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

- Nige Tassell

In September 1658, Oliver I 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?

BOUND BY TRADITION

"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."