What could have turned the UK into a dictatorship?

[Antilogic]

What's the plausibility factor on a longer-lasting Cromwellian dictatorship extending into the 19th century?

 

[Ajidica]

What's the plausibility factor on a longer-lasting Cromwellian dictatorship extending into the 19th century?

I don't think it is very plausible. The nobility and elite were getting rather annoyed with Cromwell's extreme Puritanism and what amounted to his ban on fun (persecuting the Irish doesn't count). If Cromwell has much support among the elite I don't think they would have ditched his son for Charles II as quickly as they did.

 

[Plotinus]

Republicanism had a strong following in the 1860s and 70s, when Queen Victoria was unpopular. Perhaps one could imagine the Queen retiring from public life even further (perhaps her son could die as well as her husband), and a republican revolution occurring as a result, out of which some kind of dictator emerges.

 

[Flying Pig]

What's the plausibility factor on a longer-lasting Cromwellian dictatorship extending into the 19th century?

Zero. Even if Cromwell Junior had been half the man his father was, Cromwell's general take on life was far removed from that of most people, particularly the aristocracy. The army had been the only think keeping Oliver in power, and it had no confidence in Richard: this and the general financial wreck of the country forced a recall of Parliament. Cromwellians were conspicuous here by their absence; the majority of people were moderate Protestants, a few were closted Royalists, and the loudest voices were republicans. He also recalled the 'Other House' - Oliver Cromwell's substitute for the House of Lords - which led to fears that the Protectorate was in fact re-establishing the old English constitution. This, coupled with a lack of confidence in his (non-existant) military credentials led the army to petition Parliament with its greviances. When these were ignored, the soldiers demanded that Cromwell dissolve Parliament; he refused, and troops formed up to do the job themselves.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Neither of those is nineteenth century

If the 'nineteenth century' thing isn't ironclad,.... And then there's also the aforementioned Home Rule civil war.

Home Rule and the Curragh is definitely the first choice. Cite Hobsbawm as your authority for 1914 being 19th century. Home Rule is introduced, the situation gets worse, the army is actually in revolt, then war breaks out across the Channel. Instead of going to biff the Boche, the Army is used to bring about the quick death of Liberal England. Defence of the Realm Act remains in place.

As a Canadian in British politics, Bonar Law was clearly destined to be a dictator - like Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler, who were all from ethnic minorities/non-metropolitan territories. Sir Edward Carson would also fit that bill.

If it's really got to be 1800-1900, you could posit that Gladstone somehow gets the First Home Rule Bill through and the Curragh happens earlier. Maybe the Liberal Unionists agree to abstain because the Lords will block it, but he's got a secret deal to create new peers, or a terrible outbreak of Legionnaires' diseases at Westminster makes enough Tory peerages extinct for him his majority.... That's going to be an awful lot of fetid ermine though.

Earlier, what if Spencer Perceval had been killed by a French agent rather than a nutter? Panic amongst the élite, Army called out, Duke of Wellington takes over.....?