THE PERSPECTIVE ON THE ROYAL FAMILY

Post by SolomonW
For those of us in the British Commonwealth, the Monarchy in England is a
major debating point.
I was reading this article and was wondering what your views are?
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/perspective-royal-family/
My POD is this, what if in the late 1940s, the British Monarch was
abolished, what would happen?

How do you get Attlee pulling this off?

I would guess in that era incontrovertible evidence Edward VIII
collaborated with Hitler since the monarchy had incredible prestige in
the aftermath of WW2. I can't think of anything else that would
trigger republican sentiment to the required level.

Pete Barrett

2018-04-28 17:09:54 UTC

Post by SolomonW
For those of us in the British Commonwealth, the Monarchy in England is
a major debating point.
I was reading this article and was wondering what your views are?
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/perspective-royal-family/
My POD is this, what if in the late 1940s, the British Monarch was
abolished, what would happen?

How do you get Attlee pulling this off?
I would guess in that era incontrovertible evidence Edward VIII
collaborated with Hitler since the monarchy had incredible prestige in
the aftermath of WW2. I can't think of anything else that would trigger
republican sentiment to the required level.

If Edward VIII had remained king (either by giving up Wallis Simpson, or
by being allowed a morganatic marriage), and there was evidence of Nazi
sympathies, then perhaps. The cabinet (including Attlee) would know about
it, but there would be no action during the war, for obvious reasons, and
there would be no noticeable difference to the way the war was
prosecuted, because the monarch has no political power. After the war,
Churchill would be asking for a quiet abdication, while Attlee might be
prepared to go public. After the unexpected Labour landslide in the
election, a republic might be possible.

I certainly don't see it happening without a scandal involving the actual
monarch.

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-04-28 18:53:11 UTC

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 17:09:54 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by SolomonW
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/perspective-royal-family/
My POD is this, what if in the late 1940s, the British Monarch was
abolished, what would happen?

How do you get Attlee pulling this off?
I would guess in that era incontrovertible evidence Edward VIII
collaborated with Hitler since the monarchy had incredible prestige in
the aftermath of WW2. I can't think of anything else that would trigger
republican sentiment to the required level.

If Edward VIII had remained king (either by giving up Wallis Simpson, or
by being allowed a morganatic marriage), and there was evidence of Nazi
sympathies, then perhaps. The cabinet (including Attlee) would know about
it, but there would be no action during the war, for obvious reasons, and
there would be no noticeable difference to the way the war was
prosecuted, because the monarch has no political power. After the war,
Churchill would be asking for a quiet abdication, while Attlee might be
prepared to go public. After the unexpected Labour landslide in the
election, a republic might be possible.
I certainly don't see it happening without a scandal involving the actual
monarch.

During the war Edward was made Governor of Bermuda. It's possible
something treasonous could have happened but doubtful since even if he
wanted to the most help he could have given the Germans would have
been something that advantaged the U-boats and disadvantaged the RN
destroyer escorts.

The obvious time would be the first 6 months of 1942 when the U-boats
had their greatest success against the US east coast - the Alied
navies had pretty much contained the U-boats by June 1943.

Again even had he wanted to (which I don't believe for a moment) it's
difficult to imagine how he could hurt the Allied cause from Bermuda.

http://www.royalhistorian.com/miami-and-a-murder-mystery-the-duke-of-windsor-as-governor-of-the-bahamas-1940-1945/

In fact I can't imagine anything anybody other than Edward himself
could have done that would endanger the monarchy. Even compromising
photos of Wallace Simpson with Nazi generals wouldn't shake the
monarchy but would generate intense sympathy for Edward ("He gave up
the throne for THAT?!?!?!?")

It is notable that the British government has revealed there are ONLY
two major files from WW2 that are today still classified - one dealing
with Edward, the other dealing with weaponization of anthrax and other
diseases in northern Scotland. It is speculated that the British
government believes releasing THOSE files might give important clues
to terrorists even now. On Edward the speculation is that there are
books to be written but that access to the documents won't be made
available until after the Queen's passing.

Rich Rostrom

2018-05-01 03:37:29 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
During the war Edward was made Governor of Bermuda.
It's possible something treasonous could have
happened but doubtful since even if he wanted to the
most help he could have given the Germans would have
been something ...

trivial.

Which is why he was sent to Bermuda. Before that, he
had been living in Portugal, and is known to have had
contact (possibly indirect) with German emissaries.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Don P

2018-05-07 23:52:36 UTC

During the war Edward was made Governor of Bermuda. . . .
Again even had he wanted to (which I don't believe for a moment) it's
difficult to imagine how he could hurt the Allied cause from Bermuda.
http://www.royalhistorian.com/miami-and-a-murder-mystery-the-duke-of-windsor-as-governor-of-the-bahamas-1940-1945/

As this URL reminds us, Edward Duke of Windsor was not Governor of
Bermuda (a militarily important colony, with air force and naval
resources and the British censorship centre for N.America) but the
Bahamas Islands (of no political or strategic importance, offshore
playgrounds for the wealthy of Miami.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ontario, Canada)

The Horny Goat

2018-05-08 00:36:08 UTC

Post by Don P

Oops - this is what I get for relying on memory without checking.
Guilty!

SolomonW

2018-04-29 03:01:05 UTC

Post by SolomonW
For those of us in the British Commonwealth, the Monarchy in England is
a major debating point.
I was reading this article and was wondering what your views are?
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/perspective-royal-family/
My POD is this, what if in the late 1940s, the British Monarch was
abolished, what would happen?

How do you get Attlee pulling this off?
I would guess in that era incontrovertible evidence Edward VIII
collaborated with Hitler since the monarchy had incredible prestige in
the aftermath of WW2. I can't think of anything else that would trigger
republican sentiment to the required level.

If Edward VIII had remained king (either by giving up Wallis Simpson, or
by being allowed a morganatic marriage), and there was evidence of Nazi
sympathies, then perhaps. The cabinet (including Attlee) would know about
it, but there would be no action during the war, for obvious reasons, and
there would be no noticeable difference to the way the war was
prosecuted, because the monarch has no political power. After the war,
Churchill would be asking for a quiet abdication, while Attlee might be
prepared to go public. After the unexpected Labour landslide in the
election, a republic might be possible.
I certainly don't see it happening without a scandal involving the actual
monarch.

If we are talking about a scandal so bad, I can accept that the Monarch
could be deposed, and even go to jail but someone else in the royal family
would be given the job. You would need a major scandal that affected many
in the family.

Rhino

2018-04-29 04:15:33 UTC

Post by SolomonW
For those of us in the British Commonwealth, the Monarchy in England is
a major debating point.
I was reading this article and was wondering what your views are?
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/perspective-royal-family/
My POD is this, what if in the late 1940s, the British Monarch was
abolished, what would happen?

How do you get Attlee pulling this off?
I would guess in that era incontrovertible evidence Edward VIII
collaborated with Hitler since the monarchy had incredible prestige in
the aftermath of WW2. I can't think of anything else that would trigger
republican sentiment to the required level.

If Edward VIII had remained king (either by giving up Wallis Simpson, or
by being allowed a morganatic marriage), and there was evidence of Nazi
sympathies, then perhaps. The cabinet (including Attlee) would know about
it, but there would be no action during the war, for obvious reasons, and
there would be no noticeable difference to the way the war was
prosecuted, because the monarch has no political power. After the war,
Churchill would be asking for a quiet abdication, while Attlee might be
prepared to go public. After the unexpected Labour landslide in the
election, a republic might be possible.
I certainly don't see it happening without a scandal involving the actual
monarch.

Did you ever see the John Goodman film King Ralph? He plays an American
boogie-woogie piano player who finds himself King of England when the
entire Royal Family is snuffed out while posing for a group shot of all
the royals; an electric fault electrocutes everyone on the multi-tiered
stage where they are sitting.

In other words, it wouldn't *have* to be a scandal that brings down the
monarchy, just an accident.

Mind you, it's pretty much inconceivable that the ENTIRE Royal Family
could perish in a single incident. Even if the closest kin to the ruling
monarch were to die, there are always more distant relatives hiding in
the woodwork. It seems to me that one of the English kings was actually
51st in line to the throne but got the job anyway because everyone ahead
of him was Catholic, which is still a no-no for a British monarch.

If none of the first few dozen people in line were deemed acceptable and
they had to go very far afield to find someone very obscure who was
satisfactory, they might just decide to pull the plug and declare a
republic. That's not inconceivable if a far Left government were in
power and enjoyed widespread support and the prospective King or Queen
were widely reviled, I suppose....

--
Rhino

SolomonW

2018-04-29 06:14:32 UTC

Post by Rhino

Post by SolomonW
For those of us in the British Commonwealth, the Monarchy in England is
a major debating point.
I was reading this article and was wondering what your views are?
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/perspective-royal-family/
My POD is this, what if in the late 1940s, the British Monarch was
abolished, what would happen?

How do you get Attlee pulling this off?
I would guess in that era incontrovertible evidence Edward VIII
collaborated with Hitler since the monarchy had incredible prestige in
the aftermath of WW2. I can't think of anything else that would trigger
republican sentiment to the required level.

If Edward VIII had remained king (either by giving up Wallis Simpson, or
by being allowed a morganatic marriage), and there was evidence of Nazi
sympathies, then perhaps. The cabinet (including Attlee) would know about
it, but there would be no action during the war, for obvious reasons, and
there would be no noticeable difference to the way the war was
prosecuted, because the monarch has no political power. After the war,
Churchill would be asking for a quiet abdication, while Attlee might be
prepared to go public. After the unexpected Labour landslide in the
election, a republic might be possible.
I certainly don't see it happening without a scandal involving the actual
monarch.

Did you ever see the John Goodman film King Ralph? He plays an American
boogie-woogie piano player who finds himself King of England when the
entire Royal Family is snuffed out while posing for a group shot of all
the royals; an electric fault electrocutes everyone on the multi-tiered
stage where they are sitting.
In other words, it wouldn't *have* to be a scandal that brings down the
monarchy, just an accident.
Mind you, it's pretty much inconceivable that the ENTIRE Royal Family
could perish in a single incident. Even if the closest kin to the ruling
monarch were to die, there are always more distant relatives hiding in
the woodwork. It seems to me that one of the English kings was actually
51st in line to the throne but got the job anyway because everyone ahead
of him was Catholic, which is still a no-no for a British monarch.
If none of the first few dozen people in line were deemed acceptable and
they had to go very far afield to find someone very obscure who was
satisfactory, they might just decide to pull the plug and declare a
republic. That's not inconceivable if a far Left government were in
power and enjoyed widespread support and the prospective King or Queen
were widely reviled, I suppose....

We could follow your POD. Say that there was a royal wedding, a major
terrorist raid took place and most of the people attending were killed
including most of the British government and royal family. When the dust
settles an extreme leftist government come to power in England, which
refuses to appoint a new monarch say giving the job to a newly created
President, who does a good job.

What left of the royal family would decide who was the closest inline but
that person remains a pretender upon the throne.

Pete Barrett

2018-04-29 17:09:14 UTC

Post by SolomonW
If we are talking about a scandal so bad, I can accept that the Monarch
could be deposed, and even go to jail but someone else in the royal
family would be given the job. You would need a major scandal that
affected many in the family.

Churchill, and the Conservative Party in general, would certainly be
pressing for that, but I'm not sure Attlee would. I don't know how much
of a monarchist he was, but there were certainly some in his government
who had republican leanings, and more among his supporters.

Of course, the leaders of the dominions would have a say as well, and it
may be that their voice would be decisive. NZ and Australia both had
Labour governments, but I'm not sure how much republican sentiment there
was (a scandal might make a difference, obviously); it's hard to imagine
MacKenzie King supporting abolishing the monarchy!

--
Pete BARRETT

SolomonW

2018-04-30 14:14:30 UTC

Churchill, and the Conservative Party in general, would certainly be
pressing for that, but I'm not sure Attlee would.

I suspect that Churchill would be looking for a replacement royal that was
not tainted by a scandal.

Post by Pete Barrett
I don't know how much
of a monarchist he was, but there were certainly some in his government
who had republican leanings, and more among his supporters.

There were.

Post by Pete Barrett
Of course, the leaders of the dominions would have a say as well, and it
may be that their voice would be decisive. NZ and Australia both had
Labour governments, but I'm not sure how much republican sentiment there
was (a scandal might make a difference, obviously); it's hard to imagine
MacKenzie King supporting abolishing the monarchy!

These would follwo what the British did.

Perhaps more importantly getting rid of the Monarchy would affect British
plans for India after independence.

Pete Barrett

2018-04-30 15:26:14 UTC

Post by SolomonW
If we are talking about a scandal so bad, I can accept that the
Monarch could be deposed, and even go to jail but someone else in the
royal family would be given the job. You would need a major scandal
that affected many in the family.

Churchill, and the Conservative Party in general, would certainly be
pressing for that, but I'm not sure Attlee would.

I suspect that Churchill would be looking for a replacement royal that
was not tainted by a scandal.

Well, yes - and he won't have far to look. The Duke of York (OTL's George
VI) would fit the bill nicely, and his daughters would be as popular in
the ATL as they were in OTL, if the King had no royal children to upstage
them (and if he did, those children be rather young, and untouched by
scandal, so suitable for the throne with a regency).

The thing is, would he have time to arrange Edward's abdication and
replacement before being defeated at the General Election? Or would he
assume that he'd win the election, and put the matter on the back burner,
to be dealt with later when the war was well and truly over? I suspect
the latter, in which case he'd find that his opinions were irrelevant.

Post by Pete Barrett
I don't know how much of a monarchist he was, but there were certainly
some in his government who had republican leanings, and more among his
supporters.

There were.

Post by Pete Barrett
Of course, the leaders of the dominions would have a say as well, and
it may be that their voice would be decisive. NZ and Australia both had
Labour governments, but I'm not sure how much republican sentiment
there was (a scandal might make a difference, obviously); it's hard to
imagine MacKenzie King supporting abolishing the monarchy!

These would follwo what the British did.
Perhaps more importantly getting rid of the Monarchy would affect
British plans for India after independence.

Yes, though in the long run, both India and Pakistan became republics, so
British plans (such as they were) for Indian independence come down to
spitting against the wind. If they'd realised that

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-05-01 06:40:53 UTC

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:26:14 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett
Yes, though in the long run, both India and Pakistan became republics, so
British plans (such as they were) for Indian independence come down to
spitting against the wind. If they'd realised that

The one I'm interested in is a PEACEFUL partition of India into India
and Pakistan.

I'm thinking a possibility was that the British lost at Kohima and
Imphal with the result that the Japanese occupied the ENTIRE
Brahmaputra delta and were driven back by a force roughly 1/3 British,
1/3 Hindu, 1/3 Muslim (which is something the British were quite
capable of engineering) but to me even that doesn't assure a peaceful
partition.

Pete Barrett

2018-05-01 16:51:57 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:26:14 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett
Yes, though in the long run, both India and Pakistan became republics,
so British plans (such as they were) for Indian independence come down
to spitting against the wind. If they'd realised that

The one I'm interested in is a PEACEFUL partition of India into India
and Pakistan.
I'm thinking a possibility was that the British lost at Kohima and
Imphal with the result that the Japanese occupied the ENTIRE Brahmaputra
delta and were driven back by a force roughly 1/3 British,
1/3 Hindu, 1/3 Muslim (which is something the British were quite capable
of engineering) but to me even that doesn't assure a peaceful partition.

Agreed on all counts, though I'm not sure how having a traitor for King-
Emperor would facilitate it (I never heard that Edward had any leanings
towards the Japanese). A republican Britain might be likely to give
independence to Indian and Pakistani republics, without any awkwardnesses
about the precedence given to the Viceroy and G-G, but is that a major
change?

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-05-02 00:44:26 UTC

On Tue, 1 May 2018 16:51:57 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by The Horny Goat
I'm thinking a possibility was that the British lost at Kohima and
Imphal with the result that the Japanese occupied the ENTIRE Brahmaputra
delta and were driven back by a force roughly 1/3 British,
1/3 Hindu, 1/3 Muslim (which is something the British were quite capable
of engineering) but to me even that doesn't assure a peaceful partition.

I was proposing this as a separate scenario from the "post 1945
Republican Britain" scenario.

If you want to propose the end of the Monarchy as a pre-condition
that's OK but not mandatory.

I don't think the mass killings and forcible displacement of OTL's
1947-48 Indian partition depends on the Viceroy and G-G at all.

Similarly if Japan had not fought WW2 (either via Pearl Harbor or
otherwise) would India still be partitioned and if so would the
partition be more or less peaceful than OTL?

Presumably the British Indian army would be much smaller if there had
been no Pacific Theatre of Operations and Germany may or may not have
been defeated more quickly.

Pete Barrett

2018-05-02 17:04:46 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
I don't think the mass killings and forcible displacement of OTL's
1947-48 Indian partition depends on the Viceroy and G-G at all.
Similarly if Japan had not fought WW2 (either via Pearl Harbor or
otherwise) would India still be partitioned and if so would the
partition be more or less peaceful than OTL?

Jinnah's drive for Pakistan started before WWII, and the resignation of
Congress ministries was due to the Viceroy's declaration of war against
Germany, not Japan, so the political position in 1945 (or at the defeat
of Germany) is similar to OTL - League ministries in place, and Congress
ministers in prison. With a Labour government in power in London, intent
on giving India independence, and that position in India, I think
partition is more or less inevitable.

It seems to me that what's required for a peaceful partition is time. If
there had been a year or so between passing the Indian Independence Act
and its implementation, there may have been time to organise exchanges of
people between the two areas, instead of having them up roots and trek;
in fact, generally organise the process properly at all. As it was, there
was just over a month.

Of course, leaving a year to organise things might have made it even
worse (time for people to organise spanners in the works, basically),
which is presumably why it was pushed through so quickly. Other similar
population movements in the wake of WWII weren't organised properly,
either.

Post by The Horny Goat
Presumably the British Indian army would be much smaller if there had
been no Pacific Theatre of Operations and Germany may or may not have
been defeated more quickly.

Possibly, though Indian troops were deployed in North Africa as well, and
some ended up in POW camps in Germany. No Far East theatre might mean
more Indian troops in Europe, and a quicker war, as you suggest. It
probably means S.C.Bose lives, too, to be a major spanner in the works!

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-05-02 22:02:29 UTC

On Wed, 2 May 2018 17:04:46 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett
Possibly, though Indian troops were deployed in North Africa as well, and
some ended up in POW camps in Germany. No Far East theatre might mean
more Indian troops in Europe, and a quicker war, as you suggest. It
probably means S.C.Bose lives, too, to be a major spanner in the works!

Yes that's an interesting angle. Hadn't considered what effect his
survival might have - I would tend to think it would make a peaceful
settlement less not more likely.

Though not as well known Bose was at least as important in the grand
scheme of things as William Joyce and was a major thorn in the sides
of both Gandhi and Jinnah.

Ironically I read the Goebbels diaries in my undergraduate years (mid
1970s) which is where I first learned both about him and the Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem.

Pete Barrett

2018-05-03 16:51:24 UTC

Post by Pete Barrett
Possibly, though Indian troops were deployed in North Africa as well,
and some ended up in POW camps in Germany. No Far East theatre might
mean more Indian troops in Europe, and a quicker war, as you suggest. It
probably means S.C.Bose lives, too, to be a major spanner in the works!

It's possible, of course, that Bose in Germany would not survive the war
(lots of people didn't). If he does survive, he's got to decide who to
surrender to. He has a certain amount of choice over that - once he's
decided the war is lost, he can move towards any of the advancing
Russians, British, or Americans, and hope to get picked up by the
appropriate troops.

He probably wouldn't want to surrender to the British, because prison and
trial would be the least he could expect, and he may be afraid of being
hanged for treason. (If acting sensibly, I don't think they'd do that,
given his popularity in India; but you can never be sure, and he
certainly wouldn't count on it.) And the British would have to decide
what to do with him, since Congress would undoubtedly have to call for
his release (much as Gandhi and Nehru would dislike the idea of a free
Bose).

One of the interesting things is that, when he first escaped from the
British in India, he went first to Moscow, not Berlin - relations between
Moscow and Berlin were quite good at the time, so the Soviets sent him on
to Germany, not having any use for him themselves. So would he prefer to
surrender to the Soviets, hoping to cash in on the earlier friendliness?
If he does, I suspect he might disappear, because his later pro-Axis
orientation would be a severe embarrassment.

He'd probably prefer the Americans, all told - he could perhaps present
himself as an anti-imperialist (good) and only a reluctant (good) pro-
Nazi (bad), who knew nothing of any atrocities (good, and very likely
true as well). What the US would do with him, I'm not sure. If the
British really wanted him, they'd hand him over, but I think he'd be an
enormous embarrassment to the British, which I think they'd prefer not to
have - Joyce was a nobody who could be hung with impunity, but Bose
wasn't.

Post by The Horny Goat
Ironically I read the Goebbels diaries in my undergraduate years (mid
1970s) which is where I first learned both about him and the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem.

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-04-30 15:42:04 UTC

Churchill, and the Conservative Party in general, would certainly be
pressing for that, but I'm not sure Attlee would.

I suspect that Churchill would be looking for a replacement royal that was
not tainted by a scandal.

Well Elizabeth was 12-13 when he became PM.....

Post by Pete Barrett
I don't know how much
of a monarchist he was, but there were certainly some in his government
who had republican leanings, and more among his supporters.

There were.

That's an extremely good way of putting it - I've never read anything
by Attlee that suggests republican sentiments (and having read
Churchill's 6 volume history he surely would have pounced on it if
there were) but Labour generally - well.....

These would follwo what the British did.

I agree King wasn't going to be out of step with Westminster. About
the ONLY time he was was the Chanak affair and that was when Canada
had a VERY unstable minority government situation with a new election
(which King eventually won a comfortable majority only to be turfed in
1930 which was a bad time for democratic governing parties generally
for obvious reasons) expected at most any minute.

SolomonW

2018-04-29 03:24:33 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
How do you get Attlee pulling this off?

Alien bats

The Horny Goat

2018-04-30 00:16:11 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
How do you get Attlee pulling this off?

Alien bats

I was afraid that would be your answer.....

In fairness the scenario I described was about the ONLY way I could
even imagine it and even that was extremely far fetched.

SolomonW

2018-04-30 14:10:38 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
How do you get Attlee pulling this off?

Alien bats

I was afraid that would be your answer.....
In fairness the scenario I described was about the ONLY way I could
even imagine it and even that was extremely far fetched.

Well following Rhino suggestion, I have made a better one.

Rich Rostrom

2018-05-01 03:33:05 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
I would guess in that era incontrovertible evidence
Edward VIII collaborated with Hitler since the
monarchy had incredible prestige in the aftermath of WW2.

That's about what it would take, except that he had
abdicated and was clearly dissociated from the rest
of the Royal Family, especially his brother the King.

Whatever Edward had done, it would not be George's
fault.

However, if Edward had refused to abdicate, promised
he wouldn't marry Wallis, then went ahead and did so
anyway, and then engaged in some kind of pro-Nazi
intrigue _as_ _King_... that might do it.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Don P

2018-05-07 23:56:57 UTC

The British are theoretically ready to dump institutions that do not
work, but usually require first a more affirmative plan, to build or
instal something that will do what is positively needed. This URL does
not consider what might replace the Crown's constitutional and symbolic
functions so its proposed debate appeals less to Britons and perhaps
more to foreigners unconcerned about what might replace the Crown.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ontario, Canada)

The Horny Goat

2018-05-08 00:37:44 UTC

Post by Don P
The British are theoretically ready to dump institutions that do not
work, but usually require first a more affirmative plan, to build or
instal something that will do what is positively needed. This URL does
not consider what might replace the Crown's constitutional and symbolic
functions so its proposed debate appeals less to Britons and perhaps
more to foreigners unconcerned about what might replace the Crown.

I dunno - Oliver Cromwell demonstrated that a quasi-republic could
rule Britain.

It was Richard Cromwell not his father who thought one couldn't. Had
he handed over to one of the senior generals rather than the Stuarts
the Commonwealth could well have continued.

Pete Barrett

2018-05-08 15:00:13 UTC

I dunno - Oliver Cromwell demonstrated that a quasi-republic could rule
Britain.
It was Richard Cromwell not his father who thought one couldn't. Had he
handed over to one of the senior generals rather than the Stuarts the
Commonwealth could well have continued.

Wasn't it one of the senior generals who restored Charles II?

--
Pete BARRETT

The Horny Goat

2018-05-08 15:20:38 UTC

On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:00:13 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

It was Richard Cromwell not his father who thought one couldn't. Had he
handed over to one of the senior generals rather than the Stuarts the
Commonwealth could well have continued.

Wasn't it one of the senior generals who restored Charles II?

You're right - the Restoration was primarily accomplished by Monck.

Who was definitely a senior general :)

My point was the Richard Cromwell essentially handed over to _nobody_
(nor attempted to retain power himself) and the resulting state of
chaos was enormously destructive particularly with Charles'
vindictiveness.

In my opinion that more than anything else made 'the Glorious
Revolution' inevitable - I cannot think of anything much more likely
to cause an uprising than digging up and "executing" dead
parliamentarians.

It was said of the Bourbons that they had learned nothing and
forgotten nothing - the same could be equally well said of Charles II.

Rich Rostrom

2018-05-08 20:18:28 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
My point was the Richard Cromwell essentially handed
over to _nobody_ (nor attempted to retain power
himself) and the resulting state of chaos was
enormously destructive particularly with Charles'
vindictiveness.
In my opinion that more than anything else made 'the
Glorious Revolution' inevitable - I cannot think of
anything much more likely to cause an uprising than
digging up and "executing" dead parliamentarians.

How about hanging, drawing, and quartering _live_
parliamentarians?

Nine of the "regicides" (the commissioners who signed
the death warrant of Charles I) were hanged, drawn,
and quartered. Six were executed at Charing Cross on
13, 15, and 17 October 1660; the other three 19 April
1662. (They had escaped abroad, and had to be extradited.)

But this did _not_ provoke any popular reaction - nor
did the abuse of Cromwell's remains; by 1660 he was
_not_ a popular figure. The GR was 28 years later, and
all scholars I know of trace it to James II's arbitrary
rule, elevation of Catholics, harsh repression of
Monmouth's rebellion, and the apparent future of indefiinite
Catholic succession.

Post by The Horny Goat
It was said of the Bourbons that they had learned
nothing and forgotten nothing - the same could be
equally well said of Charles II.

I hardly think so.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rich Rostrom

2018-05-09 06:54:03 UTC

... I cannot think of

Post by The Horny Goat
anything much more likely to cause an uprising than
digging up and "executing" dead parliamentarians.

How about hanging, drawing, and quartering _live_
parliamentarians?

Let me add that the "Glorious Revolution" was the
result of political intrigue by the leading men of
England, who invited William of Orange to come to
England with an army and demand reforms from James
(with the secret agreement that he would be named
king).

I very much doubt that these parliamentary magnates
were moved to act by the decades-old memory of
insults to the corpse of Cromwell.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Gene Wirchenko

2018-05-09 20:27:00 UTC

On Tue, 08 May 2018 15:18:28 -0500, Rich Rostrom
[snip]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
In my opinion that more than anything else made 'the
Glorious Revolution' inevitable - I cannot think of
anything much more likely to cause an uprising than
digging up and "executing" dead parliamentarians.

How about hanging, drawing, and quartering _live_
parliamentarians?

They would squirm a lot more, to be sure.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Pete Barrett

2018-05-10 20:59:18 UTC