Help support TMP

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

12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the English Civil War Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Top-Rated Ruleset

Days of Knights

Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Profile Article

Featured Book Review

649 hits since 9 Aug 2020
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Aug 2020 8:41 p.m. PST

"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


RudyNelson11 Aug 2020 9:38 a.m. PST

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.

KeepYourPowderDry11 Aug 2020 9:58 a.m. PST

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

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP11 Aug 2020 10:50 a.m. PST



Midlander6511 Aug 2020 1:13 p.m. PST

"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.

Stoppage11 Aug 2020 3:37 p.m. PST

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)

forrester12 Aug 2020 11:42 a.m. PST

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.

12thFoot13 Aug 2020 7:20 a.m. PST

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

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP13 Aug 2020 11:40 a.m. PST

Thanks also.


Noll C14 Aug 2020 6:35 a.m. PST

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!

Mollinary14 Aug 2020 10:06 a.m. PST

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

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa18 Aug 2020 8:38 a.m. PST

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!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.