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\u2019s weakness had brought about his departure, which in turn led to the end of the Protectorate and to the restoration of the monarchy<\/a> in 1660. So why had Cromwell believed his unqualified son to be the best man for the job?<\/p>\n 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influential military figure, George Monck, restored the Long Parliament, the legislature that the Rump Parliament had superseded.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.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div> <\/section> \u201cThis is a key question and is very hard to answer,\u201d explains Peter Gaunt, professor of history at the University of Chester and an expert on Cromwell\u2019s Protectorate. \u201cOliver 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\u2019s traditional social outlook \u2013 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019t have been as all-powerful as that enjoyed by Charles I, as Gaunt makes clear. \u201cIt 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.\u201d Instead, Cromwell was now permitted to name his successor. Either way, whether as monarch or Lord Protector, Richard stepped into his father\u2019s shoes.<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t that there weren\u2019t other, stronger candidates to become the second Lord Protector. There was Cromwell\u2019s son-in-law, for starters, the militarily well-connected Charles Fleetwood. A more likely candidate might have been Major-General John Lambert, Cromwell\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There was an even more suitable replacement within Cromwell\u2019s own bloodline: his younger son, Henry. \u201cHenry might have made a better Lord Protector,\u201d says Gaunt. \u201cHe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div> <\/section> It certainly wasn\u2019t inevitable that Cromwell\u2019s successor, following such a strong figure, would fail. Richard, without the connections or experience, was wholly unsuitable, but a sharper operator could have prospered. \u201cHad the successor been able to repeat Oliver\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n But nor does Professor Gaunt believe a republican government would have ensued for centuries. \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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? \u201cWhile 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.\u201d<\/p>\n![\""Oliver\"](\""https:\/\/images.immediate.co.uk\/production\/volatile\/sites\/7\/2023\/06\/GettyImages464504579-9f2951c.png?quality=90&resize=620%2C413"\" "\\"\"Oliver\\"")
<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>In context: the rule of Oliver Cromwell<\/h4>\n
Why did Oliver Cromwell think his son was the best successor?<\/h2>\n
Richard Cromwell\u2019s power base within the army was minimal and he had little clout in Parliament <\/blockquote> <\/div> <\/div> <\/div>\n<\/div>
Who were the other candidates?<\/h2>\n
![\""A\"](\""https:\/\/images.immediate.co.uk\/production\/volatile\/sites\/7\/2023\/06\/GettyImages463988965-b5b2615.png?quality=90&resize=620%2C413"\" "\\"\"Oliver\\"\/")
<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>More from our alternate history series<\/h4>\n