time?) OR happen before 1688.
The best bet would be to have the Commonwealth continue either under a Cromwell or a method is found to "elect" a new leader (the latter offering more stability).
The issue is that after the Glorious Revolution no Parliment would stand against the monarch as it had too much power to loose if there was a shake up at the top. The powers of the British PM are much greater than those of any other PM and indeed quite a few Presidents - none is going to give this up.
A Republic therefore either has to over throw BOTH Parliment and the Crown (and how likely is it that they are both going to be unpopular at the same time?) OR happen before 1688.
The best bet would be to have the Commonwealth continue either under a Cromwell or a method is found to "elect" a new leader (the latter offering more stability).
Wolfpaw
Banned
I agree with this, and is a favored POD of mine, if for no other reason than all of the mischief Evil King Ernie could cause.
It also gives us the possibility of seeing folks like Cobden and O'Connor taking leadership roles in a British republic that may well begin to resemble the French Third Republic; industrialists in cravats going on about their radicalism while the right-wing broods and most people try and ignore the coalescing and restive unions.
That is far from unlikely, IMO. Just have a pre-1830s Parliament have even more entrenched interests via rotten boroughs and other old flaws in the system. Get rid of the younger Pitt somehow and have Parliament react strong against any reform ideas as dangerous Jacobinism, fearing that the rabble might take over. Have them oust and punish Fox as seditious traitor.
Of course this will not last, but it can lead to some radical reform down the road that also sweep away the position of the monarch.