• 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

Independent American monarchy

J

JosephK

Active member
Location
Virginia
Can anyone point me to alternate histories (novels, shorts stories, or anything) where the American colonies gain their independence, but end up with a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise) rather than a republic?

I have an idea for such a story (probably novel-length), but I also want to make sure I'm not covering ground that's been plowed many times already.
 
Charles EP M. said:
I think there should be some, but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is an episode of Sliders where they go to a monarchy America (not the Prince of Wails one, this was I think S3)
Click to expand...

I mean, the first example that came to mind for me was the Assassins Creed III AH DLC 'The Tyranny of King Washington', which is even more low brow than yours.

I think the actual answer @JosephK is it comes up regularly on amateur forums and stuff but there hasn't been a definitive take. I'm also not that convinced you can have a definitive take on such a broad topic.

Like the independent USA in @Thande's Look to the West is a monarchy but I very much doubt you'd be covering similar territory to him.

So go for it. What you bring as an author is more important than having a completely brand new idea and the latter is almost impossible.
 
Gary Oswald said:
I mean, the first example that came to mind for me was the Assassins Creed III AH DLC 'The Tyranny of King Washington', which is even more low brow than yours.

I think the actual answer @JosephK is it comes up regularly on amateur forums and stuff but there hasn't been a definitive take. I'm also not that convinced you can have a definitive take on such a broad topic.

Like the independent USA in @Thande's Look to the West is a monarchy but I very much doubt you'd be covering similar territory to him.

So go for it. What you bring as an author is more important than having a completely brand new idea and the latter is almost impossible.
Click to expand...

It guess it speaks to the lay of the land that Assassins Creed came up here as well as when I asked in a Facebook group!

Definitely agree with you on the scope of the topic. Just coming up with an at-least-mostly-plausible POD scenario that gets me there is quite a task to begin with, but I actually think I've had a couple good insights over the past couple weeks that I think will be useful.
 
JosephK said:
It guess it speaks to the lay of the land that Assassins Creed came up here as well as when I asked in a Facebook group!

Definitely agree with you on the scope of the topic. Just coming up with an at-least-mostly-plausible POD scenario that gets me there is quite a task to begin with, but I actually think I've had a couple good insights over the past couple weeks that I think will be useful.
Click to expand...

The US did rebel against a King, so they didn't really want a replacement.

It's possible they might try to call Bonnie Prince Charlie (no longer young or bonnie at this point) to serve as a figurehead for a semi-constitutional monarchy. This was discussed, apparently, during the time but I don't think it got any further than talk. Charles died in 1788, so even if he did take the American Throne he wouldn't last that long (and he would probably not be very welcome, given how far he'd fallen at the time.)

A more likely possibility is Washington becoming King, either as a de facto monarch or as a figurehead, or even through having a son of his own and building a dynasty. I don't have the impression that was very likely, but enough post-victory chaos could easily lead to monarchy.

OR ... what if Benedict Arnold doesn't turn traitor? He really WAS a war hero right up until he was found out. What if he keeps his discontents to his chest until after the war, then takes advantage of Congress cheating the soilders to launch a coup?

Chris
 
ChrisNuttall said:
The US did rebel against a King, so they didn't really want a replacement.

It's possible they might try to call Bonnie Prince Charlie (no longer young or bonnie at this point) to serve as a figurehead for a semi-constitutional monarchy. This was discussed, apparently, during the time but I don't think it got any further than talk. Charles died in 1788, so even if he did take the American Throne he wouldn't last that long (and he would probably not be very welcome, given how far he'd fallen at the time.)

A more likely possibility is Washington becoming King, either as a de facto monarch or as a figurehead, or even through having a son of his own and building a dynasty. I don't have the impression that was very likely, but enough post-victory chaos could easily lead to monarchy.

OR ... what if Benedict Arnold doesn't turn traitor? He really WAS a war hero right up until he was found out. What if he keeps his discontents to his chest until after the war, then takes advantage of Congress cheating the soilders to launch a coup?

Chris
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that there was discussion of Charles, but that's interesting. This article talks about one of the scenarios that got me thinking about trying a story along the lines of the OP: https://allthingsliberty.com/2019/09/a-french-king-of-america/
 
The list of alternate histories at uchronia includes one called King Julian: A Novel, by Tom Gatch, Jr., but has only a very general description about George Washington becoming king. Does anyone know anything else about that book by chance?
 
Interestingly you run into a very similar issue if you posit George Washington as king, since he had no children and died in 1799. His nephew Bushrod Washington and Martha's grandson George Washington Parke Custis inherited the bulk of Washington's property, but that seems like a pretty flimsy basis for either of them to succeed him as monarch since they were not his direct issue.
 
JosephK said:
Interestingly you run into a very similar issue if you posit George Washington as king, since he had no children and died in 1799. His nephew Bushrod Washington and Martha's grandson George Washington Parke Custis inherited the bulk of Washington's property, but that seems like a pretty flimsy basis for either of them to succeed him as monarch since they were not his direct issue.
Click to expand...

Could it possibly have become an elected title, of sorts? Senate meets to vote on a King for life without it becoming hereditary?
 
Possibly something like that, yes, or maybe something similar to the Belgian Constitution of 1831: "In case of failure of male heirs from His Royal Highness Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, he shall be allowed to name his successor, with the assent of the two houses, expressed in the manner prescribed by the following article."
 
JosephK said:
Possibly something like that, yes, or maybe something similar to the Belgian Constitution of 1831: "In case of failure of male heirs from His Royal Highness Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, he shall be allowed to name his successor, with the assent of the two houses, expressed in the manner prescribed by the following article."
Click to expand...
This could be interesting
 
It's not really AH as such, since it wouldn't happen this way, but for perspective on life-term royal presidency, I sat down once and worked out what the list of US presidents would be if each one served for life, with the OTL president at the time of the prior president's death then taking office.

1. George Washington
April 30, 1789 - December 14, 1799
2. John Adams
December 14, 1799 - July 4, 1826
3. John Q. Adams
July 4, 1826 - February 23, 1848
4. James K. Polk
February 23, 1848 - June 15, 1849
5. Zachary Taylor
June 15, 1849 - July 9, 1850
6. Millard Fillmore
July 9, 1850 - March 6, 1874
7. Ulysses S. Grant
March 8, 1874 - July 23, 1885
8. Grover Cleveland
July 23, 1885 - June 24, 1908
9. Theodore Roosevelt
June 24, 1908 - January 6, 1919
10. Woodrow Wilson
January 6, 1919 - February 3, 1924
11. Calvin Coolidge
February 3, 1924 - January 5, 1933
12. Herbert Hoover
January 5, 1933 - October 20, 1964
13. Lyndon B. Johnson
October 20, 1964 - January 22, 1973
14. Richard Nixon
January 22, 1973 - April 22, 1994
15. Bill Clinton
April 22, 1994 - present

First of all, yes, that is 31 years of Herbert Hoover and 24 years of Millard Fillmore, for some commentary on what can happen when you choose relatively young men for a life-time appointment. I'd assume that actually being president and subjected to the stresses of active executive office might've worn them down sooner, but still.

I don't know much about how elective monarchies functioned in practice in this period. Does an elective system tend to favor choosing younger candidates for greater longevity in office, or older ones who might have greater political standing but will result in a more frequent natural 'rotation in office'? Or is it one of those things where 'it depends' is the answer?
 
Von Callay said:
I don't know much about how elective monarchies functioned in practice in this period. Does an elective system tend to favor choosing younger candidates for greater longevity in office, or older ones who might have greater political standing but will result in a more frequent natural 'rotation in office'? Or is it one of those things where 'it depends' is the answer?
Click to expand...


This is one of those fun tidbits of history- there isn't really some general example of an elective monarchy. Most of the monarchies in Europe were at some time elective or maintained elective features well into a period where we as modern observers would classify them as hereditary. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is probably the closest thing to a "pure" elective monarchy, had the widest franchise anywhere in Europe because of their expansive definition of nobility and was well-known to the Founding Fathers, but their system was largely an anachronism. Most monarchies on Western Europe had abandoned their elective features as part of a modernizing and legalizing trend. The Dutch Republic would probably be the next best example after the PLC but it had a lot of its own idiosyncrasies, like no requirement that each province elect the same person or elect anyone at all and was, of course, styled as a Republic and not a monarchy (and eventually it got turned into a hereditary monarchy, rather later than the rest of its peers)
 
JosephK said:
Interestingly you run into a very similar issue if you posit George Washington as king, since he had no children and died in 1799. His nephew Bushrod Washington and Martha's grandson George Washington Parke Custis inherited the bulk of Washington's property, but that seems like a pretty flimsy basis for either of them to succeed him as monarch since they were not his direct issue.
Click to expand...
I don't think there would be a massive issue with his nephew taking over, in the absence of anyone else. Similar things have happened in Europe.
 
Lemon flavoured said:
I don't think there would be a massive issue with his nephew taking over, in the absence of anyone else. Similar things have happened in Europe.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point. It's certainly a plausible scenario. I think the distinction that complicates things in a "King George of House Washington situation" (at least in my mind) is that if the royal line begins with him, traveling back up and over and down the different branches of the Washington family tree is a little different than doing the same thing with, say, George I of England succeeding to the English throne through Sophia, Electress of Hanover. But I guess the family tree has to start somewhere!
 
JosephK said:
That's a fair point. It's certainly a plausible scenario. I think the distinction that complicates things in a "King George of House Washington situation" (at least in my mind) is that if the royal line begins with him, traveling back up and over and down the different branches of the Washington family tree is a little different than doing the same thing with, say, George I of England succeeding to the English throne through Sophia, Electress of Hanover. But I guess the family tree has to start somewhere!
Click to expand...
Without a defined law of succession they would fall back on common law principles, which would 100% be okay with a nephew inheriting, even if the uncle was the first title holder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top