Alternate history: what if Oliver Cromwell’s son had never been named Lord Protector?

Professor Peter Gaunt tells Nige Tassell why a more capable leader than Richard Cromwell might have secured the long-term future of England’s republic – but not necessarily forever

By Elinor Evans

Published: Monday, 19 June 2023 at 12:00 am

In September 1658, Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, lay on his deathbed. He had served less than five years in his role as both head of state and head of government, following the earlier execution of Charles I in 1649, but he was now required to name his successor. Cromwell is understood to have done so verbally; certainly, no written records survive of him revealing the name of the new Lord Protector. He chose Richard, his eldest surviving son. 

He may have been his son, but Richard was no Oliver. His power base within the army was minimal and he had little clout within Parliament. By the following May, Richard’s weakness had brought about his departure, which in turn led to the end of the Protectorate and to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. So why had Cromwell believed his unqualified son to be the best man for the job?

"Oliver
Cromwell depicted with the body of Charles I in 1649. Four years later, Cromwell would also become head of state. (Image by Getty Images)

In context: the rule of Oliver Cromwell

After the execution of Charles I in 1649, England was ruled by the Rump Parliament in conjunction with the English Council of State. Oliver Cromwell staged a coup in April 1653, dissolving the Rump Parliament and replacing it with a body called the Nominated Assembly. When this too was dissolved in December 1653, Cromwell created a Protectorate, with himself as Lord Protector. It was a role he fulfilled for less than half a decade. Suffering with complications from malaria, he named his son Richard as his successor. However, so weak was Richard as head of state that he resigned within months. In the struggle for power that ensued, an influential military figure, George Monck, restored the Long Parliament, the legislature that the Rump Parliament had superseded. Charles II returned from exile and the monarchy was restored in 1660.

Why did Oliver Cromwell think his son was the best successor?

“This is a key question and is very hard to answer,” explains Peter Gaunt, professor of history at the University of Chester and an expert on Cromwell’s Protectorate. “Oliver was surely sufficiently experienced and sufficiently intelligent to foresee problems in nominating someone who had no real military background or pedigree. I suspect a large part of the answer lies in Oliver’s traditional social outlook – he was never radical in social terms and respected the established social hierarchy, as well as the value of family and kinship ties. Thus, once given the right and obligation to name his successor, he felt bound to name his elder surviving son and legal heir.”

Richard Cromwell’s power base within the army was minimal and he had little clout in Parliament

The right of the Lord Protector to unilaterally determine his successor had only recently been agreed. Cromwell had been offered a hereditary monarchy, which he declined. Under a new written constitution, the Humble Petition and Advice of 1657, the role wouldn’t have been as all-powerful as that enjoyed by Charles I, as Gaunt makes clear. “It would have constrained quite tightly the actions of a king and what, as king, Oliver could do alone and without wider conciliar or parliamentary consent.” Instead, Cromwell was now permitted to name his successor. Either way, whether as monarch or Lord Protector, Richard stepped into his father’s shoes.

Who were the other candidates?

It wasn’t that there weren’t other, stronger candidates to become the second Lord Protector. There was Cromwell’s son-in-law, for starters, the militarily well-connected Charles Fleetwood. A more likely candidate might have been Major-General John Lambert, Cromwell’s right-hand man and chief author of the Instrument of Government (the constitution by which the post-monarchical government was run before the Humble Petition and Advice was drafted), had his fierce opposition to kingship in the spring of 1657 not led to a dramatic fall-out with Cromwell and his dismissal. 

"A
A 19th-century illustration imagines Oliver Cromwell on his deathbed. His son, Richard, proved to be a poor choice of successor. (Image by Getty Images)

There was an even more suitable replacement within Cromwell’s own bloodline: his younger son, Henry. “Henry might have made a better Lord Protector,” says Gaunt. “He had a stronger military background and pedigree than his elder brother and, as chief administrator of Ireland since 1655, he had shown himself to be a good political operator in handling government and civilian issues. Henry died quite young in 1674. If he had become Lord Protector in 1658, been successful in the role and lived on as long as his elder brother Richard, who did not die until 1712, things may have been very different.”

More from our alternate history series

It certainly wasn’t inevitable that Cromwell’s successor, following such a strong figure, would fail. Richard, without the connections or experience, was wholly unsuitable, but a sharper operator could have prospered. “Had the successor been able to repeat Oliver’s trick of keeping the army sweet, loyal and supportive of the ostensibly civilian Protectoral regime, I see no reason why the Protectoral system could not and would not have continued much longer-term. I see nothing fundamentally unsound in the system which meant that it was doomed to failure or would have collapsed in the foreseeable future. I am not convinced that a Stuart restoration was inevitable.”

But nor does Professor Gaunt believe a republican government would have ensued for centuries. “I am guessing, given the traditional and conservative outlook of the political elite and wider population, that the Protectoral system, had it survived long-term, would have evolved closer to a constitutional monarchical system, perhaps complete with the return of the title of king.”

Had a stronger Lord Protector succeeded Cromwell, one who lasted more than a handful of months, might other European states have considered divesting themselves of their own monarchies? “While there are some examples of politico-constitutional developments in one state influencing or being followed or copied by another state, it is not that common. It is much more usual for each state to follow its own path, with its own individual peculiarities and unique systems. It would not have served as a blueprint.”

This article was first published in the June 2022 issue of BBC History Revealed