"What If The Royalists Won The English Civil War?" Topic

"What If The Royalists Won The English Civil War And Maintained An Absolute Monarchy Just Like France? Well, Expect An American Revolution Much Sooner, And Maybe A British Revolution The Likes Of France."

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

There would not have been a Cromwell/Puritan Bible. So James would not have felt compelled to sponsor the KJV, if there was even a King James.

Tricky to understand what you are saying as the video is georestricted so I can't see it.

The (sic) 'Cromwell/Puritan Bible' is properly called the Geneva Bible and predates the King James Bible by almost 50 years (and Cromwell by a good 40 years). Some would argue that the King James Bible is a more 'high church' alternative attempt to reduce the impact of the Geneva Bible in the Three Kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland). Without the Geneva Bible you probably wouldn't have had the colonisation of the New World in quite the way it panned out.

Both versions were probably inevitable with the advent of the printing press.

Yes there was a King James, he was James VI of Scotland, and James I of England. His son was Charles I.

As for the OP question – pure hyperbole. The Royalists were unlikely to win; if they were victorious in the first round, it would have dragged on and on until a Parliamentarian victory occurred. I imagine Charles was going to lose his head whatever

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

"There would not have been a Cromwell/Puritan Bible. So James would not have felt compelled to sponsor the KJV, if there was even a King James."

Rudy, I think you are getting your James's mixed up.

It's a frightening thought. No commonwealth, no William and Mary, no Hanoverians, no Regency, no Queen Victoria, none of Queen Vic's descendants dominating European royalty, no failure of Royal Diplomacy leading to no First World War, blah, blah, blah.

Most importantly, no almost continual re-hashes on telly about the Princess of Our Hearts. Sob, sob. (US:crying, not curse)

Im inclined to think the results would have less dramatic, given that the Royalists lost the war but ultimately won the peace, with the Restoration of 1660.
Charles I would have lived longer, but would have been succeeded by Charles II and James II, with the latter quite possibly ousted by William as in reality.
I think the post above presumes the Stuart position becomes unassailable as a result of a victory.
I wonder what would have happened to the Parliamentarian leaders. An accomodation, or a spike on Traitors Gate? There would have been no "Regicides" to hunt down.

One thing for sure, the Vicar of Bray would still have been in post whatever.

If only Cromwell had managed to make the Commonwealth work, we wouldn't have had a Restoration

Thanks also.

Amicalement
Armand

Arguably Cromwell did manage to (sort of) make the Commonwealth work – it started to collapse some 6 months after his death, the Restoration didn't come until 18 months after his death.

In many respects the Hanoverian succession was something of a return to the Protectorate – a ruling house which was firmly Protestant, with a very tenuous claim to the throne and no Divine Right pretentions, working in tandem with a much more powerful parliament. Given that Richard Cromwell didn't die until 1712 we could have saved a lot of trouble by keeping him on as Lord Protector, or, more likely, by giving him the crown…

Fewer wargaming posibilities though!

Ultimately "All is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds"!

They did try to get Cromwell to take the crown – even the regicides apparently had difficulty in comprehending a state without a crowned head. He refused – probably sealing the fate of the Commonwealth.

The ECW was inevitably, on some level, the absolutist monarchy wasn't clashing with the 'people' it was with the 'establishment' and they would have sorted things to their satisfaction well before it got the plebs storming the White Tower!