Why exactly was Charles II of England restored?

[GauchoBadger]

i have a question, mentioned above.
How come there was support for Charles II's restoration to the throne?
-England was dominated by protestants, and Charles I's atrocities towards protestants were still fresh on most of people's minds. Why propel his own son back to the throne?
-i get that it was mostly due to Richard Cromwell's incompetence as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, but why didn't they simply choose to dissolve the position of Lord Protector and keep the Commonwealth alive, with the Parliament as the only government structure? I believe Great Britain could, indeed, be ruled without a monarch, as there's proof in the north italian republics at the time, who didn't possess a monarch.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I believe Great Britain could, indeed, be ruled without a monarch, as there's proof in the north italian republics at the time, who didn't possess a monarch.

Why should one suppose that, because a certain form of government works in northern Italy, it will also work in England?

 

[GauchoBadger]

Why should one suppose that, because a certain form of government works in northern Italy, it will also work in England?

I don't know. But it did at least kind of work in the period before Cromwell and after Charles.
There was also Poland, which had some heavy traces of parliamentarism, if still dominated by rich people. That means it doesn't necessarily have to be very democratic.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I don't know. But it did at least kind of work in the period before Cromwell and after Charles.
There was also Poland, which had some heavy traces of parliamentarism, if still dominated by rich people. That means it doesn't necessarily have to be very democratic.

England is England. Northern Italy is Northern Italy. Poland is Poland. None of them are the same. It's a mistake to think that because something works well in one country, it will automatically work well in another country. Individual nations are the products of centuries of political, religious, linguistics, social, cultural, economic, and artistic evolution. Fact is, England was a monarchy and had been for centuries. Cronwell's republican experiment was doomed to failure, because it went against the grain of centuries of history. It was like trying to play a basketball game with the rules of a soccer game. It just didn't work.

 

[GauchoBadger]

England is England. Northern Italy is Northern Italy. Poland is Poland. None of them are the same. It's a mistake to think that because something works well in one country, it will automatically work well in another country. Individual nations are the products of centuries of political, religious, linguistics, social, cultural, economic, and artistic evolution. Fact is, England was a monarchy and had been for centuries. Cronwell's republican experiment was doomed to failure, because it went against the grain of centuries of history. It was like trying to play a basketball game with the rules of a soccer game. It just didn't work.

But the Commonwealth period did set the stage for a semi-democratic government system in england. If it was doomed to failure and wouldn't work, then why was it even tried in the first place? And how did it manage to survive for fourteen years?
Sorry if i used other countries as an example.

 

[Eivind]

Even though Richard Cromwell was incompetent, they could theoretically have found another person to take over as Lord Protector. Or they could have found a king from a royal family that was more clearly Protestant.

 

[Shiva]

It was politics, Oliver Cromwell managed to make the Commonwealth clanking along merrily, however he was never able to achieve true stability and always had the perception of being an illegitimate ruler. He wanted to establish a republic, however he couldn't make it work and ruled England as a dictator.

Not to mention he never declared an heir and kept vacillating on who the heir would be until late in life when he picked his son, a lad who had no real experience in politics, he didn't know how to make the system work, he didn't have relationships with the various players in the English political scene and didn't know them, and they didn't know him either.

It didn't take long for the 'people in charge' to decide that the Commonwealth was a dead-stick and restored the monarchy as a defender of their wealth and rights, as long as Charles II respected their rights (as expressed by Parliament).

That is where James II ran into trouble, since he wanted to create an absolute monarchy, modeled after the one in France where he lived most of his life, and re-impose the Catholic faith on England to boot. It didn't take long for the people in charge to decide that they needed a different monarch.

See the theme? The people behind the scenes held the real power, the monarchs were just the public face of it, even then.

 

[Mikestone8]

Basically Charles I's killers never came up with anything to take the Monarchy's place. After four years of that, Cromwell essentially restored the Monarchy with himself as Monarch, which worked after a fashion while he lived, but after his death there was no obvious reason to prefer Richard Cromwell to Charles II.

Not to mention that the Monarchy was never really abolished. The "Rump" Parliament which purported to do it was just the scrag-end left over after more than half the MPs had been excluded by a military coup. It never marshalled enough support to risk a general election. Cromwell, as Protector, had to similarly purge his Parliaments in order to get a co-operative majority - and even then they weren't co-operative enough for his liking. And with his death the whole charade soon collapsed.