I've got a new TL on the way! Can you help with a name & POD(s)?

[The Uchronian]

Hi, folks. About a month ago, at the end of August, I asked how a monarchy could come about in a British America, after a failed *Revolutionary War, in the interests of possibly starting a new TL.

Since then, I've decided to go ahead and take the plunge. (don't worry, I haven't totally forgotten my other TLs). I actually am considering eventually branching this TL in multiple directions in the long run(What Madness is This? did that fairly well, IMHO), but I'll probably just stick with one while writing the original TL.

Edit: I'd also like to clarify that this Kingdom will not actually emerge until sometime in the 19th Century, most likely in the middle of that century, or thereabouts.

So, with that, before I start, I'd like to know two things.

First of all, what kind of name would you like to suggest? I already had something in mind, but I'd like to hear your input, too: right now, I'm thinking of going down a not-quite-dystopic but still negative "troubled America" route at the moment.

Also, I've come up with a few general PODs in that critical era between the Boston Massacre and the Battle of Lexington & Concord, but you may also suggest other PODs if you'd like to.

So, with that in mind, can't wait to hear from you guys!

 

[Kaiser Chris]

I know you got your heart set on a monarchy after a failed Revolution but really the easiest way you can go about doing this is by having George Washington become King of the United States after the Revolutionary War. A huge majority of Americans were in support and most founding fathers would have been okay with it. All that prevented it was George humbly defying the masses and committing himself to democracy. That being said though whatever you come up with will sure be interesting and I look forward to your TL.

 

[The Uchronian]

I know you got your heart set on a monarchy after a failed Revolution but really the easiest way you can go about doing this is by having George Washington become King of the United States after the Revolutionary War. A huge majority of Americans were in support and most founding fathers would have been okay with it. All that prevented it was George humbly defying the masses and committing himself to democracy.

Interesting point, although this Kingdom wasn't actually going to come around until sometime in the 19th Century, TBH-I do agree that it would be difficult to pull it off in the late 18th Century, so perhaps I'll add some clarification later.

That being said though whatever you come up with will sure be interesting and I look forward to your TL.

Thanks! And hopefully I can get it off the ground soon.

 

[Beata Beatrix]

I know you got your heart set on a monarchy after a failed Revolution but really the easiest way you can go about doing this is by having George Washington become King of the United States after the Revolutionary War. A huge majority of Americans were in support and most founding fathers would have been okay with it. All that prevented it was George humbly defying the masses and committing himself to democracy. That being said though whatever you come up with will sure be interesting and I look forward to your TL.

No, that's simply untrue. Monarchist sentiment in the early US was simply nil, and had Washington tried it, he would have been reviled and killed.

The best way to do it is to have a republican dictatorship disintegrate, I think.

 

[Stolengood]

Gaspee -- I'm from Rhode Island; I can't not vote for it.

 

[The Uchronian]

Gaspee -- I'm from Rhode Island; I can't not vote for it.

Thought it might interest someone. That said, though, I've just realized that this POD may be more difficult to work with than I first understood.....

 

[Balaur]

Wasn't there a plan to bring over a German "enlightened despot" at some point or another during the revolution?

 

[The Uchronian]

Wasn't there a plan to bring over a German "enlightened despot" at some point or another during the revolution?

I've heard about it, yeah; don't recall that many details, though.

 

[Thothian]

I voted other. I suggest 1776 and the Declaration of Independence as the POD. When the text of the declaration reaches Britain and is read to the King, he goes absolutely raving furious. Reason for this could be some innocent little butterfly, like he chose a different meat for supper the night before than in OTL, and it's spoiled enough to make him sick and affect his reaction.

King George then pushes hard for an absolutely uncompromising stance against the "traitorous scum. An example must be made. Those who commit treason and those who support them in their treason are undeserving of the natural rights of British subjects. Let them and their kin be treated with utter cruelty when they fall into the hands of British soldiers."

Despite some opposition in parliament, the King's campaign is successful with the hardline Mps and is popular with the British public when the King emphasizes " the terrible insult to the sons of Britain who have given their lives to safeguard the colonies from the red Indian and our French enemies."

So basically, imagine the entire British army in the colonies adopting Banastre Tarleton's methods. And the King pays ( from his personal wealth) mercenaries and assassins hired from continental Europe to terrorize behind colonial lines. Imagine the effect if John Adams comes home one day to find Abigail and the children have been kidnapped and are being held aboard a British prison ship, while the Adams estate has been put to the torch.

Despite initial horror and stiffening of resistance, 2 or 3 years of this without letup crashes popular support for the Revolution. The various leaders either flee into exile in countries beyond British reach, or are taken and hanged. Imagine, if you will, Jefferson swinging from a rope in front of Monticello.

With the Colonies utterly cowed by knowledge of what awaits them after treason, the King decides to reorganize the disparate colonies as The Kingdom of American States: a constitutional monarchy. Essentially, Britain and the the American kingdom are co-equal states under a common crown. So King George establishes something like the Statute of Westminster about 150 years earlier than in the OTL.

 

[The Uchronian]

I voted other. I suggest 1776 and the Declaration of Independence as the POD. When the text of the declaration reaches Britain and is read to the King, he goes absolutely raving furious. Reason for this could be some innocent little butterfly, like he chose a different meat for supper the night before than in OTL, and it's spoiled enough to make him sick and affect his reaction.

King George then pushes hard for an absolutely uncompromising stance against the "traitorous scum. An example must be made. Those who commit treason and those who support them in their treason are undeserving of the natural rights of British subjects. Let them and their kin be treated with utter cruelty when they fall into the hands of British soldiers."

Despite some opposition in parliament, the King's campaign is successful with the hardline Mps and is popular with the British public when the King emphasizes " the terrible insult to the sons of Britain who have given their lives to safeguard the colonies from the red Indian and our French enemies."

So basically, imagine the entire British army in the colonies adopting Banastre Tarleton's methods. And the King pays ( from his personal wealth) mercenaries and assassins hired from continental Europe to terrorize behind colonial lines. Imagine the effect if John Adams comes home one day to find Abigail and the children have been kidnapped and are being held aboard a British prison ship, while the Adams estate has been put to the torch.

Despite initial horror and stiffening of resistance, 2 or 3 years of this without letup crashes popular support for the Revolution. The various leaders either flee into exile in countries beyond British reach, or are taken and hanged. Imagine, if you will, Jefferson swinging from a rope in front of Monticello.

With the Colonies utterly cowed by knowledge of what awaits them after treason, the King decides to reorganize the disparate colonies as The Kingdom of American States: a constitutional monarchy. Essentially, Britain and the the American kingdom are co-equal states under a common crown. So King George establishes something like the Statute of Westminster about 150 years earlier than in the OTL.

Well, okay. Not quite what I'd use for divergence material, TBH.....but it's a heck of an interesting idea, nonetheless! I may just use it as inspiration for later on in the TL.....

 

[The Uchronian]

Thought I'd bump this again, for the sake of more discussion.

I am, at this point, personally leaning more towards the Boston Massacre, and/or something to do with the Regulators' War, but I'll still be glad to consider everything else, too, especially the more popular a certain option is. I'm also still looking out for any name suggestions, as well, so please don't hesitate to post one whenever you have it.

 

[JonasResende]

I've heard about it, yeah; don't recall that many details, though.

Prince Heinrich of Prussia, brother of Friedrich the Great. The so-called Prussian scheme. However, Steuben told Gorham and co:

As far as I know the prince, he would never think of crossing the ocean to be your master. I wrote him a good while ago what sort of fellows you are, he would not have the patience to stay three days among you

Not only that, but Heinrich tactfully suggested in 1786 when Gorham sent Rufus King to approach him about this that the Americans would be unlikely to renounce their republican form of government, and that should they be willing to do so, would not a prince from their recent allies the French better suit?

 

[The Uchronian]

Prince Heinrich of Prussia, brother of Friedrich the Great. The so-called Prussian scheme. However, Steuben told Gorham and co:

Not only that, but Heinrich tactfully suggested in 1786 when Gorham sent Rufus King to approach him about this that the Americans would be unlikely to renounce their republican form of government, and that should they be willing to do so, would not a prince from their recent allies the French better suit?

Interesting, but again, just to clarify, the *Kingdom ITTL, wouldn't actually emerge until the sometime in the 19th Century; though I'd be happy to hear any possible suggestions for OTL figures who might fit in up to about, say, 1850 or so, as I don't plan on going quite full-blast with the butterflies prior to about 1800 or so.

Also, ladies and gentlemen, what might be the effects if a British royal figure is assassinated while, say, visiting one of the Colonies, shortly after the end of the rebellion? I would suspect that this might build a lot of sympathy for Loyalism from at least some of those who were previously undecided during the Rebellion itself in subsequent years, but I'm interested to hear what you all think, particularly in the long term(up to say, 1850 or so).

 

[Will Marshall]

You could have the Revolution fail, and then have resentment toward the British among Americans stew. With no example of how "republic" can succeed, with the American Revolution being defeated and the French Revolution eventually being bastardised and compromised until finally Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, many would come to believe that a United States-style republic was impossible even if they succeeded in South America (reading a lot of AH has led me to believe that South America does not, in fact, exist). Come the mid-19th Century, maybe British abolition of slavery pisses off American cotton plantation owners to such an extent that they rebel, and a King or an Emperor is put up as ruler of their country. Much of North America would remain in the hands of the French (or at least the Spanish), such as Louisiana, and greater focus would likely be placed on North America in the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon knew he couldn't defend French colonies in the Americas after the Haitian Revolution, and so he would probably abandon Louisiana to the British. Failing that, Napoleon would sell Louisiana back to the Spanish, allowing them to defend it. The ultimate outcome of the Napoleonic Wars may result in Louisiana ending up with the Spanish, or being split between the Spanish and the Brits. Florida remains with Spain as well in this scenario, meaning that, assuming a revolution comes in the mid-19th Century that installs a monarchy in our United States, the US would be confined to the east coast of North America, going as far west as Louisiana maybe.

Alternatively, you could have Britain invaded during the Napoleonic Wars, which would lead to a similar situation to that with Portugal and Brazil. When France and Spain invaded Portugal, the Portuguese monarchs moved to Brazil and ruled from there even after Napoleon's defeat. Eventually, when the monarchy returned to Portugal, the heir to the Portuguese throne declared independence as the Emperor of Brazil. You could have a situation like this, with one of George III's or George IV's sons in the Americas declaring independence. In this scenario, assuming Napoleon is defeated, Britain probably wouldn't have the economic power to support fighting another rebellion in the colonies, and would come to peace terms. If Britain lost the war, Napoleon would not demand colonies in the Americas, given his aversion to maintaining an American colonial Empire. Instead, the economically and militarily weak Great Britain would probably run into the same situation.

If all history goes the same save for the failure of the American Revolution, there's always the Revolutions of 1848?

 

[Urcea]

No, that's simply untrue. Monarchist sentiment in the early US was simply nil, and had Washington tried it, he would have been reviled and killed.

The best way to do it is to have a republican dictatorship disintegrate, I think.

That's a complete fabrication (I would imagine based on Whig historiography). A lot of the founders were monarchists or at least had monarchist sympathies. They weren't Jacobins like you apparently suggest; guys like Adams, etc., wanted the Presidency to have a kind of royal dignity even after the adoption of the Constitution. A lot of the problems of the early conflict involved the idea that the colonials would appeal to their King and be ruled by him, not his parliament, and that he would intervene on their behalf as his subjects.

 

[Beata Beatrix]

A lot of the founders were monarchists or at least had monarchist sympathies.

Citation, please? Hamilton was, but he was very much in the fringe.

Anyway, Washington said, in response to Nicola's letter, "No incident in the course of the war in me triggers painful feelings as your message, that such ideas are circulating in the army, as you expressed it." That's about as anti-monarchist as you can get.

 

[Yeti]

How about a 1789 POD where the USA constitution fails ratification. If you remove Hamilton at least temporarily due to an illness the Constitution would have been much less well-argued in the Federalist Papers. Struggling along under the underpowered Articles of Confederation, an altered Whiskey Rebellion event removes Pennsylvania from the Confederation. This creates a disolution of the Confederation, when the issue of slavery causes the southern colonies to leave the governement. This would leave the break-away colonies scrambling to set up regional governments. I'm imagining Washington leading the southern states in forming a USA style constitutional government (because of Madison, albeit w/o Hamilton's organizational genius forming a tax base). Meanwhile New England and New York unify under Hamilton's leadership as the Confederation causes people to see all democracy as inherently weak; this leads to Hamilton being made King of New Britain (NY & New England). Middle colonies like PA, NJ, MD, and DE form a weak buffer nation between North and South centered around the concept of religious tolerance.

An easy 19th century POD, although not set in British America, would be if Napoleon's 15,000 man army that was earmarked for the Louisiana territory doesn't stop in Haiti. Those troops don't die from disease, and instead set up a strong French satellite state on the Mississippi River. Napoleon doesn't feel pressure to cut his losses by selling Louisiana in 1803, and instead installs a relative as King. As the Napoleonic Wars drag on the USA agitates toward conquering not just Canada, but also French Louisiana. Alliances with the Cherokee and other Amerindian tribes would prove instrumental to the defense of said kingdom.

 

[The Uchronian]

You could have the Revolution fail, and then have resentment toward the British among Americans stew. With no example of how "republic" can succeed, with the American Revolution being defeated and the French Revolution eventually being bastardised and compromised until finally Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, many would come to believe that a United States-style republic was impossible even if they succeeded in South America (reading a lot of AH has led me to believe that South America does not, in fact, exist). Come the mid-19th Century, maybe British abolition of slavery pisses off American cotton plantation owners to such an extent that they rebel, and a King or an Emperor is put up as ruler of their country. Much of North America would remain in the hands of the French (or at least the Spanish), such as Louisiana, and greater focus would likely be placed on North America in the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon knew he couldn't defend French colonies in the Americas after the Haitian Revolution, and so he would probably abandon Louisiana to the British. Failing that, Napoleon would sell Louisiana back to the Spanish, allowing them to defend it. The ultimate outcome of the Napoleonic Wars may result in Louisiana ending up with the Spanish, or being split between the Spanish and the Brits. Florida remains with Spain as well in this scenario, meaning that, assuming a revolution comes in the mid-19th Century that installs a monarchy in our United States, the US would be confined to the east coast of North America, going as far west as Louisiana maybe.

Alternatively, you could have Britain invaded during the Napoleonic Wars, which would lead to a similar situation to that with Portugal and Brazil. When France and Spain invaded Portugal, the Portuguese monarchs moved to Brazil and ruled from there even after Napoleon's defeat. Eventually, when the monarchy returned to Portugal, the heir to the Portuguese throne declared independence as the Emperor of Brazil. You could have a situation like this, with one of George III's or George IV's sons in the Americas declaring independence. In this scenario, assuming Napoleon is defeated, Britain probably wouldn't have the economic power to support fighting another rebellion in the colonies, and would come to peace terms. If Britain lost the war, Napoleon would not demand colonies in the Americas, given his aversion to maintaining an American colonial Empire. Instead, the economically and militarily weak Great Britain would probably run into the same situation.

If all history goes the same save for the failure of the American Revolution, there's always the Revolutions of 1848?

Hi, Will. Firstly, if nobody else has already said so, welcome to AH.com.

Anyway, definitely an interesting pair of scenarios you've posited here, for sure. Here's my response:

1.)I can say that there will be some anti-British sentiment developing later on in the storyline.....only it won't primarily be Royalist in nature.

2.)Abolition of slavery in the British Empire will come around in the 19th Century, but I'm afraid it will be notably later than in OTL, due to delays & setbacks which almost certainly would have been incurred, directly or otherwise, by the failure of the American Revolution. And, unfortunately, there will be a time where investment in North American slavery actually increases.

3.)The movement to install a kingdom in America proper will, much like OTL's Manifest Destiny, have roots on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line(And, much like Manifest Destiny, at least some of the Southern support will come around because of desires to preserve of slavery). A large part of the motivation for this movement's eventual may or may not come from trouble in other British colonies and/or major geopolitical developments abroad. But I can say that the foundation of the Kingdom will not come around as a result of rebellion.

4.)A *Civil War will break out at some point after the monarchy is established.

5.)Louisiana may get sold back to Spain, but only portions of it, if so.

6.)While I can't give away all, or even many, of the specifics regarding expansion, there will eventually be opportunities outside of Louisiana, including in the initial worldline.

7.)Haven't decided on the Napoleonic Wars, or if they even occur-but if not, something similar may occur.

Hopefully this gives you an idea of where this TL may be headed.

 

[Will Marshall]

Hi, Will. Firstly, if nobody else has already said so, welcome to AH.com.

Anyway, definitely an interesting pair of scenarios you've posited here, for sure. Here's my response:

1.)I can say that there will be some anti-British sentiment developing later on in the storyline.....only it won't primarily be Royalist in nature.

2.)Abolition of slavery in the British Empire will come around in the 19th Century, but I'm afraid it will be notably later than in OTL, due to delays & setbacks which almost certainly would have been incurred, directly or otherwise, by the failure of the American Revolution. And, unfortunately, there will be a time where investment in North American slavery actually increases.

3.)The movement to install a kingdom in America proper will, much like OTL's Manifest Destiny, have roots on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line(And, much like Manifest Destiny, at least some of the Southern support will come around because of desires to preserve of slavery). A large part of the motivation for this movement's eventual may or may not come from trouble in other British colonies and/or major geopolitical developments abroad. But I can say that the foundation of the Kingdom will not come around as a result of rebellion.

4.)A *Civil War will break out at some point after the monarchy is established.

5.)Louisiana may get sold back to Spain, but only portions of it, if so.

6.)While I can't give away all, or even many, of the specifics regarding expansion, there will eventually be opportunities outside of Louisiana, including in the initial worldline.

7.)Haven't decided on the Napoleonic Wars, or if they even occur-but if not, something similar may occur.

Hopefully this gives you an idea of where this TL may be headed.

Ta.

I think your main concern would be trying to determine how without a rebellion the United States would become a kingdom. If it just gets released or granted independence, then wouldn't it just become another Commonwealth realm with the King/Queen of England as the monarch? Unless for some reason or another Britain rejects monarchy via referendum or revolution and America decides to carry on as their own monarchy, I can't imagine a scenario where America would end up with its own monarch and independence without some sort of revolution, unless their independence is part of a treaty between Britain and another power, or part of an invasion (like how the French under Napoleon III invaded Mexico and installed Maximillian as Emperor).

I feel that at least the French Revolution is inevitable assuming the French support the American revolutionaries, because it was France bankrupting herself that contributed largely to revolutionary sentiment and republicanism in France. Whether Napoleon rises to power, it depends on whether he wins in Northern Italy, or how Egypt goes, or whether he's able to gain the popular support necessary to be crowned Emperor. Nevertheless, the Napoleonic Wars, or at least the French Revolutionary Wars, are pretty much inevitable assuming France lends support to the revolution, which it probably will.

Sounds interesting what you're doing with this TL.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Citation, please? Hamilton was, but he was very much in the fringe.

Anyway, Washington said, in response to Nicola's letter, "No incident in the course of the war in me triggers painful feelings as your message, that such ideas are circulating in the army, as you expressed it." That's about as anti-monarchist as you can get.

Ben Franklin, Nate Gorham, Alex Hamilton, Rufus King, Carroll, Adams (IIRC), why would there have been an incentive to create a monarchy if they were on the fringe? They corresponded in Europe with the thoughts about Bonnie Prince Charlie, Henry, Cardinal Duke of York, Frederick, Duke of York, William, Duke of Clarence, Edward, Duke of Kent, Prince Henry of Prussia, the duke of Gloucester - it seems more that they went the republican route since none of the parties they wanted were interested in upping over the Atlantic from their cushy existences in Europe