Was The Restoration of the English monarchy a mistake ?

jackydee

Ad Honorem
Jan 2013
4,569
Brigadoon
#4
Do you think that The Restoration of the English monarchy in 1660 was a mistake ?
On the whole it was probably not a mistake. However, the fact that we needed another revolution shortly afterwards suggests the Restoration was not as successful as it might have been.
 
Jun 2015
5,730
UK
#6
i don't think it was. Monarchy was the normal/natural state, and Cromwell was the man England needed once Charles I died. The lessons were learnt, that the King should tolerate all denominations, and respect Parliament. I'd argue the whole wars didn't even damage England much, since its colonies did well, and despite losing some wars to the Dutch got the American colonies and by 1700 was outdoing the Dutch.
 
Jun 2015
5,730
UK
#7
Also, who else was strong enough to run a Republic like Cromwell? his son certainly wasn't. Getting in Charles II made sense at the time, and there was no way to know that James VII/II would be as bad as their dad.
 

Von Ranke

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
6,377
Thistleland
#8
i don't think it was. Monarchy was the normal/natural state, and Cromwell was the man England needed once Charles I died. The lessons were learnt, that the King should tolerate all denominations, and respect Parliament. I'd argue the whole wars didn't even damage England much, since its colonies did well, and despite losing some wars to the Dutch got the American colonies and by 1700 was outdoing the Dutch.
As a dyed in the wool republican I actually think that you make some good points. Oliver understood the nature of power and quite rightly took the reasonable point of view that Monarchy buttressed by the idea of Divine Right, as articulated by James I in his True Law of Free Monarchy, slammed the door in the face of the powerful men of the shires having their concerns of local issues being overwhelmed by Kingly placemen. Even worse the rising merchant class were being shut out by grants on trade handed out to court favourites. The Declaration of Breda and the Bill of Rights may have limited the power of the Monarchy on foreign policy, but Royal patronage meant that the cards were always in the hands of the King. I see your argument about Empire, but it is fair to point out that had America been negotiating with a representative government who accepted that no taxation without representation was a reasonable basis for agreement, rather than an anachronistic hereditary Monarchy the course of history may have worked out much better.
 
Last edited:

Pendennis

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,386
Kirkcaldy, Scotland
#9
Von Ranke-I too am a died -in-he wool republican of many years standing. But the 17th century Restoration was pretty unavoidable after Cromwell's death and I think we have to accept that the modern monarchy is not likely to be abolished in Britain any time soon.It's too popular .
Princes Harry and Wills come over too as decent, regular, guys as well which makes life hard for we republicans .
It would be different maybe if the CURRENT HEIRS to the British throne had been grade A Neo-Facist twerps like Edward VIII AKA ''The Duke of Windsor' or gross, fat, unpopular, mountebanks, like George IV, but they are not-both Wills and Harry strike me as being likeable, regular guys.
Can you imagine that twerp Edward VIII ROLLING UP HIS SLEEVES AS Harry & his older brother, William did to help build that house recently for the disabled Afghanistan veteran?
But Britain wasn't ready in the 17th century for a permanent republic.