The mother load of Centruum plots!(IW)

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Jasonft

... Much to his surprise, by the time of his death the Protectorate holds most of Europe. ...

Um ... I've never heard this before. Are you sure it's correct?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Um ... I've never heard this before. Are you sure it's correct?

Its the description of a timeline with extensive outtime tampering by centrum.

[Phantasm]

In the short term, Centrum will be focusing on shifting the timeline to another quantum level; that pretty much means ensuring the Restoration doesn't happen. Once it's shifted, (if I'm reading the bit on Centrum in the Basic Set properly,) Centrum would start more overt control over the Commonwealth (as it was called at the time).

There's a few things to consider:

1. Oliver Cromwell had the support of the army; his son Richard did not, having never served like his father had. Oliver's son-in-law, Charles Fleetwood, would have been a better choice, having the support of the army and Parliament. Centrum would want to shift power to a more effective leader.

2. George Monck, upon learning of the instability in Richard's rule, began marching on London from Scotland in 1660 with the intent to take it for the king-in-exile, Charles II. Prevent "Monck's March", and the Restoration is at the least delayed, giving Centrum time to strengthen their own hold.

3. Cardinal Richelieu in France, Louis XIII and XIV's primary adviser, is one of those people who could possibly have the Illuminated advantage, particularly in a somewhat cinematic campaign, based on his alleged spy network. This has been exaggerated somewhat, due to the Three Musketeers novels and movies based on them, but he had his hands in everything. If anyone on the echo was to learn of the Secret, it'd be him.

4. Charles II and James II would need to be dealt with in some way. Keeping them alive would mean dealing with preventing eventual Restoration; killing them both would be more certain.

However, should all of the above fail, strengthening James II so that he doesn't abdicate the throne and is succeeded by his son (James III) as opposed to his daughter and Dutch son-in-law (Mary II and William III) would also cause a shift.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

Maybe, but James II practically instigated a second English Civil War before abdicating when he realized that his Catholic tendencies would not work in a now predominantly Protestant England. From what I read, Charles II didn't even speak English due to being raised in the French court, and many English nobles thought he was a puppet of Richelieu's. It might even have been a case of the English preferring the "native" Cromwell over the "foreign" claimants to the throne, particularly if Charles II and James II were French puppets.

The Stuarts were not all that well liked by the English people, or even many of the nobles.

However... there is another point of divergence, if they're willing to take the time. Jane I, the Nine-Days Queen between Edward VI and Mary I, was originally supposed to be Elizabeth I's heir. Prevent the court intrigue that led to Jane's temporary crowning before Mary took the crown she was supposed to have, and Jane could have married and had children on her own, continuing the Tudor line beyond Elizabeth. The downside of this would be the lack of a joint ruler between England and Scotland, preventing the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

...

On second thought, probably not a good idea there.

The Hanoverian Dynasty, starting with George I, might be a better choice.

Jane Grey would never be allowed to wed for the same reason Elizabeth's betrothed was killed by Mary's agents, Elizabeth had all of Jane's nieces and nephew declared bastards, and James imprisoned Arabella Stuart. All of these people were logical alternative candidates for the throne. No king wants a pack of logical replacements hanging around teamed up with malcontents.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

. . . convincing Cromwell to name a successor to the position of Lord Protector who was not his son would be a an even better move, IMO. Cromwell's son wasn't half the leader his father was. Cromwell naming a successor outside primogeniture would be revolutionary, though, which could backfire.

Not wholly unknown -- several Roman emperors chose their successors outside their immediate family. IIRC Diocletian during the Tetrarchy tried to set up a system where there were two "Augusti" (senior emperors, one East, one West, both friends -- right) and two "Caesari" (each a junior emperor and Augustus-designate). Dioc. picked a "Caesar" who was not related to him and adopted the guy. (The newly-adopted fellow was 43 at the time.)

So there would have been a precedent known to the educated people in Europe for Cromwell appointing a non-relative to be his successor.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

Not wholly unknown -- several Roman emperors chose their successors outside their immediate family. IIRC Diocletian during the Tetrarchy tried to set up a system where there were two "Augusti" (senior emperors, one East, one West, both friends -- right) and two "Caesari" (each a junior emperor and Augustus-designate). Dioc. picked a "Caesar" who was not related to him and adopted the guy. (The newly-adopted fellow was 43 at the time.)

So there would have been a precedent known to the educated people in Europe for Cromwell appointing a non-relative to be his successor.

Well Oceana, a political tract by James Harrington would be attractive to Centrum. But Cromwell doesn't seem to be a fan. The kind of people Centrum loves, don't suit Oliver. Even though Harrington later dedicated the book to the Lord Protector, the system Harrington promoted, though I assume lovely to Centrum, didn't suit Oliver's conscience.

I still think Centrum would prefer the 1690-1740 period.

However, according to the book I'm reading (Three Victories and a Defeat) the Commonwealth does seem to have had the power to conquer the European land mass, and proved it could do so.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Napoleon is a fine choice, but remember, the idea of democracy is out there and it would take Napoleon a while to be able to rig a trans-Atlantic invasion.

And it would be so hard to shift American democracy into an elitist, technocratic pattern.

Originally Posted by robkelk

All he has to do is appeal to history. "I look back to the dayes when Rome was a strong nation, when the Ceasears adopted the best men to be their heirs no matter who they wer, and I followe their example by adopting ..." Idiosyncratic spelling intentional, to evoke the feel of period-piece texts

Yeah, when in doubt when trying to promote a radical political change in pre-20th century Europe, invoke Rome.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

And it would be so hard to shift American democracy into an elitist, technocratic pattern.

For that matter, 18th and early 19th century England would be radical by Centrum terms. The nation that produced Tom Paine would confuse Centrum no end.