Tango01 | 31 Jan 2020 12:53 p.m. PST |
"In 1651 Oliver Cromwell and his Parliamentarian army succeeded in a brutal civil war against Charles I, the king of England, who was executed. This is an extract from issue 17 of All About History where we spoke to historians Christopher Langley and John Morrill about the potential consequences if Charles I had won instead. What would have happened if Charles I had won the war? Christopher Langley: A serious policy of purging national and local councils of those who were clearly disaffected with the royalist cause. Those who had changed sides would be tolerated in exchange for an oath declaring their allegiance – similar to the oaths administered by his son after 1660. Charles would have had to change his religious policy. A broad-based system would continue with bishops at its head, but perhaps local disciplinary structures may have been tweaked to allow local management. Extremists on either side (Presbyterian, Catholic or radical) would have been excluded…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Trebian | 02 Feb 2020 3:17 p.m. PST |
The link doesn't bring this article back. In any event, from what is written here it's no loss: "Charles would have had to change his religious policy." That's the one thing he would never have done. He went to War with Scotland over it, and also plunged England into Civil War for the same reasons. |
Tango01 | 02 Feb 2020 4:06 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Link work for me…. Amicalement Armand
|
KeepYourPowderDry | 03 Feb 2020 5:52 a.m. PST |
Link doesn't work! Goes to a generic page rather than the specified article |
Trebian | 03 Feb 2020 9:14 a.m. PST |
KYPD38: Try this link: link Having read the full piece I'm not at all convinced that Christopher Langley really understands Charles I's personality and religious policy. This is odd, looking at his PhD work and research, although it seems mainly to deal with the Scottish Church. Morrill makes more sense in his answers. Of course it does depend a bit on how Charles won the War. A quick, big, win at Edgehill and a clear victory to Turnham Green would probably have broken Parliament's resistance. We'd then have had a series of treason trials for the likes of Pym & Hampden. Any idea of Charles I compromising in his views is fanciful. Langley's idea that Charles would pursue a moderate policy or middle course in the Anglican Church doesn't hold water. |
KeepYourPowderDry | 03 Feb 2020 4:38 p.m. PST |
|
12thFoot | 04 Feb 2020 9:01 a.m. PST |
Trebian, I agree. Archbishop Laud would still be in post so the Armenianism would have continued. Independent preachers would have been hounded out. Charles would have continued with his pre-war policies, feeling that God was definitely on his side. Parliament's status and powers would have taken a serious hit and I suspect that there would have been a lot more middle/merchant class emigration to the American colonies |
Mithmee | 12 Feb 2020 7:07 p.m. PST |
In 1651 Oliver Cromwell and his Parliamentarian army succeeded in a brutal civil war against Charles I, Interesting since Charles was beheaded back on January 30, 1649. link So two years before 1651. |
Bowman | 13 Feb 2020 5:17 a.m. PST |
Interesting since Charles was beheaded back on January 30, 1649. But the third Civil War took place from 1649-1651 after Charles' I death. It would have been more accurate to state, "….. in a brutal civil war against supporters of Charles I". But then it would have been even more accurate to state Charles II. Any idea of Charles I compromising in his views is fanciful. I agree. Does the author mention what these factors would be that would make Charles I more compromising? I'd assume a military victory over the Parliamentarians would have been ample justification for Charles' divine right to rule. I suspect it would have hardened his resolve. |
Bill N | 14 Feb 2020 11:26 a.m. PST |
If Charles I won in England he still would have the problems in Scotland and Ireland to deal with. |
Tango01 | 14 Feb 2020 1:11 p.m. PST |
Good point! Amicalement Armand |
Lapsang | 17 Feb 2020 4:17 a.m. PST |
On the other hand, if King Charles did have to deal with Scotland and Ireland after a victory over the Armies of Parliament, he would have the resources of a far more battle-hardened, not to mention larger and better financed army than ever before. On the other other hand, I think it unlikely that the Royalists would have achieved victory after 1643 as the intervention of the Scots army meant there were never enough Royalists to go round… |
12thFoot | 17 Feb 2020 7:00 a.m. PST |
"In 1651 Oliver Cromwell and his Parliamentarian army succeeded in a brutal civil war against Charles I, the king of England, who was executed." Tells you all you need to know about the quality of "All about History" |
General Kirchner | 20 Feb 2020 10:45 a.m. PST |
i agree, poorly written. I also agree, that charles compromising his views, when he didn't even after he was defeated, seems pretty unlikely. Its what started the whole thing to begin with, his stubborn refusal to compromise. ruling without parliament war with the scots his bitterness about the earl of stafford attempted arrest of the parliamentarians you think him WINNING would result in him compromising? |