DBWI: Was a Republican Britain inevitable?

[The Professor]

OOC:
Unlike most DBWI I've not made the POD clear. I'm hoping we can work out the best one to achieve the idea.

IC:
So, with the increasing absolutism of the Catholic monarchs and the successes of the Reform movement in France, Netherlands, etc, does this mean that republicanism in the British Isles was inevitable and/or successful?

Obviously I don't see our Commonwealth [1] as inevitable, one could easily butterfly a certain Anglo-Irish general [2] and end up with a few independent republics, but whether any of the kingdoms in the Isles would remain.

OOC NOTES:
[1] the United Commonwealth of the British Isles and Territories.
[2] whomever you want
General Note: please respect other posters and don't create either anything too implausible or write vast reams of alternate history by yourself, this is supposed to be collaborative not your personal timeline thread.

 

[Thomas1195]

So, with the increasing absolutism of the Catholic monarchs and the successes of the Reform movement in France, Netherlands, etc, does this mean that republicanism in the British Isles was inevitable and/or successful?

Actually, the Dutch Revolt and the Dutch Golden Age inspired British republicanism, which was especially the case after James II's disastrous war against the Dutch Republic in 1652-1654. The success of Republican Britain, in turn, directly influenced the French Republican Revolt.

Obviously I don't see our Commonwealth [1] as inevitable, one could easily butterfly a certain Anglo-Irish general [2] and end up with a few independent republics, but whether any of the kingdoms in the Isles would remain.

Sure, general Charles Coote played a pivotal role in the English Revolt that broke out in 1655 in the aftermath of the Dutch War. However, what made him different from the likes of Caesar is that he refused executive power, or perhaps never had a chance because he was very ill by the end of the revolt and died shortly after that. He essentially ended up being our Cincinnatus.

However, what doomed James II is his decision to call on French troops to fight the Parliamentarians. This drove the majority of English citizens towards republicanism. He should have had better advisors.

 

[Thomas1195]

end up with a few independent republics, but whether any of the kingdoms in the Isles would remain.

Britain/England definitely could have remained a kingdom, but then it would have most likely lost its North American territories.

Also, a monarchist Britain would have completely changed European politics.

 

[Dolan]

However, what doomed James II is his decision to call on French troops to fight the Parliamentarians. He should have had better advisors. This drove the majority of English citizens towards republicanism.

The Stuarts themselves and their supporters, however, managed to run away to North America and formed the Kingdom-in-Exile that would survive until today as The Kingdom of Albion.

Same goes with the Capetians of France who was able to found Kingdom of Nova Francia.

Both Kingdoms combined ended up controlling the entirety of North America past Nicaraguan Canal today.

 

[Thomas1195]

The Stuarts themselves and their supporters, however, managed to run away to North America and formed the Kingdom-in-Exile that would survive until today as The Kingdom of Albion.

Same goes with the Capetians of France who was able to found Kingdom of Nova Francia.

Both Kingdoms combined ended up controlling the entirety of North America past Nicaraguan Canal today.

OOC: Dude, pls see post 3 🙃. It implies that Republican Britain successfully retained its NA lands ITTL while monarchist Britain would have failed.

OOC: the NA colonies were simply unable to be self-sustaining in the 17th century, and New England - by far the biggest NA colony at the time - would have never joined the Crown. You should keep it realistic as requested by the OP.

 

[Dolan]

OOC: Dude, pls see post 3 🙃. It implies that Republican Britain successfully retained its NA lands ITTL while monarchist Britain would have failed.

OOC: the NA colonies were simply unable to be self-sustaining in the 17th century, and New England - by far the biggest NA colony at the time - would have never joined the Crown. You should keep it realistic as requested by the OP.

OOC: You didn't imply that Republican Britain managed to retain NA Colonies, you implied that the NA Colonies would be eventually lost even if they keep their Kingdom.

Britain/England definitely could have remained a kingdom, but then it would have most likely lost its North American territories.

Also, a monarchist Britain would have completely changed European politics.

Yeah, the North American Colonies would be eventually too big to be ruled from their island base, they would demand either government would be moved to eventually more populous North America, or demanded independence altogether.

 

[Thomas1195]

Yeah, the North American Colonies would be eventually too big to be ruled from their island base, they would demand either government would be moved to eventually more populous North America, or demanded independence altogether

Well, Republican Britain managed to retain Greater New England (OOC: Quebec + the Maritimes + New England + New York + Pennsylvania) with the Union of States Act in 1750. People there simply hated monarchism. It is not as populous as Britain, but certainly more than Kingdom of Nova Francia and Kingdom of Virginia, because immigrants prefer its liberal and democratic nature over slave-owning Virginia and Nova Francia.

 

[samcster94]

The Dutch were able to do it, so why not Britain?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Why couldn't they have just found a Protestant monarch?

 

[JennyB]

Why couldn't they have just found a Protestant monarch?

You might say Richard Cromwell tried that. It didn’t go too well. Perhaps if one of James’ elder brothers was still alive.

 

[Thomas1195]

The Dutch were able to do it, so why not Britain?

To do what? All I know is that they were able to remove the Stadholderate and make Grand Pensionary their Head of State. In fact, Republican Britain played a key role in this.

You might say Richard Cromwell tried that. It didn’t go too well. Perhaps if one of James’ elder brothers was still alive.

James bringing French troops, together with England being defeated by the Dutch in 1654, made British people conclude hat he was a traitor and the monarchy was a failure.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

British monarchy would probably need a POD around 1750, at the latest. The North American colonies were staunchly republican after King George withheld royal assent one time too many. Federal republicanism was the only way to hold onto them. I guess you could have them separate but that's ASB. The colonies didn't want independence, and parliament certainly didn't want to give them up.

 

[Thomas1195]

You might say Richard Cromwell tried that. It didn’t go too well. Perhaps if one of James’ elder brothers was still alive.

Yes, he was quickly banished. Nobody wanted a king after all that happened.

British monarchy would probably need a POD around 1750, at the latest. The North American colonies were staunchly republican after King George withheld royal assent one time too many. Federal republicanism was the only way to hold onto them. I guess you could have them separate but that's ASB. The colonies didn't want independence, and parliament certainly didn't want to give them up.

OOC: Britain was already a republic for nearly a century by 1750 ITTL.