• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

George III goes through with abdicating over Yorktown

Obviously there's a precedent set that the monarch abdicates in response to a vote of no confidence, but what else happens? Who would George IV put in his government, and would he have to end up abdicating as well soon after due to them losing support? Or could we see him doing a Pitt as it were?
Maybe Charles James Fox gets a shot?Wasn’t he chummy with George IV?
 
Obviously there's a precedent set that the monarch abdicates in response to a vote of no confidence

The long-term consequences of this are delicious, because sooner or later there might come an instance where the monarch is far enough removed from their government that they don't see why they should abdicate. Depending on the nature of the crisis this could have very big ramifications.
 
The long-term consequences of this are delicious, because sooner or later there might come an instance where the monarch is far enough removed from their government that they don't see why they should abdicate. Depending on the nature of the crisis this could have very big ramifications.
Whatever it was before, I imagine afterwards it'd be a bigger constitutional crisis than any we've had since the POD OTL, even the People's Budget.
 
If Fox is appointed premier, then there's no, or at least a delayed, Whig split which prevents or defers a rejuvenation in Tory fortunes under Pitt who was after all only appointed by George III due to the Fox-North coalition coming into conflict with the Lords, a coalition which would never have formed if the Whigs had not split after Rockingham's death and Fox's feudal to serve under Shelburne.

With a more united Whigs under Fox, and with George IV still in his 'radical' phase and unwilling to make the threats to the Lords that stymied the OTL Fox-North coalition's ideas for reform, we could see a much earlier reform of the East India Company - but more crucially, assuming that Fox's government lasts that long, the prospect of no or limited involvement in the French Revolutionary Wars.
 
If the future George IV, like the future Edward VII in the 1860s-90s if Victoria had abdicated in her depression after Prince Albert died in order to counter the public campaign against the monarchy (over her withdrawing from public life), is not faced with a long wait for the throne he might have had a better subsequent reputation. His energy goes into backing up a sympathetic PM and government - and getting money out of them to fund his expensive lifestyle - not into parties and gambling, though he still spends large amounts of money on Brighton Pavilion. That did not have its major 'makeover' in the Indian (exterior) / Chinese (interior) style until after 1800 and was still a small classical villa when he first acquired it in 1783 - so if he has more money then, as King, does he hire an architect then - not its OTL post-1800 architect, John Nash, who was not yet established - and build a more conventional building? He would probably also have given Windsor Castle its major Gothic makeover much earlier than in real life (in OTL he did it once he was King in 1820), so is its style different and less ornamental as his 1820s favourite Jeffrey Wyattville has not yet developed his pseudo-medieval style by c. 1785?

In 1781-2 Fox becomes either PM (as First Lord of the Treasury) or Foreign Secretary(when the office is created in 1782) and power behind the the pre-1782 aristocratic Whig 'borough-monger' and leader Lord Rockingham , who dies as in OTL in 1782 and is succeeded by the less radical and more laid-back Duke of Portland who in real life was the nominal PM at the head of the Fox-North coalition in 1783. If Rockingham did not die suddenly in his early 50s as in OTL but survives, given his interest in Parliamentary reform we could have him and Fox combining to persuade the new King to be a 'People's Prince' (which would appeal to George's vanity) and back the early reform of assorted 'Rotten Boroughs' to abolish them and enfranchise some major towns and cities in the 1780s- in real life Pitt the Younger made some sympathetic noises about this to head off pressure in parliament but did nothing and backed away from it after the French Revolution. The amount of patronage that a King could give in terms of jobs to aspirant office-holders usually helped to assure a number of 'King's Men' MPs in the Commons in this era who always backed the government; with George giving this patronage to Whigs and reformists we could get a Reform Bill (more limited than in 1832 but with some major advances in the franchise) well before the Revolution scared
backbench MPs away from reform. By the time the Terror gives a propaganda bonus to the Tories and Pitt,. the reform is carried out - and many new seats' MPs would be Whigs indebted to the government and so giving them a Whig majority well into the 1790s.
Assuming that the Revolution in France goes through its real-life stages, by 1793 we have evidence of the Terror embarrassing the enthusiastically pro-French Revolution Fox for seeming naivity and incompetence, , and the execution of King Louis XVI annoying King George. He might well lose his trust in Fox's political skills and commonsense as a result and be amenable to conservative courtiers arguing that Fox is fuelling chaos and anti-monarchism. So if Fox refused to join the anti-Revolution European coalitions after 1793 but holds aloof, we could have a Whig split as in OTL 1794 - and if Rockingham, a rake and heavy drinker so not likely to be still in active politics , is dead or incapable we have Portland at the head of the Whig moderates. He could then join up with Pitt and the Grenvilles to get Fox sacked, and we end up with a Portland - Pitt coalition and a British entry into the Revolutionary wars by c. 1798.

Logically, the French republicans meddling with Ireland to insist on its 'freedom' as a part of any alliance with England which Fox wants once Robespierre is dead could scare George IV and most moderate Whig nobles off any French alliance and see Fox sacked. But if the diplomatic 'crunch' does not come until the time of a crisis over Irish independence agitation c. 1798, the UK is less prepared for war than in OTL when it has been fighting since 1793. So does the Royal Navy have a mammoth task on its hands to get war-ready and fight off a French expedition to Ireland, leading to a need for brilliant actions by individual captains like Nelson? And with the Navy busy in the Channel, it has no time to bother about Egypt too - and Napoleon can land there without any British intervention?
 
Since he'd have only just turned 19 a little beforehand does he get to become monarch with his full powers straight away or are we looking at some sort of regency? On the one hand you generally had to grow up quicker back then, on the other there do seem to be some laws which suggest that legal majority was 21, but on the gripping hand the monarch can often get away with a lot of things just because.

The other thing that springs to mind is Catholic emancipation. IIRC George was a supporter in his youth, wanting to marry one early on, but turned against the idea later on. I would assume that taking the coronation oath and getting older–it didn't really start coming up until a decade or two later–is likely to see him either not take a fancy to or go cold on the issue, which is a shame.
 
Since he'd have only just turned 19 a little beforehand does he get to become monarch with his full powers straight away or are we looking at some sort of regency? On the one hand you generally had to grow up quicker back then, on the other there do seem to be some laws which suggest that legal majority was 21, but on the gripping hand the monarch can often get away with a lot of things just because.

The other thing that springs to mind is Catholic emancipation. IIRC George was a supporter in his youth, wanting to marry one early on, but turned against the idea later on. I would assume that taking the coronation oath and getting older–it didn't really start coming up until a decade or two later–is likely to see him either not take a fancy to or go cold on the issue, which is a shame.
ISTR Victoria didn't need a Regent because of special legislation, or something in that vein. Hmmm - who'd be available to be Regent, in any case? The Duke of Gloucester, I guess?
 
Back
Top