PODs That Would Lead to Violent Upheaval in Britain in 1831-2?

[frustrated progressive]

In hindsight, it appears obvious, at least to the present writer, that the Days of May, the period of the greatest apparent instability during the Reform Act crisis, was incapable of leading to prolonged violent unrest, let alone full-blown revolution, in any timeline where the great personages act in accordance with their OTL inclinations and wits, as evidenced by the fact that the political class, from William on down, could recognize when it was time to accede to the onrush of reformist sentiment in its last extremity, such as the fact that Wellington’s ministry collapsed in under a week. However, is it possible for the situation to have degenerated before that point, so that the conservative elements of the political establishment (possibly with the connivance of the King) both refuse to acquiesce to the reforms, and have the power to block them, so that a downward spiral into civil conflict becomes likely? Or is the plausibility of continued conservative stubbornness and vetoes, from any reasonable POD that leads to a recognizable political crisis merely chimerical?

 

[RyanF]

If William IV were to die during that period it might in a matter of months lead to real problems at the top.

With Princess Victoria not yet at her age of majority the idea was that her mother would serve as regent. The Duchess of Kent & Strathearn had previously served as regent for her son in the Principality of Leiningen until her marriage to the Duke of Kent in 1818; she also had a famous feud with the rest of the British Royal Family, to the point of isolating her daughter from many of them during her childhood.

William IV was heard to remark in 1836 that he hoped he would live until Victoria was 18 "I should then have the satisfaction of leaving the exercise of the Royal authority to the personal authority of that young lady, heiress presumptive to the Crown, and not in the hands of a person now near me, who is surrounded by evil advisers and is herself incompetent to act with propriety in the situation in which she would be placed."

The éminence gris of these evil advisers was John Conroy, a former army officer motivated by nothing but his own grandiose ambitions. Between them they devised the Kensington system in which the young Princess Victoria was brought up. Intended to make her weak and dependent upon them, the idea being he would be appointed her private secretary and given a peerage during her mother's regency.

With all this going on at the top of the establishment it's possible other items take a back seat, possibly increasing instances like the Merthyr Rising or the Bristol Riots - or even amplifying those.

If the Duchess of Kent & Conroy are removed somehow, then the replacement as regent would probably be the Duke of Cumberland & Teviotdale. Then it might just be a case of when the violent upheaval happens as opposed to if.

 

[frustrated progressive]

If William IV were to die during that period it might in a matter of months lead to real problems at the top.

With Princess Victoria not yet at her age of majority the idea was that her mother would serve as regent. The Duchess of Kent & Strathearn had previously served as regent for her son in the Principality of Leiningen until her marriage to the Duke of Kent in 1818; she also had a famous feud with the rest of the British Royal Family, to the point of isolating her daughter from many of them during her childhood.

William IV was heard to remark in 1836 that he hoped he would live until Victoria was 18 "I should then have the satisfaction of leaving the exercise of the Royal authority to the personal authority of that young lady, heiress presumptive to the Crown, and not in the hands of a person now near me, who is surrounded by evil advisers and is herself incompetent to act with propriety in the situation in which she would be placed."

The éminence gris of these evil advisers was John Conroy, a former army officer motivated by nothing but his own grandiose ambitions. Between them they devised the Kensington system in which the young Princess Victoria was brought up. Intended to make her weak and dependent upon them, the idea being he would be appointed her private secretary and given a peerage during her mother's regency.

With all this going on at the top of the establishment it's possible other items take a back seat, possibly increasing instances like the Merthyr Rising or the Bristol Riots - or even amplifying those.

If the Duchess of Kent & Conroy are removed somehow, then the replacement as regent would probably be the Duke of Cumberland & Teviotdale. Then it might just be a case of when the violent upheaval happens as opposed to if.

I do have some familiarity with the upbringing of Victoria, but I never considered the regency as a potential political jam in the works of reform-good idea.
Ernest Augustus of Hanover? Yeah, that'd be great-civil war in a fortnight.

 

[frustrated progressive]

Do I use too many hyphens?

 

[Indicus]

Britain being involved in some sort of war at that time would help. The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were a quite dreary time filled with hysteria and all kinds of clampdowns on radicals. Repeating that would be a big help for would-be revolutionists, though you’d have to avoid Pitt’s success in making the Napoleonic Wars a patriotic cause being repeated.

I think a revolution at this time would look like the French Revolution of 1830, with rioting in London forcing the royal family to flee and a provisional government being established. The difference is that, unlike with France where it could simply replace the king with a cadet branch, the Duke of Cambridge was involved in the military and the Duke of Cumberland was an ultra-reactionary, so there’s no real option to replace the king with. Therefore, by default, a republic will be established albeit by people with little sympathy towards republicanism - compare to the French Third Republic.

 

[frustrated progressive]

Britain being involved in some sort of war at that time would help. The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were a quite dreary time filled with hysteria and all kinds of clampdowns on radicals. Repeating that would be a big help for would-be revolutionists, though you’d have to avoid Pitt’s success in making the Napoleonic Wars a patriotic cause being repeated.

I think a revolution at this time would look like the French Revolution of 1830, with rioting in London forcing the royal family to flee and a provisional government being established. The difference is that, unlike with France where it could simply replace the king with a cadet branch, the Duke of Cambridge was involved in the military and the Duke of Cumberland was an ultra-reactionary, so there’s no real option to replace the king with. Therefore, by default, a republic will be established albeit by people with little sympathy towards republicanism - compare to the French Third Republic.

It would have to be an unpopular, prolonged and expensive war. Where's the best place to trap Britain into a quagmire that is neither a glorious defensive war nor something they can just win, I wonder?
British Whig resistance to republicanism in 1832 (this is a political class so naturally conservative that the way the Reform Bill was sold to Parliament was that it would silence all thought of further electoral reform forevermore) is likely so ingrained that even if the obvious candidates are politically unsuitable, they'll just go through more and more distant relatives until they find someone amenable to crown.

 

[Indicus]

would have to be an unpopular, prolonged and expensive war. Where's the best place to trap Britain into a quagmire that is neither a glorious defensive war nor something they can just win, I wonder?

The Decembrist Revolt in Russia causing the formation of a republic? IOTL, the Northern Society advocated a constitutional monarchy with the emperor having similar powers as the POTUS, while the Southern Society advocated a republic under a “temporary” military junta. Assuming the Southern Society wins out, you could get a republic, and in the 1820s this may very well cause a violent reaction by the rest of Europe, including Britain.

And Russia is so massive that it could probably hold off the rest of Europe and even invade other countries.

British Whig resistance to republicanism in 1832 (this is a political class so naturally conservative that the way the Reform Bill was sold to Parliament was that it would silence all thought of further electoral reform forevermore) is likely so ingrained that even if the obvious candidates are politically unsuitable, they'll just go through more and more distant relatives until they find someone amenable to crown.

I’m inclined to agree. Looking back, I seem to have missed the liberal Duke of Sussex, who wasn’t involved in the military. A perfect replacement monarch who would be entirely acceptable to radicals. An issue is that he had no legitimate children and by 1831 was an old man, so I’m not sure who would succeed him.

 

[frustrated progressive]

The Decembrist Revolt in Russia causing the formation of a republic? IOTL, the Northern Society advocated a constitutional monarchy with the emperor having similar powers as the POTUS, while the Southern Society advocated a republic under a “temporary” military junta. Assuming the Southern Society wins out, you could get a republic, and in the 1820s this may very well cause a violent reaction by the rest of Europe, including Britain.

And Russia is so massive that it could probably hold off the rest of Europe and even invade other countries.



I’m inclined to agree. Looking back, I seem to have missed the liberal Duke of Sussex, who wasn’t involved in the military. A perfect replacement monarch who would be entirely acceptable to radicals. An issue is that he had no legitimate children and by 1831 was an old man, so I’m not sure who would succeed him.

Perhaps something goes awry in the Greek War of Independence, the Russians intervene unilaterally, and the Brits prop up the Ottomans with troops, in defiance of Hellenophile public opinion?

Have you ever read Diary of the Doofus King, by Alt History Buff?

Spoiler: Doofus King

Sussex becomes King after the assassination of a disastrously long-reigning George IV leads to a civil war between George's bastard, and Ernest Augustus acting in the name of his dying brother Frederick. George "V" is killed in battle, with Ernest mortally wounded. Frederick dies of shock shortly after receiving the news, and when Ernest dies after a few days, (with the Crown having gone from George IV to George V to Frederick I to Ernest I), Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, succeeds to the throne.

 

[Indicus]

Perhaps something goes awry in the Greek War of Independence, the Russians intervene unilaterally, and the Brits prop up the Ottomans with troops, in defiance of Hellenophile public opinion?

I don’t think that’s enough for a revolution. Simply going against public opinions won’t cause the desperate economic conditions and hysteria necessary for a revolution.

Have you ever read Diary of the Doofus King, by Alt History Buff?

Yeah, no. A British succession war isn’t happening in the nineteenth century. Parliament would just decide who gets to be king.

 

[frustrated progressive]

I don’t think that’s enough for a revolution. Simply going against public opinions won’t cause the desperate economic conditions and hysteria necessary for a revolution.



Yeah, no. A British succession war isn’t happening in the nineteenth century. Parliament would just decide who gets to be king.

Trying to find a Vietnam analogue that wouldn't trigger crisis patriotism. Any other ideas?

To be fair to the TL, its British civil war is as much about succession as the Manueline War in Portugal was.