- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
The presidency of Evie Park was certainly turbulent for the nation...
Last edited:
-
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
Tibby's Graphics and Grab-Bag Thread.
- Thread starter Turquoise Blue
- Start date
The presidency of Evie Park was certainly turbulent for the nation...
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Extract from ‘The Brooch Province: A History of Dominion Delaware’.
Delaware’s expansion to include the Maryland counties of Kent, Queen Anne’s County, Talbot, Caroline, Dorchester, Somerset and Worcester, and the Virginia counties of Accomack and Northampton, was one of the most transformative periods of Delawarean history. The expansion was ordered by the Viscount Chastleton, allegedly because the future Lord Wilmington persuaded him of the idea at their one meeting years before, but more concretely because Chastleton distrusted more Patriot provinces and wished to associate loyalism with some form of visible reward.
Delaware was granted full province status, cutting off its last ties with the Penns albeit they would still be widely respected in the brooch province as they were considered able administrators that afforded Delaware every right. This grant was welcomed by many Delawareans, but the second part of Chastleton’s reward for loyalty, the rapid expansion would bring with it consequences.
Pre-expansion Delaware (or what would be known post-expansion as ‘Delaware proper’ or the ‘Three Counties’) was geographically more Southern, but its history and population density tied it very much to the northern province of Pennsylvania and to Philadelphian trade. Within a very short amount of time, Delaware would find itself even more tied to the north and the south as many of its inhabitants found themselves producing even more stuff for Philadelphian consumption due to the Lord Wilmington successfully pulling in all his Delaware contacts to fuel his philanthropy, and then it had a sudden expansion to include nine southern provinces and was included in the southern Dominion of Anglia. This view that the small Delaware was grasping the north and south tightly within its interests led it to be described as alike a brooch, a small shining jewel that nevertheless fastens together two diverging interests. This would lead to its popular nickname of the ‘Brooch Province’ by the 1790s.
In the aftermath of the expansion, the General Assembly came together to oversee a reorganisation of the province in the wake of its changing from the three lower counties on the Delaware to composing most of a peninsula. There needed to be a system set in place to integrate the new counties. The most glaring issue was the one easiest solved, with the two Kent counties being renamed ‘West Kent’ and ‘East Kent’ respectively by an almost unanimous vote despite some (Delaware) Kent representatives objecting. The hundreds set up in Maryland often crossed over into Delaware proper due to the unclear boundary, so the General Assembly set the line at their claim and firmly delineated the borders of Sussex with the formerly Maryland counties, ensuring that the hundreds of the latter would have to shrink to acknowledge the new border.
The most heated debate however, was Caroline County, the newest and only inland one and widely seen by the General Assembly as just a way to give a colonial governor a county named after his wife. The de facto capital of it was even mocked for its name of Pig Point. The General Assembly was on the verge of abolishing it and ceding the land back to its former counties when the Lord Wilmington arrived from Philadelphia. By then, he had a deeply speckled reputation in Delaware itself, but his voice still held great sway. He sided against the idea of reversing Caroline’s creation, talking at length on how even the smallest of places could still bring greatness, waxed on for half an hour about the glory of Rutland to the confusion of most of the attendees, and then finally implored them that Caroline was if anything, despite its inland status, the ‘Delaware of Delaware’, the small and deeply looked upon county. ‘Give poor Caroline a chance, let her shine!’. Moved by this unusually emotive statement about something they considered non-controversial, the General Assembly decided to drop the matter and permit the province’s only landlocked county to survive.
Wilmington’s real motivation would come out soon after as news of Chastleton appointing the husband of the county’s namesake as Viceroy of Anglia would arrive to the General Assembly. He knew that the Baronet was a man who might hold a few grudges against a province that took his Maryland’s eastern shore, so he moved to prevent another grudge from emerging by ensuring that the county that held the Vicereine’s name was not abolished. Wilmington was no fool, he knew all chances of his future influence came from maximising influence and sway on the Viceroy and he was already standing on weaker ground than that ‘cavalier’ over in Virginia due to Delaware’s land expansion.
Nevertheless, he managed to prevent Caroline County from being abolished, and in the process gave it its inexplicable nickname – ‘The Delaware of Delaware’. Meanwhile, there were questions about the process of election to the General Assembly in those areas, or even Delaware as a whole. At this time, the General Assembly was functioning on the constitution of William Penn, even if they crossed out Pennsylvania for Delaware. There were a few questions asked about the definition of ‘freemen’ and if Delaware should resist the restriction made on the Dominion franchise that reduced it to just Anglican freemen rather than the more ‘cosmopolitan’ colony Delaware developed to be.
Some reformers cited the Delaware Act, made before the Dominions were created, as precedent for Delaware continuing the ‘Pennsylvanian franchise’ even under a more restrictive Dominion. The legal uncertainty of the matter led to a slim vote in favour of such continuation at least for the first elections to the General Assembly in this new and much bigger Delaware. ‘If the Parliament or the Viceroy deems otherwise, let there be a notification and we will correct, but in the absence of any notification, we will continue as we have always been’ was the statement of the speaker of the General Assembly upon the vote being held.
The boundaries at this time were defined by hundreds so a hasty committee allocated seats to the Maryland and Virginia hundreds on their estimation of their populace, which turned out to be somewhat incorrect. However, it would not be corrected until after the first election returned the new dominion-era legislature of Delaware…
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Character Sheet:
Sir Henry Mather Jackson, 2nd Baronet
Name: Alexander Justin Blanchet - referred to as "Austin the Younger" to distinguish him from his father.
Date of Birth/Age: 18 November 1753 - 32 years old
Gender: Male.
Place of Birth: Blanchet Estate, Wilmington, Delaware Colony, British North America.
Nationality: American - Anglian - Delawarean
Religion: Church of England (relatively lax)
Faction: Liberal - Conciliator (American) - Shelburnite/Liverpudlian - Whig (British, loose association via his father)
List of Offices and Occupations Held:
- Soldier in the Delaware Loyalist Militia during the Columbian Rebellion - 1774-1778
- Deputy Trader (in his father's business) - 1778-1781
- Member of the Anglian House of Assembly from Delaware - 1781-present
Biography: For way too long, Austin the Younger has stood in his father’s shadow. It was why he was so eager to join the militia over his father’s objections and even march with other soldiers to fight for the British Army. However the hard truth was that the elder was already a figure everyone knew for good or ill, and it would take a long time for the younger to carve out his own reputation.
While the father was ultimately a man of peace who loved to come in after a battle and try to fix matters, the son was one shaped by the trauma of war and by his committing murder against his fellow Americans. And he knew coming home that he would want his own way, that he desired control over his own life, be his own man. The war tore away the boy that his father still believed existed in him, and replaced it with a man. While accepting a job at his father’s business for needed revenue, he chose to purchase his own Wilmington house and distance himself at least spatially from him.
Hunting was a favourite pastime of his, the assertion of man over nature. What more splendid could be any activity, nor more innate to the human condition? The wilderness was a refuge from expectations, and it was on one of those hunting trips that he encountered a Nanticoke village. The Nanticoke were a people who were in regular contact with the colonials, and many of their boys went out to fight for the British. Knowledge of English was considerable at this time, and it was why Austin had little issue making himself understood.
And it was in one hunting trip in 1780 that he met his future wife – a Nanticoke woman who he would know as Arabella. It was not love at first sight, in fact she didn’t notice him the first time and he originally paid the interaction little heed. But as he increasingly stopped by the village, the two grew to like each other, and that liking grew into something more.
While the business was closing for the day, his father stopped him and asked him if he would like to be in the Anglian Assembly, as he was looking for ‘men of quality’ and of course his son was one of those such men. While Austin knew this would be obvious nepotism, and bind him politically to his father, he accepted sure in the knowledge that he would use the office for his own means. He did however, extract a concession from his father for his continued political loyalty – he would not object to Austin’s future bride.
This the elder Austin cheerfully agreed to. The election went smoothly, and Austin the Younger was elected as one of the elder’s men of quality, even as there were some murmurs of nepotism from a man who was supposedly above it all. After getting Arabella’s agreement to wed, he told his father of his intended bride, and the elder Blanchet sighed but agreed, providing the marriage was in a Christian church, muttering that at least it was a loyalist.
With the son now married, he realised the one advantage he had over his father, and used it judiciously. The elder Austin pushed back, but the two came to an agreement – the father would use his connections to help his daughter-in-law’s tribe gain recognition, in exchange for the son not breaking from the Liberal line and not signing up to Brown’s manifesto.
The deal was struck, and as the Viceroy proves sickly and his replacement grows inevitable, the Prime Minister is no longer Chastleton but Blackburn, and change is in the air, Austin the Younger feels that 1785 is his year. With three children [the obligatory Austin the Third among them] and a fourth on the way, he feels confident enough to step out of his father’s shadow. Will he?
Sir Henry Mather Jackson, 2nd Baronet
Name: Alexander Justin Blanchet - referred to as "Austin the Younger" to distinguish him from his father.
Date of Birth/Age: 18 November 1753 - 32 years old
Gender: Male.
Place of Birth: Blanchet Estate, Wilmington, Delaware Colony, British North America.
Nationality: American - Anglian - Delawarean
Religion: Church of England (relatively lax)
Faction: Liberal - Conciliator (American) - Shelburnite/Liverpudlian - Whig (British, loose association via his father)
List of Offices and Occupations Held:
- Soldier in the Delaware Loyalist Militia during the Columbian Rebellion - 1774-1778
- Deputy Trader (in his father's business) - 1778-1781
- Member of the Anglian House of Assembly from Delaware - 1781-present
Biography: For way too long, Austin the Younger has stood in his father’s shadow. It was why he was so eager to join the militia over his father’s objections and even march with other soldiers to fight for the British Army. However the hard truth was that the elder was already a figure everyone knew for good or ill, and it would take a long time for the younger to carve out his own reputation.
While the father was ultimately a man of peace who loved to come in after a battle and try to fix matters, the son was one shaped by the trauma of war and by his committing murder against his fellow Americans. And he knew coming home that he would want his own way, that he desired control over his own life, be his own man. The war tore away the boy that his father still believed existed in him, and replaced it with a man. While accepting a job at his father’s business for needed revenue, he chose to purchase his own Wilmington house and distance himself at least spatially from him.
Hunting was a favourite pastime of his, the assertion of man over nature. What more splendid could be any activity, nor more innate to the human condition? The wilderness was a refuge from expectations, and it was on one of those hunting trips that he encountered a Nanticoke village. The Nanticoke were a people who were in regular contact with the colonials, and many of their boys went out to fight for the British. Knowledge of English was considerable at this time, and it was why Austin had little issue making himself understood.
And it was in one hunting trip in 1780 that he met his future wife – a Nanticoke woman who he would know as Arabella. It was not love at first sight, in fact she didn’t notice him the first time and he originally paid the interaction little heed. But as he increasingly stopped by the village, the two grew to like each other, and that liking grew into something more.
While the business was closing for the day, his father stopped him and asked him if he would like to be in the Anglian Assembly, as he was looking for ‘men of quality’ and of course his son was one of those such men. While Austin knew this would be obvious nepotism, and bind him politically to his father, he accepted sure in the knowledge that he would use the office for his own means. He did however, extract a concession from his father for his continued political loyalty – he would not object to Austin’s future bride.
This the elder Austin cheerfully agreed to. The election went smoothly, and Austin the Younger was elected as one of the elder’s men of quality, even as there were some murmurs of nepotism from a man who was supposedly above it all. After getting Arabella’s agreement to wed, he told his father of his intended bride, and the elder Blanchet sighed but agreed, providing the marriage was in a Christian church, muttering that at least it was a loyalist.
With the son now married, he realised the one advantage he had over his father, and used it judiciously. The elder Austin pushed back, but the two came to an agreement – the father would use his connections to help his daughter-in-law’s tribe gain recognition, in exchange for the son not breaking from the Liberal line and not signing up to Brown’s manifesto.
The deal was struck, and as the Viceroy proves sickly and his replacement grows inevitable, the Prime Minister is no longer Chastleton but Blackburn, and change is in the air, Austin the Younger feels that 1785 is his year. With three children [the obligatory Austin the Third among them] and a fourth on the way, he feels confident enough to step out of his father’s shadow. Will he?
-The Pioneers
“What use is a foolish pioneer risking life and limb on a dead dream? Pah! They’ll all die eventually.”
-Native Neighbors
“The issue is quite simple – a question of loyalty. The Iroquois and the Nanticoke both are loyalists of the deepest colour, but many of the rest were ones that took up arms against the Crown. But I am not my father. I don’t make the hypocritical distinction he makes between ‘civilised’ and ‘brute’ tribes. Merely ask all, like we do with the so-called ‘Patriots’, to swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown and be open to integration of their towns and villages and possibly tribes into the British system.”
-Tensions over Slavery
“Slavery? It is a fundamental truth of our society and any abolitionist rhetoric is naught but nonsense pushed by weak-minded men. However, I myself prefer to refrain from owning any slaves as I do not hold a grand estate like my father, preferring my own humble abode to be one based off the efforts of my own hands and those of other honest men of good stock I can rely, rather than any slave that I can only rely to cower under the whip. I do however, support laws that work against the enslavement of Indians, however.”
-North and South
“As a resident of the ‘brooch’ province, all I can say is that there are more uniting us than dividing us. Delaware has always prospered best when the northern and southern colonies cooperate in peace with the British Crown. However, we all must remember that we all are Englishmen, and seek to cooperate as part of the Empire.”
-Economic Progress
“Change is natural. I have every faith that those changes that are happening are to our best interests. However, if any of them prove to be our displeasure, I am sure we can lobby our good Viceroy, whoever they may be, to change their policies or to adjust. The Viceroy is supposed to be a neutral figure, disconnected from petty local politics after all, and be above all a servant of the Empire.”
-Colonial Reforms
“The new system may be alien and unfamiliar to many, but I believe it will work to our interest. I have as a member of the Assembly taken extensive notes of the structure and the expectations and although frustrated by our old Viceroy’s secretive nature, I believe I understand it the most of any of my faction. The new Viceroy, I have faith they will cooperate to make certain of the political support for their policies. And I will take charge of such cooperation from my side, as my father has grown rather poorly recently.”
-The West
“The West? It is irrelevant to me as a Delawarean. Delaware out of the colonies never had any western ambitions, and I see no reason it would do so now. If there are any who wish to seize the new land, all I can say is travel safe, and look out for new friends and enemies.”
“What use is a foolish pioneer risking life and limb on a dead dream? Pah! They’ll all die eventually.”
-Native Neighbors
“The issue is quite simple – a question of loyalty. The Iroquois and the Nanticoke both are loyalists of the deepest colour, but many of the rest were ones that took up arms against the Crown. But I am not my father. I don’t make the hypocritical distinction he makes between ‘civilised’ and ‘brute’ tribes. Merely ask all, like we do with the so-called ‘Patriots’, to swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown and be open to integration of their towns and villages and possibly tribes into the British system.”
-Tensions over Slavery
“Slavery? It is a fundamental truth of our society and any abolitionist rhetoric is naught but nonsense pushed by weak-minded men. However, I myself prefer to refrain from owning any slaves as I do not hold a grand estate like my father, preferring my own humble abode to be one based off the efforts of my own hands and those of other honest men of good stock I can rely, rather than any slave that I can only rely to cower under the whip. I do however, support laws that work against the enslavement of Indians, however.”
-North and South
“As a resident of the ‘brooch’ province, all I can say is that there are more uniting us than dividing us. Delaware has always prospered best when the northern and southern colonies cooperate in peace with the British Crown. However, we all must remember that we all are Englishmen, and seek to cooperate as part of the Empire.”
-Economic Progress
“Change is natural. I have every faith that those changes that are happening are to our best interests. However, if any of them prove to be our displeasure, I am sure we can lobby our good Viceroy, whoever they may be, to change their policies or to adjust. The Viceroy is supposed to be a neutral figure, disconnected from petty local politics after all, and be above all a servant of the Empire.”
-Colonial Reforms
“The new system may be alien and unfamiliar to many, but I believe it will work to our interest. I have as a member of the Assembly taken extensive notes of the structure and the expectations and although frustrated by our old Viceroy’s secretive nature, I believe I understand it the most of any of my faction. The new Viceroy, I have faith they will cooperate to make certain of the political support for their policies. And I will take charge of such cooperation from my side, as my father has grown rather poorly recently.”
-The West
“The West? It is irrelevant to me as a Delawarean. Delaware out of the colonies never had any western ambitions, and I see no reason it would do so now. If there are any who wish to seize the new land, all I can say is travel safe, and look out for new friends and enemies.”
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Decided to do a silly off the Europe Elects thing.
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (-1921)
Edward VII (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1901-1910
George V (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor) 1910-1921
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1921-1927)
George V (Windsor) 1921-1927
Presidents of the United Republic of Britain (1927-)
Philip Snowden (Independent Labour/National Labour) 1927-1937*
1927: def. unopposed [Conservative spoiled ballots]
1931: def. James Maxton (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Patriots)
William Jowitt (National Labour) 1937
James Maxton (Independent Labour) 1937-1940 ['40 election forced by Parliament due to Maxton vetoing the war declaration]
1937: def. William Jowitt (National Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Patriots), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Fenner Brockway (Independent Labour) 1940-1952
1940 [supported by NLP, NPP]: def. James Maxton (Independent ILP [supported by Communists])
1946: def. Godfrey Elton (National Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Patriots), Johnny Campbell (Communist)
Elizabeth Windsor (National Labour/National Democratic/Progressive/Independent/Social Democratic) 1952-present
1952 [supported by NPP, Democrats]: def. Fenner Brockway (Independent Labour), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
1957 [supported by Democrats]: def. Aneurin Bevan (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth)
1962: def. Annie Maxton (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth), R. Palme Dutt (Communist)
1967 [supported by Unionists]: def. Tony Greenwood (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth)
1972 [supported by Unionists]: def. Michael Foot (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth)
1977 [supported by UP, LDP]: def. John Silkin (Independent Labour)
1982 [supported by LDP]: def. Margaret Thatcher (Independent Unionist), Wogan Philipps (Communist)
1987 [supported by LDP]: def. unopposed [Communist, some Unionist spoiled ballots]
1992 [supported by LDP]: def. David Owen (Independent SDP), Nina Temple (Communist)
1997 [supported by LDP]: def. Anthony Lynton Blair (Independent [supported by Independent Democrats and Communists]
2002 [supported by LDP]: def. Peter Hitchens (Independent), Jeremy Corbyn (Republican)
2007 [supported by LDP, Greens]: def. Peter Hitchens (Independent), Peter Tatchell (Green Republican)
2012 [supported by LDP, Greens]: def. Jacob Rees-Mogg (Unionist), Jon Lansman (Green Republican)
2017 [supported by LDP, Greens]: def. Claire Fox (Independent [supported by Unionists and Communists])
The "Lizocracy" of fourteen-term President Elizabeth Windsor seems to be reaching its twilight as there's now publicly talk of the dominant [and heavily personalist] "Windsor Front" of the centre-left 'soggy' Social Democrats, centrist Greens and centre-right 'wet' Liberal Democrats nominating someone else in 2022 with her blessing [that is, if she ever decides to go, which is unlikely]. The undisputed frontrunner for such an election is her own son Charles [a member of the Green Party], with her other son and preferred successor Andrew destroyed by a recent scandal that even caused President Windsor's approval ratings to dip markedly. Still, the dominance of the Windsorian ideology seems to be undamaged.
There are murmurs of some satirists that the family should be just put back on the throne what with them already holding all power, but everyone laughs at that. Elizabeth Windsor, bastion of the Republic and proof of the revolution succeeding beyond belief, being a crowned head? Nonsense.
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (-1921)
Edward VII (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1901-1910
George V (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor) 1910-1921
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1921-1927)
George V (Windsor) 1921-1927
Presidents of the United Republic of Britain (1927-)
Philip Snowden (Independent Labour/National Labour) 1927-1937*
1927: def. unopposed [Conservative spoiled ballots]
1931: def. James Maxton (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Patriots)
William Jowitt (National Labour) 1937
James Maxton (Independent Labour) 1937-1940 ['40 election forced by Parliament due to Maxton vetoing the war declaration]
1937: def. William Jowitt (National Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Patriots), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Fenner Brockway (Independent Labour) 1940-1952
1940 [supported by NLP, NPP]: def. James Maxton (Independent ILP [supported by Communists])
1946: def. Godfrey Elton (National Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Patriots), Johnny Campbell (Communist)
Elizabeth Windsor (National Labour/National Democratic/Progressive/Independent/Social Democratic) 1952-present
1952 [supported by NPP, Democrats]: def. Fenner Brockway (Independent Labour), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
1957 [supported by Democrats]: def. Aneurin Bevan (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth)
1962: def. Annie Maxton (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth), R. Palme Dutt (Communist)
1967 [supported by Unionists]: def. Tony Greenwood (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth)
1972 [supported by Unionists]: def. Michael Foot (Independent Labour), Oswald Mosley (New Commonwealth)
1977 [supported by UP, LDP]: def. John Silkin (Independent Labour)
1982 [supported by LDP]: def. Margaret Thatcher (Independent Unionist), Wogan Philipps (Communist)
1987 [supported by LDP]: def. unopposed [Communist, some Unionist spoiled ballots]
1992 [supported by LDP]: def. David Owen (Independent SDP), Nina Temple (Communist)
1997 [supported by LDP]: def. Anthony Lynton Blair (Independent [supported by Independent Democrats and Communists]
2002 [supported by LDP]: def. Peter Hitchens (Independent), Jeremy Corbyn (Republican)
2007 [supported by LDP, Greens]: def. Peter Hitchens (Independent), Peter Tatchell (Green Republican)
2012 [supported by LDP, Greens]: def. Jacob Rees-Mogg (Unionist), Jon Lansman (Green Republican)
2017 [supported by LDP, Greens]: def. Claire Fox (Independent [supported by Unionists and Communists])
The "Lizocracy" of fourteen-term President Elizabeth Windsor seems to be reaching its twilight as there's now publicly talk of the dominant [and heavily personalist] "Windsor Front" of the centre-left 'soggy' Social Democrats, centrist Greens and centre-right 'wet' Liberal Democrats nominating someone else in 2022 with her blessing [that is, if she ever decides to go, which is unlikely]. The undisputed frontrunner for such an election is her own son Charles [a member of the Green Party], with her other son and preferred successor Andrew destroyed by a recent scandal that even caused President Windsor's approval ratings to dip markedly. Still, the dominance of the Windsorian ideology seems to be undamaged.
There are murmurs of some satirists that the family should be just put back on the throne what with them already holding all power, but everyone laughs at that. Elizabeth Windsor, bastion of the Republic and proof of the revolution succeeding beyond belief, being a crowned head? Nonsense.
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
First of all, I apologise tremendously for this. But it just got stuck in my head and refused to budge. So...
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1921-1947)
George V (Windsor) 1921-1931
Edward VIII (Windsor) 1931-1947
Monarchs of the People's Commonwealth of Nations (1947-) [also styled as "Presidents"]
Edward VIII (Windsor) 1947-
Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1921-1947)
David Lloyd George (Coalition Liberal) 1921-1922
Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative) 1922-1923
1922 (min.): def. J. R. Clynes (Labour), David Lloyd George (National Liberal), H. H. Asquith (Liberal), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Austen Chamberlain (Conservative) 1923-1924
Philip Snowden (Labour) 1924-1929
1924 (min.): def. Stanley Baldwin (Conservative), David Lloyd George (Liberal), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Austen Chamberlain (Conservative) 1929-1931
1929 (maj.): def. Philip Snowden (Labour), David Lloyd George (Liberal), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Philip Snowden (Labour) 1931-1933
1931 (maj.): def. Austen Chamberlain (Conservative), Herbert Samuel (Liberal), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
Stafford Cripps (Labour-led "Popular Front") 1933-1947
1937 (coal.): def. Winston Churchill (Constitutionalist), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
Premiers of the People's Commonwealth of Nations (1947-)
Stafford Cripps (Labour-led "Popular Front") 1947-1949
1947 (coal.): def. Oswald Mosley (New Democratic), Megan Lloyd George (Liberal), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
Guy Burgess (Communist-led "Popular Front") 1949-
Edward VIII will be forever known as the "Red King", the one who brought his unique brand of autocratic 'socialism' to Britain, strangling its democracy in favour of a 'guided' model based around what he thought was right for Britain and the Empire. In another world, he could have subverted it in favour of a form of fascism. For want of an unplanned trip to Moscow in the early 20s, he could have.
But what's done is done. As Stafford Cripps resigns due to collapsing health and a realisation that he's now powerless, the King appoints his friend of several years to be Premier, overriding Parliament in the process. Many say that Guy Burgess has little skill in actually governing and has a deep problem with alcohol. He is a triple-puppet to everyone but himself. The King's choice, the increasingly-powerful CPGB's choice, and Moscow's favoured.
As America marshals the forces of capitalism and democracy with the support of the Canadian Regency, the rest of the Empire increasingly come under 'Red' London's thumb. Australia and New Zealand has already been secured, Africa is a powder-keg ready to explode and India...
Subhas Chandra Bose continues to fight on, and has accepted American funding, leading to the expulsion of the American diplomat from London. India, the jewel of the Empire, will be under Britain's thumb once more if Edward VIII has anything to say about it. Moscow however, has been much more uncertain and has leaned into their 'man in London' the Premier to seek a negotiated transition to a "people's government".
In the court of the Crimson King, swirling factions pull and push, but one thing is clear. Edward VIII rules absolute. Just as he wanted.
George V (Windsor) 1921-1931
Edward VIII (Windsor) 1931-1947
Monarchs of the People's Commonwealth of Nations (1947-) [also styled as "Presidents"]
Edward VIII (Windsor) 1947-
Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1921-1947)
David Lloyd George (Coalition Liberal) 1921-1922
Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative) 1922-1923
1922 (min.): def. J. R. Clynes (Labour), David Lloyd George (National Liberal), H. H. Asquith (Liberal), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Austen Chamberlain (Conservative) 1923-1924
Philip Snowden (Labour) 1924-1929
1924 (min.): def. Stanley Baldwin (Conservative), David Lloyd George (Liberal), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Austen Chamberlain (Conservative) 1929-1931
1929 (maj.): def. Philip Snowden (Labour), David Lloyd George (Liberal), Albert Inkpin (Communist)
Philip Snowden (Labour) 1931-1933
1931 (maj.): def. Austen Chamberlain (Conservative), Herbert Samuel (Liberal), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
Stafford Cripps (Labour-led "Popular Front") 1933-1947
1937 (coal.): def. Winston Churchill (Constitutionalist), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
Premiers of the People's Commonwealth of Nations (1947-)
Stafford Cripps (Labour-led "Popular Front") 1947-1949
1947 (coal.): def. Oswald Mosley (New Democratic), Megan Lloyd George (Liberal), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
Guy Burgess (Communist-led "Popular Front") 1949-
Edward VIII will be forever known as the "Red King", the one who brought his unique brand of autocratic 'socialism' to Britain, strangling its democracy in favour of a 'guided' model based around what he thought was right for Britain and the Empire. In another world, he could have subverted it in favour of a form of fascism. For want of an unplanned trip to Moscow in the early 20s, he could have.
But what's done is done. As Stafford Cripps resigns due to collapsing health and a realisation that he's now powerless, the King appoints his friend of several years to be Premier, overriding Parliament in the process. Many say that Guy Burgess has little skill in actually governing and has a deep problem with alcohol. He is a triple-puppet to everyone but himself. The King's choice, the increasingly-powerful CPGB's choice, and Moscow's favoured.
As America marshals the forces of capitalism and democracy with the support of the Canadian Regency, the rest of the Empire increasingly come under 'Red' London's thumb. Australia and New Zealand has already been secured, Africa is a powder-keg ready to explode and India...
Subhas Chandra Bose continues to fight on, and has accepted American funding, leading to the expulsion of the American diplomat from London. India, the jewel of the Empire, will be under Britain's thumb once more if Edward VIII has anything to say about it. Moscow however, has been much more uncertain and has leaned into their 'man in London' the Premier to seek a negotiated transition to a "people's government".
In the court of the Crimson King, swirling factions pull and push, but one thing is clear. Edward VIII rules absolute. Just as he wanted.
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Long Live Examplia!
An 'Interactive Game'.
It is the year 1803. We have finally broke free of the United Empire of Tyrannia after a glorious revolution in which every proud Examplian fought! Now as we assemble to create our National Assembly and choose our first ever President, the nation awaits with bated breath. Who will they be?
After a hard-fought election, the next President is...
A) A wide-eyed idealist from the One Party. Firmly conservative, he nevertheless has grand dreams for Examplia that electrified people on the trail.
B) A hard-nosed revolutionary general from the Two Party. Somewhat of a reformer, he will nevertheless prioritise national security above all.
Vote!
====
Welcome to Long Live Examplia!, my silly attempt at creating a sort of 'SG, but the GM does all the hard work' idea. The premise is that I write up the agendas, and write up all the turns. You however, choose the leaders [such as in the above election. Please vote for that], sometimes can vote in events and have points to spend!
That's right! In this game, instead of doing RP, you already have points! Woah! You start off with 10 points to spend. However, there is no way you can get points outside of just simply time. At the present rate, you get 5 points every 4 turns. So spend wisely, for your points are finite!
What do the points do?
Well, every 1 point can be spent on a +5 boost [or a -5 malus!]. It can go up to a +20 bonus/-20 malus which is the cap. If people spend points countering other people's spent points, both will be considered spent. So be very very careful about where your points go!
====
Examplia is currently in a two-party system.
The One Party is the party of the big farming elite and the Purple Church's clergy [which holds sway over a lot of really devout people].
The Two Party is the party of the merchant trader class with some reforming ideas. They hold a lot of power over the undeveloped economy.
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
This is gonna displease a lot of people...
1920
The Moose, the League and the Tragic Realignment
Republican-Progressive: President Theodore Roosevelt (R-NY)/Secretary of Labor Eugene N. Foss (P-MA): 335 EV, 52.9%
Democratic: Senator Thomas J. Walsh (MT)/Governor Francis Burton Harrison (NY): 196 EV, 45.9%
After a shock victory in 1912, the heady days of the Progressive Party ended up sour as the domineering Roosevelt quickly moved to hijack the weakened Republicans and forcibly align the Progressives with them, creating the 'Republican-Progressive' alliance. Accentuating this shift from the 'left' was his attempt in the 1912 election to emphasise more conservative views on race to win over Southern voters [1]. This was bolstered by support from many dissenting Georgia Democrats fuelling the 'White League' such as the 'grand old lady of Georgian politics' Rebecca Latimer Fulton, all which spurned the 1912 campaign of Thomas Marshall out of a distrust for the 'comedic Hoosier' who somehow got nominated. While Roosevelt won the election, his performance in the South was not enough to win any states.
In his second presidency, he skewed closer to his party's perceived 'Southern electorate' while rolling out his ambitious reforms elsewhere, sure that the Republican-Progressives could break through if they shunned the 'failed coalition' of the old in favour of a 'lily-white' one based around the idea of a white-led Progressive Party that could gradually re-enfranchise African-Americans. By the 1914 election, this ossified into a southern branch that rejected re-enfranchisement in the belief that it would drag the Republican-Progressives there off back to 'impotence'.
One thing that made tensions within the Republican-Progressive alliance worse was America's involvement in the Great War. Roosevelt was eager to get America involved, and despite Congress voting down a declaration of war Roosevelt openly supported the Allies in any policy he could, while ramping up preparation, and the 1916 election promised to be a tense one. The Democrats ended up nominating Senator John Burke of North Dakota, who ran on cautious isolationism, on continuing progressive reform and on his honest reputation. 'Honest John' was someone you could trust! Roosevelt ran on his record while attacking Burke as naive. Meanwhile the 'White League', by this time much grown due to support from the wider Progressive Party eager to expand their base, began to muscle out local Democrats and relied excessively on pointing out John Burke's Irish Catholic ancestry to drive Southern voters into the arms of the Southern Progressives and the 'White League'.
But of course what sealed it in the end was the Zimmermann Telegram. When Roosevelt brandished a copy and shouted loud that Germany was conspiring behind America's back, Democratic hopes of an upset was obliterated. The Upper South fell in the Roosevelt landslide and states like Georgia and Alabama came disturbingly close to falling. The Democrats retreated to lick their wounds, but the League was close behind with knives.
The declaration of war came shortly after and America intervened in the war, sure of a quick victory. It was to turn out nothing of the sort. A long slog, more and more people dead, and more and more Progressives grew sick of Roosevelt. Especially Robert La Follette, who was a firm isolationist, declaring America's intervention to be a mistake. As the war continued, the splits grew more and more obvious up until the Wisconsin Progressive Party, and the more western aspects, grew to be more distant from the 'Republican-Progressives'. Former Vice-President Hiram Johnson, now elected Senator from California, spoke bitterly of his vice-presidency and joined La Follette in opposition.
The neverending war entered 1918 with the nation at knife-edge. The long-promised reforms of 1912 seemed far away and unions grew more radical. Eugene Debs' Socialist Party would reckon at 8 seats in the House after the midterms which led to a controversial coalition between them and the Democrats under Henry Rainey which led to Roosevelt declaring it a second corrupt bargain to exclude the Republican-Progressives from power. In 1919, the war finally ended with a million boys gone, and with the nation so exhausted and bitter, with the rise of the Spartacists in Germany, Roosevelt declared that 'Spartacism must be crushed at once' and pushed for a second invasion of Germany.
This was the spark for the 1919 general strike, fuelled by a crippling war exhaustion and the greater influence of the Socialist Party on American political discourse. Roosevelt's Labor Secretary Eugene Foss immediately moved to send in the strike breakers, leading to riots and protests spreading all over the Midwest. In the end, the Red Scare worked. The Socialist Party was associated with Spartacism and the unions were broken once and for all. Still, the last words of Eugene Debs before he was killed echoed - 'You may kill a man, but you cannot kill an idea'.
Meanwhile in the south, the coalition of Democrats with Socialists drove further people into the 'White League' and led them to have greater influence on the Republican-Progressives, and Roosevelt was consistently presented as the last bastion of order against the red menace. Racist rhetoric of blacks being associated with Spartacism were floated around as well. Roosevelt's turn to more firm exclusionary rhetoric, including a declaration that 'loyalty to America, not to any other nation or idea, must be paramount in all Americans', fuelled them as well.
And we finally get to 1920. With Roosevelt declaring that he will run for a third consecutive term to ensure America remains free, bolstering it with his usual bombastic rhetoric, the Democrats stunned by the backlash from the coalition jumped back to seize on this with an unbeatable slogan - "Washington Wouldn't, Grant Couldn't and Roosevelt Shouldn't!". Helping them was the final splintering of the western Progressives with the greater whole, with Robert La Follette running against Roosevelt in the Progressive primary and losing decisively.
The man who the Democrats chose, Senator Thomas J. Walsh, was an Irish Catholic, but notably one who was a distinctive break from 'Catholic politics', supporting the war against Germany and endorsing the idea of Prohibition which disarmed it as a partisan issue much to some Rep-Progs' displeasure. He was a man widely popular in western circles even with western Progressives and his selection of a more moderate running mate appeased the people who worried he was too close with the 'left' so to speak.
Still, he was Catholic. And a South that had eight years of White League propaganda, fuelled by the backlash to the general strike, turned against him decisively. He was the first Democrat to not win any of the south, but German-Americans and western Progressives rallied behind him in opposition to Roosevelt, including by then again Governor of Wisconsin Robert La Follette who made the official Progressive candidate in his state the Democratic one in protest at Roosevelt's growing authoritarianism and anti-labor sentiment.
Still, the outcome was clear. To the chants of "Washington Wouldn't, Grant Couldn't, Roosevelt Shouldn't!" the voters went "Roosevelt or Chaos!".
The triumphant President would die in 1922 suddenly, after one and a half years of increasing discontent and economic woe as a result of the war. His successor, now-President Eugene Foss, would see his term be ended by a Democratic landslide bringing Edwin Meredith and a new Democratic Party in charge after 32 years in the wilderness. The cultural memory of Roosevelt would sink in as a loud "man's man", tough and hard-handed, a tough man for 'tough times'. Even to this day, the Republican-Progressives and the 'Southern League' [rebranded in the 70s] hold Roosevelt Diners and the man is a popular symbol of the American nationalistic right-wing. On Typpit, t/bullmoose often makes memes about 'cracking spartacist heads'.
[1] In 1912 he and the Progressive leadership prioritised a 'lily-white' southern Progressive Party, expelling southern African-American delegates and declaring that the blacks was the cause of the southern Republican Party becoming impotent. This is expanded upon here into a wider scenario.
1920
The Moose, the League and the Tragic Realignment
Republican-Progressive: President Theodore Roosevelt (R-NY)/Secretary of Labor Eugene N. Foss (P-MA): 335 EV, 52.9%
Democratic: Senator Thomas J. Walsh (MT)/Governor Francis Burton Harrison (NY): 196 EV, 45.9%
After a shock victory in 1912, the heady days of the Progressive Party ended up sour as the domineering Roosevelt quickly moved to hijack the weakened Republicans and forcibly align the Progressives with them, creating the 'Republican-Progressive' alliance. Accentuating this shift from the 'left' was his attempt in the 1912 election to emphasise more conservative views on race to win over Southern voters [1]. This was bolstered by support from many dissenting Georgia Democrats fuelling the 'White League' such as the 'grand old lady of Georgian politics' Rebecca Latimer Fulton, all which spurned the 1912 campaign of Thomas Marshall out of a distrust for the 'comedic Hoosier' who somehow got nominated. While Roosevelt won the election, his performance in the South was not enough to win any states.
In his second presidency, he skewed closer to his party's perceived 'Southern electorate' while rolling out his ambitious reforms elsewhere, sure that the Republican-Progressives could break through if they shunned the 'failed coalition' of the old in favour of a 'lily-white' one based around the idea of a white-led Progressive Party that could gradually re-enfranchise African-Americans. By the 1914 election, this ossified into a southern branch that rejected re-enfranchisement in the belief that it would drag the Republican-Progressives there off back to 'impotence'.
One thing that made tensions within the Republican-Progressive alliance worse was America's involvement in the Great War. Roosevelt was eager to get America involved, and despite Congress voting down a declaration of war Roosevelt openly supported the Allies in any policy he could, while ramping up preparation, and the 1916 election promised to be a tense one. The Democrats ended up nominating Senator John Burke of North Dakota, who ran on cautious isolationism, on continuing progressive reform and on his honest reputation. 'Honest John' was someone you could trust! Roosevelt ran on his record while attacking Burke as naive. Meanwhile the 'White League', by this time much grown due to support from the wider Progressive Party eager to expand their base, began to muscle out local Democrats and relied excessively on pointing out John Burke's Irish Catholic ancestry to drive Southern voters into the arms of the Southern Progressives and the 'White League'.
But of course what sealed it in the end was the Zimmermann Telegram. When Roosevelt brandished a copy and shouted loud that Germany was conspiring behind America's back, Democratic hopes of an upset was obliterated. The Upper South fell in the Roosevelt landslide and states like Georgia and Alabama came disturbingly close to falling. The Democrats retreated to lick their wounds, but the League was close behind with knives.
The declaration of war came shortly after and America intervened in the war, sure of a quick victory. It was to turn out nothing of the sort. A long slog, more and more people dead, and more and more Progressives grew sick of Roosevelt. Especially Robert La Follette, who was a firm isolationist, declaring America's intervention to be a mistake. As the war continued, the splits grew more and more obvious up until the Wisconsin Progressive Party, and the more western aspects, grew to be more distant from the 'Republican-Progressives'. Former Vice-President Hiram Johnson, now elected Senator from California, spoke bitterly of his vice-presidency and joined La Follette in opposition.
The neverending war entered 1918 with the nation at knife-edge. The long-promised reforms of 1912 seemed far away and unions grew more radical. Eugene Debs' Socialist Party would reckon at 8 seats in the House after the midterms which led to a controversial coalition between them and the Democrats under Henry Rainey which led to Roosevelt declaring it a second corrupt bargain to exclude the Republican-Progressives from power. In 1919, the war finally ended with a million boys gone, and with the nation so exhausted and bitter, with the rise of the Spartacists in Germany, Roosevelt declared that 'Spartacism must be crushed at once' and pushed for a second invasion of Germany.
This was the spark for the 1919 general strike, fuelled by a crippling war exhaustion and the greater influence of the Socialist Party on American political discourse. Roosevelt's Labor Secretary Eugene Foss immediately moved to send in the strike breakers, leading to riots and protests spreading all over the Midwest. In the end, the Red Scare worked. The Socialist Party was associated with Spartacism and the unions were broken once and for all. Still, the last words of Eugene Debs before he was killed echoed - 'You may kill a man, but you cannot kill an idea'.
Meanwhile in the south, the coalition of Democrats with Socialists drove further people into the 'White League' and led them to have greater influence on the Republican-Progressives, and Roosevelt was consistently presented as the last bastion of order against the red menace. Racist rhetoric of blacks being associated with Spartacism were floated around as well. Roosevelt's turn to more firm exclusionary rhetoric, including a declaration that 'loyalty to America, not to any other nation or idea, must be paramount in all Americans', fuelled them as well.
And we finally get to 1920. With Roosevelt declaring that he will run for a third consecutive term to ensure America remains free, bolstering it with his usual bombastic rhetoric, the Democrats stunned by the backlash from the coalition jumped back to seize on this with an unbeatable slogan - "Washington Wouldn't, Grant Couldn't and Roosevelt Shouldn't!". Helping them was the final splintering of the western Progressives with the greater whole, with Robert La Follette running against Roosevelt in the Progressive primary and losing decisively.
The man who the Democrats chose, Senator Thomas J. Walsh, was an Irish Catholic, but notably one who was a distinctive break from 'Catholic politics', supporting the war against Germany and endorsing the idea of Prohibition which disarmed it as a partisan issue much to some Rep-Progs' displeasure. He was a man widely popular in western circles even with western Progressives and his selection of a more moderate running mate appeased the people who worried he was too close with the 'left' so to speak.
Still, he was Catholic. And a South that had eight years of White League propaganda, fuelled by the backlash to the general strike, turned against him decisively. He was the first Democrat to not win any of the south, but German-Americans and western Progressives rallied behind him in opposition to Roosevelt, including by then again Governor of Wisconsin Robert La Follette who made the official Progressive candidate in his state the Democratic one in protest at Roosevelt's growing authoritarianism and anti-labor sentiment.
Still, the outcome was clear. To the chants of "Washington Wouldn't, Grant Couldn't, Roosevelt Shouldn't!" the voters went "Roosevelt or Chaos!".
The triumphant President would die in 1922 suddenly, after one and a half years of increasing discontent and economic woe as a result of the war. His successor, now-President Eugene Foss, would see his term be ended by a Democratic landslide bringing Edwin Meredith and a new Democratic Party in charge after 32 years in the wilderness. The cultural memory of Roosevelt would sink in as a loud "man's man", tough and hard-handed, a tough man for 'tough times'. Even to this day, the Republican-Progressives and the 'Southern League' [rebranded in the 70s] hold Roosevelt Diners and the man is a popular symbol of the American nationalistic right-wing. On Typpit, t/bullmoose often makes memes about 'cracking spartacist heads'.
[1] In 1912 he and the Progressive leadership prioritised a 'lily-white' southern Progressive Party, expelling southern African-American delegates and declaring that the blacks was the cause of the southern Republican Party becoming impotent. This is expanded upon here into a wider scenario.
Last edited:
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
(Claudia López)
Name: Valérie Luz Bonnay de Casa
Political Party or Faction: Socialist Movement for Regeneration (Broad Front)
Leadership style: In public, she will be a conciliatory figure and present herself as a truly neutral figure to move Potosi into a new era. She will avoid criticising Ayma or even Mamani. In fact she will seek to appropriate their legacies to deform into hers. After all, they’re dead. And she’s very much alive. If possible, she will seek to cultivate a personality cult around her, but only if possible.
In private, she will seek to create a strong internal faction – the Casaitas – personally loyal to her and her alone. It will be one of a very deeply pragmatic streak bound in socialist rhetoric. This faction will be built by cultivating historically marginalised communities.
Leader Personality: A very composed individual, very little disturbs her. She seems to believe she is the main character of her own story, and has every confidence in her every decision.
Brief Bio: It would take a very special circumstance, or even the passing of aeons, to get a scion of Lorenzo de Casa into the presidency. But his granddaughter now sits in the same office he once did, and she has expansive plans for the country.
Born in Paris to Lorenzo’s posthumous daughter Blanca de Casa Montaña and her French lover Jean-Marie Bonnay, Valérie was somewhat of a family shame, even once being told to her face by her maternal grandmother that she was a ‘mistake sent by the Devil’. She just laughs that off, brushing it off as an ageing woman’s blind anger at the world for her suffering. Brought up primarily by her father’s family, even now she speaks Spanish with a slight French tinge. However, her mother’s newfound determination to climb up in Potosian society split an 11 year old Valérie from her father and his family and put her in an unfamiliar country, the Republic of Potosi.
Let it not be said that Valérie Bonnay de Casa was ever unable to adapt. Even now, she reminisces sometimes of her mother’s doomed efforts to achieve political influence in Potosi. She just wanted it too much and just alienated people. Meanwhile, Valérie just seemed to accumulate connections like a spider spins a web, which is to say, naturally. People just seemed to like her.
By the 1980s, Valérie was in her 20s, and growing acutely aware of the tensions in Potosian society. Already inclined against the elite due to her mother’s repeating what she knew of her father and his death, she sought to work with the left-wing organisations, including the emerging Socialists, and managed to achieve some form of informal influence by aligning herself with the charismatic Ayma who she gambled would go far.
Ending up with a party office when the Socialists won control in 1994, she ended up backing Ayma’s chosen candidate as his successor, but ah well, Mamani won. Turning on a dime, she expressed her loyalty to the Nation above all, and elected to keep silent when the party feud was going on, privately promising Mamani her full support for any of his actions, and even wrangling herself into the vice-presidency in 2010.
And now she is President. Who knows what she has planned.
THE AGENDA OF THE BONNAY DE CASA ADMINISTRATION
Socialism with Potosian Characteristics
While Valérie is not of the capitalist sort, she is deeply aware that Potosi needs a solution to the hunger and to the Starving Time. Thus she will seek to coordinate the state response with that of private companies.
She will seek to create this structure where every private company is a ‘partner’ of the state and hence can be reined in by the state, and has to follow the labour and environmental laws, but otherwise allowed to go as they please (within reason), with Potosi once more ‘open for business’. They will be allowed to brand themselves ‘State Companies’ if they so desire. To the public, it will be sold as merely calibrating the state policies and the state companies are really extensions of the state, don’t worry. No capitalism thanks, we’re Potosian! Hopefully this works!
She will also try to have the state support the growth of local cooperatives which will also be covered in the ‘state partnership’. Any partners of the state is good, and hey this helps burnish her socialist credentials, which is never a bad thing!
Diplomacy with Potosian Characteristics
The famine will be treated via the state taking a primary role, intervening to ensure Potosi gets food from as much places as possible. She will take this opportunity to expand Potosi’s diplomacy, saying that in times of crisis, when the people are starving, help must not be refused. Hence China will be turned to, yes, but she will turn also to Potosi’s main rival the Americans.
To the American President, she will emphasise that she is not her predecessors, and is instead a ‘good reformer’ who wishes to ensure free enterprise is phased in Potosi without the risk of a new revolution, and will bring up the fact that if starving Potosians get American aid, it may help endear a more pro-American [and hence more pro-free market] attitude. She will pledge to continue this quiet reform and allow American companies to have a share of the pie if the rivalry dies down.
However, she will also turn to China, invoking her predecessors’ wish to work with them in the world. Chinese companies will also be given a slice of the Potosian economic pie, and their ‘state partnership’ will be played up more than the American, as a show of ‘anti-imperialism’, while quietly signing more and more deals with American companies.
Russia and India too will be turned to for support and deals, and Potosi will emphasise its willingness to work with everyone and not be a hostile ‘hermit state’. However, to shore up the nationalist support, it will emphasise publicly that this cooperation will be on Potosian ‘terms’. Nevermind that the ‘terms’ are quite generous, it’s key to emphasise that it’s on Potosian terms!
The focus at first is ensuring everyone gets fed of course. Once this system is credited for solving the famine, it will have far more public trust, and she will expand on it far more to establish
Politics with Potosian Characteristics
President Bonnay de Casa is heavily aware of the (mostly indigenous) death squads and loyalists in the military. It is why she will seek to bind herself deeply to the ‘legacy’ of Ayma and Mamani, portraying herself as their ‘natural successor’ in symbolery and rhetoric. A key aspect of this is indigenous policy. She is not one to needlessly alienate the majority populace! She will appoint a majority-indigenous cabinet, including an indigenous vice-president, and support a constitutional amendment recognising the main indigenous languages of Potosi (Quechua, Aymara and Guaraní) as co-official with Spanish.
The environment too will be a key policy of hers, with several areas recognised as national parks, an ‘Ecological Council’ with an indigenous majority will be appointed to oversee any applications to exploit the land for private use, and she will pepper in indigenist-environmentalist rhetoric in her speeches to underline what she wants to emphasise, that she is the ally of the majority.
To burnish her portrayal as a genuine democrat, she will allow other parties to contest elections… As part of the Frente Amplio (Broad Front) of socialist and social-democratic parties. The idea was taken from a book about East Germany. Only parties that are basically just Casaita will be approved of, as they will continue to uphold the clear message of the Broad Front. The Socialist Movement for Regeneration will always be top of the Broad Front of course, but there will always be a fair few parties to demonstrate Potosi’s willingness to accept political pluralism!
Expansionism… with Potosian Characteristics!
The military has a lot of guns. This is a self-evident fact. The Potosian people are hyper about possessing Chaco. This is also self-evident. As much as it may be a decision she has much misgivings over, she is going to commit to holding Chaco. However, she will seek to put a puppet regime in Paraguay which will sign a treaty recognising Chaco is Potosian, and really work her socks off to convince America to agree to recognise this land grab.
To maintain control of Chaco, she will approve of a military ‘surge’ into the territory to clamp down on it. This also has the benefit of moving them far away from Potosi City and thus away from her. She will give them every license to do whatever they need to maintain control in Chaco, as long as they stay the fuck away from thinking about coups.
However, her main aim was never Chaco. Potosi was for a long time a land-locked country, and the coast is one that Potosi has lacked since that damnable war with Chile. Hence she will seek to cut some ethically-questionable deals with the Chilean government and companies in exchange for a treaty ceding the old coast to Potosi, or if that cannot be achieved, an agreement that Potosians can use the coast free of tariffs. Sure, it’s all a bit corrupt and dirty, but hey. That’s just politics.
Revisionism with Potosian Characteristics
As much as she would prefer to leave the matter be, she knows she would be a bad daughter to her mother if she didn’t at least try to do some light revisionism of her frankly nuts grandfather.
History books under her presidency will be rewritten to present Lorenzo de Casa as a well-meaning man who sought to try his best to save Potosi in his own way, only to be killed by the ‘elite’, connecting this with the by now decades-long socialist rhetoric to make a good ‘martyr’ role for the man. It may require a lot of flat-out lies. So what? History books are full of them anyway.
Last edited:
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
In The Heady Daze
Theresa May (Conservative majority) 2016-2017
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour minority supported by SNP and Liberal Democrats, then by Liberal Democrats) 2017
May 2017: def. Theresa May (Conservative), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Tim Farron (Liberal Democrats)
Jun 2017 vote on Scottish Independence Referendum: 324 Nay - 293 Aye (About 20 Labour 'Unionists' backed Nay)
Jul 2017 vote of no confidence: 348 Aye - 293 Nay
Theresa May (Conservative majority) 2017
Sep 2017: def. Jeremy Corbyn (Labour), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Vince Cable (Liberal Democrats)
Jeremy Hunt (Conservative majority) 2017-
Theresa May (Conservative majority) 2016-2017
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour minority supported by SNP and Liberal Democrats, then by Liberal Democrats) 2017
May 2017: def. Theresa May (Conservative), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Tim Farron (Liberal Democrats)
Jun 2017 vote on Scottish Independence Referendum: 324 Nay - 293 Aye (About 20 Labour 'Unionists' backed Nay)
Jul 2017 vote of no confidence: 348 Aye - 293 Nay
Theresa May (Conservative majority) 2017
Sep 2017: def. Jeremy Corbyn (Labour), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Vince Cable (Liberal Democrats)
Jeremy Hunt (Conservative majority) 2017-
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Name: Viktoriya Terentiyovna 'Vika' Mikhailova
Date of Birth: 12 May 1885 (46 y/o)
Personality: A very polite (painfully so, in fact) individual who attempts to radiate competency in all her acts. Key word, attempts. However, she can be very cold at times, especially when things do not go her way.
Leadership Style: A quiet alliance-crafter and consensus-builder, she nevertheless keeps her principles first and foremost, and knows to ensure her enemies are marginalised as much as possible if she wants as much success as possible.
Ideology: Vika Mikhailova’s ideology was once described by someone quite well when they described it quite derogatorily as ‘Marxism-Narodism’. She is a firm advocate of the rural peasantry and their interests, and blends this with a seemingly firm Marxism. However, those close to her will know that she has a deep religiosity that she keeps close to her chest. Preferring to build alliances and contacts in the shadows, she knows that any good state is built on its bureaucracy, and hence she will seek to maintain the 'shadow state' on her side, no matter what.
Brief Bio: It is undeniable that Vika Mikhailova has given her all to the revolution, both of them, for they have made her who she is now. Born in a firmly religious Orthodox peasant family originating in the fields surrounding Voronezh, she grew up with a strong religious belief in God, but grew to privately question many of the official church’s teachings when it aligned with the state. Only born twenty years after her family was freed from serfdom, the family memory left an indelible mark on her, and their continuing poverty while the nobles (still a strong presence in Voronezh) showed her that there was legal inequality and there was extralegal inequality.
Leaving her family behind once she grew dissatisfied with her lot in life and moving to the city of Voronezh, She aligned herself to the local Socialist Revolutionaries once they emerged, but as the Russian Civil War radicalised people, she grew to align herself with the Left-SR. After the SR coalitioned with liberals and then led an uprising against the new Soviet Government, she condemned it and joined the Bolsheviks in disgust at her former party.
While in her local Bolshevik circles, she grew to cultivate deep contacts and people she grew to find deeply reliable, while preferring to present herself as purely the secretary for meetings. She would find that as secretary, she would wield a lot of unofficial influences in the cliques she ran in, and as she climbed up in influence, moving from Voronezh to Moscow in the mid-20s, she would continue this ‘quiet connections’ tactic, while increasingly cultivating influence over certain people via favours.
With the fall of the Viper and the rise of Yusupov, she saw the ‘Baron of Beyond’ with a deeply-concealed distaste, especially with his hostility to religion. Still, she would maintain her contact-building strategy sure that with Yusupov oblivious to her, she would continue. A few murmurs here and there about his ‘high-handed, almost tsarist ways, unfitting of a revolutionary’ helped the increasing tide against Yusupov, and once he was gone…
Well, she was but a humble secretary, and would accept the post of Premier in such a tone, promising to ‘let the Party lead the way’ and not run ramrod over it like Yusupov did. Nevertheless, she has plans. Big plans.
GOALS
Core Goal: “The People’s Renovation”
It is undeniable that Chairman Yusupov has made the religious situation all that more precarious. But we must study ourselves and admit one bitter fact – The Revolution does not lead to the death of religion. While capitalism is gone for good, there are still minor ills, minor grievances, existential worries, that lead people to religion.
The solution, therefore, is to not abolish religion. It is to bring the revolution to religion. The olds must be cast out, and just as the old Empire was reshaped into our glorious Union, the old churches, temples and mosques must be reshaped, made anew for our new society. Thankfully, we are not alone in this goal, there are commendable men and women seeking to cast out the religious bourgeoisie and make their faith proletariat-led.
For Russian Orthodoxy, the one person to entrust and to support is clear – Aleksandr Vvedenskiy. Here is a firm theologian entirely willing to work with us and follow ideas for making the Church red. With the absence of a clear leader of Russian Orthodoxy with the death of that reactionary Tikhon years ago, the time is ripe to push the Living Church, Vvedenskiy’s project, into official state recognition as the sole and official Orthodox Church, with Vvedenskiy himself as Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. In exchange, Vvedenskiy and his allies will seek to laud the Soviet Union and the revolutionary policies we are pushing elsewhere, and push their flock to support us in all we do. We will seek to use state power to reduce the legitimacy of the reactionaries and encourage cooperation with Vvedenskiy and the true Orthodox Church.
But it must never be assumed that this policy is blind to the other faiths in the Union. For a revolution in Islam, we must bring in a man who we have kept out in the cold since Lenin died. Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev. The man may have his nationalistic tendencies, but he is undeniably a Bolshevik and a man Lenin trusted completely. We will entrust him with all matters Islamic with the brief to bring nothing short of a complete and utter revolution in Islamic thought.
Regarding Buddhism, we will seek to set up a Buddhist Central Religious Board, filled with trustworthy party men who will ensure that the lamas are passing on the correct teachings, aka ones that conform to the Board and the Party’s desires for a socialist Buddhism. Any other religions apart from Orthodoxy, Islam and Buddhism will also be considered, but the Party Committee will have final say.
To the atheists who see religion as anathema to revolution, they are free to go after the non-revolutionary religions, the ones not following Vvedenskiy’s Living Church, Sultan-Galiev’s revolutionary Islam or Board-conforming Buddhism (and any other state-controlled/monitored faiths that may be created).
Those religions are not to be seen as incorporated in the Party Line like Yusupov’s abhorred cult. The Party Line is still one of strict atheism and she will maintain that. There just will be a tolerance of certain faiths that preach loyalty to the Soviet Union and to the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Loyalty is necessary, and all this will be sold as sadly necessary for now.
Major Goal 1: “The Centralisation of Power and Its Consequences”
What is the Party? What is the Council of People’s Commissars? After the failure of the ‘Red Romanov’ that was Yusupov, we must seek to achieve self-criticism. A high-handed Moscow-centred regime led by an aristocrat that seeks to force his utopian ideas on the people? That is what we have became under Yusupov. The bourgeois, tsarist tendency is starting to creep inside the Council and the Party.
But it is never too late. The clear solution is to turn to our roots. For what was Lenin’s idea for the many nationalities inside our Union? It was not Yusupov’s revisionist proletlang nor a centralisation of power back to himself. No, Lenin desired for power to the nationalities, as can be seen in his Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia.
And of course we must seek to realise what we mean by soviet. Have we so easily forgot the meaning of that word? The evidence are overwhelming. Bolshevism, true Bolshevism, is not a diktat from Moscow. It is local power. But we must never go overboard and create anarchism. We are not Makhnov.
Hence there will be a system of federation inside Russia. The old Russian Soviet Republic will be dubbed the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and many oblasts will be established inside it, each with the firm hand of a loyal Party man overseeing it as the Chairman of the Oblast Council. Not a man hostile to the Party, someone loyal to the Party and selected by the Party. There will be no mini-Yusupovs, this Premier Mikhailova will assure the Party.
The Central Committee will act as a ‘rein’ on the local party structures, ensuring that each of them do not deviate from the party line, and will have the power to replace any council of an oblast or autonomous republic with a new trusty party-selected council. The Council of People’s Commissars, and the Chairman, has no say in this at all. The Party leads, always.
The republics will also have their own councils, with firm party men in charge. The party men will be of the utmost loyalty of course, and every selection will be up to the Central Committee of course.
As a sop to Sultan-Galiev in exchange for his collaboration on creating ‘Marxism with a Muslim face’, we will present the idea of a Turkestani Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, with the national republics firmly in it, and all (this will be emphasised) political offices will be decided by the Central Committee. However, Mikhailova will declare her neutrality in the matter and declare that this will entirely be the Party’s choice. She is no Yusupov, she will gladly remind them.
The three federative republics (Russia, Turkestan and Transcaucasia) will provide a key level of power for the Central Committee to flex their muscles, and ensure that no Chairman can ever overrule the Central Committee on any serious matters.
The kulak question will be decided by the Central Committee and the localities, with the Chairwoman insisting that it is ultimately up to the Party.
Major Policy 2: “The Revolution of the Mind”
Hopefully burnishing her reputation with the party, Mikhailova will now move on to her next step, that of pushing Soviet culture towards what she would prefer it to be. Religion is covered by the core goal, this is more broader culture.
As the first Chairwoman of the Council of People’s Commissars, she will seek to continue past Premiers’ efforts to politicise ordinary women and get them involved in the Soviet Union, including restating and reinforcing past guarantees of income equality. She will also use what power she has as Chairwoman to appoint more women (but of course prioritising men with key connections that she will find crucial) to key positions. She will also arrange to recognise International Women’s Day as a public holiday in the Soviet Union – March 8th is the day noted down for it.
Yusupov’s Komsomol will prove useful here, as it will be utilised to crusade for the ‘Revolution of the Mind’, namely dealing with sex discrimination at a local level and broader sexism in society. Women are as much workers as men. The Komsomol will also be utilised to ensure as much women are in the workforce as possible, declaring that ‘the age of the house-bound woman is over!’.
Regarding homosexuality, Mikhailova will gladly agree with the people that it is a bourgeois-created sickness, and will seek to, while not outright banning it (such a thing is a Tsarist thing), officially treating it as a sickness of society, and a sickness of the mind. The ‘Revolution of the Mind’ will be extended to this, and mental care will be expanded to cover homosexuality. The policy of treating homosexuality will cover many treatments commonly available at the time, but one such permitted is encouraging the patient to ‘self-criticise’ themselves. If they desire a woman, how are they themselves a woman? If they wish to be penetrated by a man, how are they a man? As part of the ‘Revolution of the Mind’, all sorts of delusions about the individual must be thrown aside and self-criticism be intensified to make the new Soviet Man and Woman.
Sexism, racism, homosexuality, liberalism, monarchism, all are diseases of the mind, Mikhailova will maintain. And hence mental healthcare and a growth in what she calls ‘self-criticism’ is necessary. As she puts it, the absence of self-criticism and an asking of oneself – ‘Am I following the correct Party Line?’ – led to the rise of Yusupov and to the Revolution almost being compromised. No more. The Party Line (apart from necessary concessions to practicality) will be maintained no matter what.
Thus the state guaranteeing the best mental healthcare for all its comrades is upholding the true revolutionary spirit and ensuring self-criticism and maintaining the Party Line are preserved.
Major Policy 3: “Workers of the World, Unite!”
The Soviet Union, as the bastion of the Revolution, must not close its eyes to the world. We enjoy a Comintern and many parties turn to us as the shining light. We must not squander this on micromanagement and setting a diktat to the world communist movement like we did with our internal states.
Hence the official stance of the Comintern on ideology shall be that if it is broadly within communist ideology, we shall allow them to decide what they think is best. What works for Moscow will not work for London, for Paris, for Berlin or for Washington. However, as it is within our interest to have a working relationship with the peoples of those countries, we shall encourage the communist parties to cooperate with other, less communist, parties, to ensure the broader Left has a strong voice.
Regarding the bourgeois governments, we shall once again seek to improve relationships without propping them up. We must show ourselves to be more legitimate than their own, to cut through the pathetic bourgeois lies with nothing but cold hard truth. And we will show them that we have turned black earth to red roses, showing the beauty of socialism and of our Soviet Union. If it legitimises our brethren and make us look far more human and less like a spectre, so much the better!
However, we will not seek to bail out the collapsing ‘Weimar’ government of Germany. The KPD there will be given every latitude to decide on their future trajectory, with revolution very much within possibility. Also within possibility is allying with the social-fascists to keep out the brown fascists. Such is the cruelty of necessity. It will be entirely up to Thalmann and his party, with Moscow refusing to give a diktat.
One can be forgiven for thinking this represents us abandoning the communist movement. Nothing can be further from the truth! We will continue to support our communist allies in other countries by financial and material means in order to further the world revolution by any means they so deem necessary.
Minor Policy 1: “The Question of Lenin”
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known to all as Lenin, was a great leader who led us to revolution. He was also a man. Not a God, as much as we all love and admire him. We shall not make new totems for our new revolution! So instead of embalming him or what Yusupov did by entombing him in that monstrosity of a memorial, there shall be a state funeral in his home city of Simbirsk where there shall be a quite impressive (but still modest) grave, and a far more modest, but far more sustainable memorial be built in Moscow, and be dedicated to not just Lenin, but to all those who gave their lives for the Revolution, including many sadly-deceased members of our great Party.
Minor Policy 2: “The Question of Yusupov”
Yusupov still remains alive and a pest on the future of the Soviet Union. If the Central Committee so desire to put him on trial for revisionism and for betrayal of the Revolution, the Chairwoman shall smooth the way and ensure they have every chance to. The Chairman must always be accountable to the Central Committee, for the Party leads the way, not any one person.
If the Central Committee decides that he is to be put to death for betraying the Revolution, it is to be carried out at once. His grave will be decided by his next of kin.
Minor Policy 3: “The Question of the Tsar”
TOP SECRET
The Chairwoman will privately arrange for the bones of the old Imperial Family to be retrieved from the mine and buried in anonymous graves not far off from Kostroma, where their house first started. The proceedings must be done in absolute secrecy, with not even the Council of People’s Commissars or Central Committee knowing of the matters. Only Mikhailova and a select few that she can trust absolutely.
The graves will be entirely anonymous, only noted by a gravestone above Alexei’s grave with no names on it, only an Orthodox cross. If Mikhailova is secure in power two years after the burial, she will hold a midnight journey, completely alone, to the burial site, and privately state to the dead what Lenin, Dukhanov and Yusupov could never have done, an apology for what was by all accounts a senseless murder. After that, she will consider the matter done and literally buried.
Minor Policy 4: “The Question of Mikhailova”
If all else succeeds, she will be quite comfortable as the ‘Party Woman’ and the Chairwoman of the Council of People’s Commissars. She will seek to develop a new generation of Soviet politicians with similar ideologies to her – a faction that is firmly social-conservative, deeply anti-cult of personality, yet with a boldly pragmatic streak on other matters.
If she succeeds, she will seek to step down from the post and hand over to a ‘Mikhailovite’ at some point. If there’s a war for some reason, she will state that she will serve for as long as the Central Committee desires her to, but after the war finishes, she will conclude her plans to build a clear succession, and then retire.
Last edited:
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Fifty-Four Forty and Fight: The Legacy of the Anglo/Mexican-American War
James K. Polk (Democratic) 1845-1846*
1844: def. Henry Clay (Whig)
George M. Dallas (Democratic, then Independent Nationalist) 1846-1849
Abbott Lawrence (Whig) 1849-1853
1848: def. Martin Van Buren (Democratic) and George M. Dallas (Nationalist)
John A. Quitman (Whig) 1853-1857
1852: def. John C. Frémont (Democratic) and Lamden P. Milligan (Nationalist)
Millard Fillmore (Whig) 1857-1861
1856: def. John Van Buren (Democratic), Abraham Lincoln (Conscience Whig) and John C. Breckinridge (Nationalist)
Alexander H. Stephens (Whig) 1861-1863*
1860: def. Hannibal Hamlin (Democratic/Conscience 'Fusion')
Benjamin F. Butler (Democratic/Military Junta) 1863-
James K. Polk (Democratic) 1845-1846*
1844: def. Henry Clay (Whig)
George M. Dallas (Democratic, then Independent Nationalist) 1846-1849
Abbott Lawrence (Whig) 1849-1853
1848: def. Martin Van Buren (Democratic) and George M. Dallas (Nationalist)
John A. Quitman (Whig) 1853-1857
1852: def. John C. Frémont (Democratic) and Lamden P. Milligan (Nationalist)
Millard Fillmore (Whig) 1857-1861
1856: def. John Van Buren (Democratic), Abraham Lincoln (Conscience Whig) and John C. Breckinridge (Nationalist)
Alexander H. Stephens (Whig) 1861-1863*
1860: def. Hannibal Hamlin (Democratic/Conscience 'Fusion')
Benjamin F. Butler (Democratic/Military Junta) 1863-
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Here's a list from my stupid playing with UKElect. No, it doesn't make sense.
No More Unicorns
Rory Stewart ('Independent' Conservative minority propped up by Liberal Democrats) 2019-2020
2019 (min.): def. Jeremy Corbyn (Labour), Nigel Farage (Reform), Dominic Raab [repl. Boris Johnson] (Conservative), Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat)
Anna Soubry ('Independent' Conservative minority propped up by Liberal Democrats) 2020-2021
Pat Mountain (UKIP majority) 2021-2026 [first interim, then permanently. Chancellor Freddy Vachha was the real power.]
2021 (maj.): def. Ian Lavery (Labour), Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat), Jeremy Hunt (Conservative), Nigel Farage [dec.] (Reform), Anna Soubry (Independent Conservative)
Gavin Williamson (United Conservative majority) 2026-
2026 (maj.): def. Layla Moran (Democratic Alliance), Pat Mountain (National Independence), Richard Burgon (Labour), Andy Burnham (Metropolitan)
2031 (maj.): def. Andy Burnham & Layla Moran (Democratic Alliance), unclear (National Independence), Vaughan Gething or Nadia Whittome [unclear] (Labour)
No More Unicorns
Rory Stewart ('Independent' Conservative minority propped up by Liberal Democrats) 2019-2020
2019 (min.): def. Jeremy Corbyn (Labour), Nigel Farage (Reform), Dominic Raab [repl. Boris Johnson] (Conservative), Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat)
Anna Soubry ('Independent' Conservative minority propped up by Liberal Democrats) 2020-2021
Pat Mountain (UKIP majority) 2021-2026 [first interim, then permanently. Chancellor Freddy Vachha was the real power.]
2021 (maj.): def. Ian Lavery (Labour), Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat), Jeremy Hunt (Conservative), Nigel Farage [dec.] (Reform), Anna Soubry (Independent Conservative)
Gavin Williamson (United Conservative majority) 2026-
2026 (maj.): def. Layla Moran (Democratic Alliance), Pat Mountain (National Independence), Richard Burgon (Labour), Andy Burnham (Metropolitan)
2031 (maj.): def. Andy Burnham & Layla Moran (Democratic Alliance), unclear (National Independence), Vaughan Gething or Nadia Whittome [unclear] (Labour)
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Name: Juliana Maria Pia Luna "Julia" Casanova
Age/Date of Birth: 41 y/o (born 14 September 1943)
Political Party (Faction): Republican (Libertarian)
Occupations and List of Offices: Businesswoman (of a medium-sized import/export company)
Biography: Julia Casanova is if anything a consummate woman keenly aware of her image. She spends a lot of her time perfecting how she comes across to others, keenly aware that in those junta years, a woman in the business sphere is walking on extremely thin ice. Known to be an economic libertarian, she privately dislikes the junta regulations and would like for America to have a free economy. Privately, she wishes for the same on the social sphere, seeing the government as too controlling on the people both economically and socially.
Back before the junta years, she was somewhat of a 'rebel', but had enough nous to realise that if she continued like that, she would be dead soon, and hence she returned to her family and through extensive persuasion, got a middling position in her family's import business (nepotism, of course, and it still remains seen as that to some even now), and really worked on her image to ensure that even the most crusty of misogynists see her as 'respectable'. She has not married, which is by far the main grievance (beyond daring to be in business in the first place) that people have with her.
Charisma - 5
Organization - 3
Command - 1
Jive - 4
Chicanery - 4
Organization - 3
Command - 1
Jive - 4
Chicanery - 4
The Future of The Country -
It is quite self-evident that people consume better and make purchases and sales far better when their government is a democracy. A dictatorship leads to a cooling of capital. We should see to restore democracy. Something new? Well, I can tell you that a good brand is gold with customers, and the old Constitution still remains gold with many. No need to rock the boat, just put in an amendment forbidding new acts of reconstitution.
Race and Civil Rights -
Well, let us focus first on democratisation and bringing back the good old Constitution before we discuss anything like that. Truthfully, we should repeal all laws stopping women, homosexuals and blacks from having equality, but I won't say such for now.
Matters of Faith -
While I believe that America should continue to be a country guided by Christian values, we should seek to uphold what the Founding Fathers believed for America, that of a country so secure in its faith that it can afford to welcome people of other mainstream religions and denominations. Satanists however? They're not a religion, they're just a bunch of sickos that pretend to be a religion.
Matters of Economics -
End the regulations holding America back. Not just the ones of the junta, the ones before that. America should be a land of true freedom, and the government intruding into the economy in any way is a threat to freedom.
Law & Order -
While we should pay heed to what some of the more respectable protesters say and support reforms to bring back the constitution and democracy, we should seek to avoid giving too much to some of the protesters' demands. Because some of them sound like communists. Of course it's the men breaking all the windows, and making messes. Not like we women. But I won't say that because it offends important people.
Immigration -
Oh look, is that the time? Thank you very much for the meeting, do you want me to show you out?
It is quite self-evident that people consume better and make purchases and sales far better when their government is a democracy. A dictatorship leads to a cooling of capital. We should see to restore democracy. Something new? Well, I can tell you that a good brand is gold with customers, and the old Constitution still remains gold with many. No need to rock the boat, just put in an amendment forbidding new acts of reconstitution.
Race and Civil Rights -
Well, let us focus first on democratisation and bringing back the good old Constitution before we discuss anything like that. Truthfully, we should repeal all laws stopping women, homosexuals and blacks from having equality, but I won't say such for now.
Matters of Faith -
While I believe that America should continue to be a country guided by Christian values, we should seek to uphold what the Founding Fathers believed for America, that of a country so secure in its faith that it can afford to welcome people of other mainstream religions and denominations. Satanists however? They're not a religion, they're just a bunch of sickos that pretend to be a religion.
Matters of Economics -
End the regulations holding America back. Not just the ones of the junta, the ones before that. America should be a land of true freedom, and the government intruding into the economy in any way is a threat to freedom.
Law & Order -
While we should pay heed to what some of the more respectable protesters say and support reforms to bring back the constitution and democracy, we should seek to avoid giving too much to some of the protesters' demands. Because some of them sound like communists. Of course it's the men breaking all the windows, and making messes. Not like we women. But I won't say that because it offends important people.
Immigration -
Oh look, is that the time? Thank you very much for the meeting, do you want me to show you out?
Last edited:
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1837-1947)
Victoria (Hanover) 1837-1901
Edward VII (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1901-1910
George V (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1910-1936
Edward VIII (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1936-1943*
George VI (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1943-1952 [-1947]
Elizabeth II (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1952-present [never reigned]
Today, plates are laid out in Buckingham Palace for meals that will never be. Ceremonies are held every once in a while to announce the "arrival" of a monarch to their new palace, when nobody came. The nation sings God save the Queen, but the truth was that God did not save her.
Every day, the United Kingdom of Great Britain tries to deny what happened. It pretends that the Royal Family were never executed by Americans in a misguided nationalistic zeal against the "heirs of George the Tyrant". The brief republic, like the first one was in all but name, erased out of history.
To admit that the Royal Family is dead is to admit that the country failed, utterly. Hence this ghoulish fantasy is continued, that the Royal Family are still alive. The Royal Family unites the nation, unites Britain. They must do. Because the alternative is too horrifying to admit.
The Regent attends all important ceremonies, videos are faked, and there has been consultations with the Japanese about possibly "helping" the Royal Family appear to the people, with the first virtual presence of the Queen planned for the 2022 State Opening of Parliament.
The Queen is planned to 'pass away' on her 120th birthday, and her heir, named George after his grandfather, will take over as Britain's first completely fictional monarch. Many 'quirks' were developed for "George" to sell him as human, and he has a perfectly happy (but not too happy) family including two children which each has their own children. The heir to "George" is "Edward" who is hoped to take over as Edward IX after George VII 'passes away'.
The Royal Family has never died. They live on. Britain endures. It has to.
Victoria (Hanover) 1837-1901
Edward VII (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1901-1910
George V (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1910-1936
Edward VIII (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1936-1943*
George VI (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1943-1952 [-1947]
Elizabeth II (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1952-present [never reigned]
Today, plates are laid out in Buckingham Palace for meals that will never be. Ceremonies are held every once in a while to announce the "arrival" of a monarch to their new palace, when nobody came. The nation sings God save the Queen, but the truth was that God did not save her.
Every day, the United Kingdom of Great Britain tries to deny what happened. It pretends that the Royal Family were never executed by Americans in a misguided nationalistic zeal against the "heirs of George the Tyrant". The brief republic, like the first one was in all but name, erased out of history.
To admit that the Royal Family is dead is to admit that the country failed, utterly. Hence this ghoulish fantasy is continued, that the Royal Family are still alive. The Royal Family unites the nation, unites Britain. They must do. Because the alternative is too horrifying to admit.
The Regent attends all important ceremonies, videos are faked, and there has been consultations with the Japanese about possibly "helping" the Royal Family appear to the people, with the first virtual presence of the Queen planned for the 2022 State Opening of Parliament.
The Queen is planned to 'pass away' on her 120th birthday, and her heir, named George after his grandfather, will take over as Britain's first completely fictional monarch. Many 'quirks' were developed for "George" to sell him as human, and he has a perfectly happy (but not too happy) family including two children which each has their own children. The heir to "George" is "Edward" who is hoped to take over as Edward IX after George VII 'passes away'.
The Royal Family has never died. They live on. Britain endures. It has to.
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Matthew Thomson in a scene as Danny Rennie
Actor's Name: Matthew Thomson
Companion's Name: Danny Rennie
Biography/Career: Matthew Thomson (known as “Matty” to friends and co-workers) is a child actor who has been in the business for four years with middling success, and as he celebrates his big 1-0, he has landed his biggest role yet, of being a companion to the ‘Doctor’ in this new science-fiction show called Doctor Who.
Thomson loves the character of Danny Rennie, which is obvious in how he speaks of Danny and his enthusiasm in acting the often-energetic schoolboy, and hopes to in some way bring the independent spirit of Danny into himself.
Companion Profile: Danny was conceived from the base of “time-travelling Bash Street Kid”, with the character aimed to skew the show away from being pure education and add some levity and fun to the dynamic, with Danny expected to sort of be an ‘agent of chaos’ in how he could be the cause of a plot in some episodes with his mischief.
Thomson loves the character, being someone who reads the Beano regularly, but he wants to add a little more ‘cunning’ to Danny, have him sometimes outwit even the Doctor and Simon, but all this is underlined by a strong loyalty to the crew – Danny is never evil, nor will he really betray the crew, he just wants to have his fun in the places the crew visits.
Goals:
- A Goal (1): The Star
Matthew (and his manager) would like for this to be his breakout role, and get his name out there more than his previous roles ever did, and hopefully land him more roles in the future in high-profile shows or movies.
- B Goal (1): The Menace
Matthew also hopes that Danny will get enough of a 'cunning' streak to him and be more of a trickster than a two-dimensional 'schoolboy who does pranks', and lean more into the clever street kid than the 'naughty schoolboy' at times.
- C Goal (1): The Independent
Matthew wishes for this role to give him enough of a profile that he can start to stand on his own two feet (as an actor who people want to cast) and push against the manager and his family's control of his life. It is quite unlikely though...
Last edited:
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
These Fair Shores is a timeline primarily developed by CosmicAsh over on AH.com, and I am the lead developer/"co-author" of the timeline, specialising in UK matters.
Monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland (-1801)
George III (George William Frederick) (Hanover) 1760-1801 [Regent: George, Prince Regent, 1796-1801]
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1987)
George III (George William Frederick) (Hanover) 1801-1804 [Regent: George, Prince Regent, 1801-1804]
George IV (George Augustus Frederick) (Hanover) 1804-1830
William IV (William Henry) (Hanover) 1830-1837
Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria) (Hanover) 1837-1901
Edward VII (Albert Edward) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1901-1910
Edward VIII (Albert Victor Christian Edward) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1910-1919
George V (George Ernest Frederick Albert) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1919-1931
Edward IX (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1931-1934
George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Britannia) 1934-1952
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Maria) (Britannia) 1952-1987
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Hong Kong (1987-present)
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Maria) (Britannia) 1987-2022
Edward X (Charles Arthur Philip George Edward) (Britannia) 2022-present
=====
Prime Ministers of the Kingdom of Great Britain (-1801)
Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle (Whig) 1757-1762
John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (Court Whig) 1762-1763
Henry Fox, 1st Earl of Holland (Hollandian Whig) 1763-1765
Hugh Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (Court Whig) 1765-1766
William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (Chathamite Whig) 1766-1768
Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham (Rockinghamite Whig) 1768-1770
Robert Henley, 1st Earl of Northington (Court Whig) 1770-1772
William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (Court Whig - 'Shelburnite') 1772-1780
William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland (Rockinghamite Whig) 1780-1782
Lord George Germain (Court) 1782-1785
Francis Osborne, Marquess of Carmarthen / 5th Duke of Leeds (Court) 1785-1797
Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 2nd Earl of Moira (Loyalist) 1797-1801
William Pitt ‘the Younger’ (Loyalist) 1801
Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1987)
William Pitt ‘the Younger’ (Loyalist) 1801-1806
William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland (Loyalist) 1806-1809
William Windham (Loyalist) 1809-1814
Henry Addington (Loyalist) 1814-1822
George Canning (Loyalist) 1822-1827
John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham (Loyalist) 1827-1830
David William Murray, 3rd Earl of Mansfield (Loyalist, then Tory) 1830-1838
Joseph Planta (Liberal) 1838-1845
James Graham (Tory) 1845-1849
Edward Knatchbull (Tory) 1849-1851
Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (Liberal) 1851-1862
William Ewart Gladstone (Tory) 1862-1867
Isaac Butt (Tory) 1867-1871
Robert Lowe (Liberal) 1871-1878
Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne (Liberal) 1878-1879
Benjamin Disraeli (Tory) 1879-1883
William Ewart Gladstone (Tory) 1883-1889
Randolph Churchill (Democratic) 1889-1890
Joseph Chamberlain (Radical, then Liberal, then Liberal Unionist) 1890-1905
George Wyndham (Conservative) 1905-1913
Richard Haldane (Liberal) 1913-1920
Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1920-1927
Noel Skelton (Conservative) 1927-1935
Leo Amery (Conservative) 1935-1941
Malcolm MacDonald (Labour) 1941-1946
Clement Attlee (Conservative) 1946-1952
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) 1952-1959
Alan Lennox-Boyd (Conservative majority) 1959-1966
Roy Jenkins (Alliance) 1966-1978
Shirley Williams (Alliance) 1978-1981
Chris Brocklebank-Fowler (Alliance) 1981-1986
Ian Wrigglesworth (Alliance) 1986-1987
Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Hong Kong (1987-)
Ian Wrigglesworth (Alliance) 1987-1989
Michael Heseltine (Alliance) 1989-1991
Glenda Jackson (Alliance, then Liberal) 1991-2000
Bryan Gould (Liberal) 2000-2002
Angela Eagle (Liberal) 2002-2009
John Major (Liberal) 2009-2014
Wendy Alexander (Liberal) 2014-2017
Dominic Grieve (Liberal) 2017-present[/I]
Monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland (-1801)
George III (George William Frederick) (Hanover) 1760-1801 [Regent: George, Prince Regent, 1796-1801]
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1987)
George III (George William Frederick) (Hanover) 1801-1804 [Regent: George, Prince Regent, 1801-1804]
George IV (George Augustus Frederick) (Hanover) 1804-1830
William IV (William Henry) (Hanover) 1830-1837
Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria) (Hanover) 1837-1901
Edward VII (Albert Edward) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1901-1910
Edward VIII (Albert Victor Christian Edward) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1910-1919
George V (George Ernest Frederick Albert) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1919-1931
Edward IX (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) 1931-1934
George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George) (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Britannia) 1934-1952
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Maria) (Britannia) 1952-1987
Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Hong Kong (1987-present)
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Maria) (Britannia) 1987-2022
Edward X (Charles Arthur Philip George Edward) (Britannia) 2022-present
=====
Prime Ministers of the Kingdom of Great Britain (-1801)
Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle (Whig) 1757-1762
John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (Court Whig) 1762-1763
Henry Fox, 1st Earl of Holland (Hollandian Whig) 1763-1765
Hugh Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (Court Whig) 1765-1766
William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (Chathamite Whig) 1766-1768
Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham (Rockinghamite Whig) 1768-1770
Robert Henley, 1st Earl of Northington (Court Whig) 1770-1772
William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (Court Whig - 'Shelburnite') 1772-1780
William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland (Rockinghamite Whig) 1780-1782
Lord George Germain (Court) 1782-1785
Francis Osborne, Marquess of Carmarthen / 5th Duke of Leeds (Court) 1785-1797
Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 2nd Earl of Moira (Loyalist) 1797-1801
William Pitt ‘the Younger’ (Loyalist) 1801
Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1987)
William Pitt ‘the Younger’ (Loyalist) 1801-1806
William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland (Loyalist) 1806-1809
William Windham (Loyalist) 1809-1814
Henry Addington (Loyalist) 1814-1822
George Canning (Loyalist) 1822-1827
John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham (Loyalist) 1827-1830
David William Murray, 3rd Earl of Mansfield (Loyalist, then Tory) 1830-1838
Joseph Planta (Liberal) 1838-1845
James Graham (Tory) 1845-1849
Edward Knatchbull (Tory) 1849-1851
Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (Liberal) 1851-1862
William Ewart Gladstone (Tory) 1862-1867
Isaac Butt (Tory) 1867-1871
Robert Lowe (Liberal) 1871-1878
Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne (Liberal) 1878-1879
Benjamin Disraeli (Tory) 1879-1883
William Ewart Gladstone (Tory) 1883-1889
Randolph Churchill (Democratic) 1889-1890
Joseph Chamberlain (Radical, then Liberal, then Liberal Unionist) 1890-1905
George Wyndham (Conservative) 1905-1913
Richard Haldane (Liberal) 1913-1920
Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1920-1927
Noel Skelton (Conservative) 1927-1935
Leo Amery (Conservative) 1935-1941
Malcolm MacDonald (Labour) 1941-1946
Clement Attlee (Conservative) 1946-1952
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) 1952-1959
Alan Lennox-Boyd (Conservative majority) 1959-1966
Roy Jenkins (Alliance) 1966-1978
Shirley Williams (Alliance) 1978-1981
Chris Brocklebank-Fowler (Alliance) 1981-1986
Ian Wrigglesworth (Alliance) 1986-1987
Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Hong Kong (1987-)
Ian Wrigglesworth (Alliance) 1987-1989
Michael Heseltine (Alliance) 1989-1991
Glenda Jackson (Alliance, then Liberal) 1991-2000
Bryan Gould (Liberal) 2000-2002
Angela Eagle (Liberal) 2002-2009
John Major (Liberal) 2009-2014
Wendy Alexander (Liberal) 2014-2017
Dominic Grieve (Liberal) 2017-present[/I]
Last edited:
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
- Location
- Op een dag, Nederland.
- Pronouns
- she/her & ne/nem
Right, so put yourself in the head of a Briton, circa 1940. Your country is all but demolished from twenty years of bombardment – the Tempest. The Empire is triumphant. France lies defeated at last. You’re generally happy it’s over, but as your house still has damage on it. The Empire talks a lot of just victory, but as one of the victors, you feel like you should really get something from it. You don’t. Hence why you vote Labour.
It’s a bit of a scandal in the Empire that Britain voted socialist, but Malcolm MacDonald makes sure he will deliver. He brought the NHS (although that was tripartisan), keeps the tracks nationalised, etc., but finds his more ambitious ideas such as a permanent state bargain with trade unions like one pushed by the late Tory wartime Prime Minister Noel Skelton, frustrated by Imperial interference keen to water down Labour’s ‘radicalism’. This, combined with a lot of internal division and the fickleness of the Liberals, leads to five years of pathetic government comparable to 2017-2019. The Tories are back in. Luckily for you, it’s under a Skeltonite – Clement Attlee. Attlee is the one to truly bring around the postwar consensus, and his years are remembered as ‘basically what Skelton would have wanted’.
However, the Tory right strike just as he won a comfortable victory, and threw him out in favour of the Lord Salisbury.
Over those last few decades, especially the wartime era, you’ve grew used to imperial troops from all over fighting for you, and Salisbury is to you an unpleasant reminder of the old days. He promises to ‘keep Britain white’, and ‘reclaim Britain’s glorious past’. A die-hard Imperialist, he sees Britain as the core of the Empire, but just over the course of the Fifties embarrass himself and Britain in the process, accelerating the shift of power from Prime Minister to Lord President. But within his time, he politicised a lot of Britain’s past and associated them all with a fading glory of Britain as the sole dog in the Empire.
Once he was thrown out by the moderates coming back for revenge and replaced with similarly-conservative-but-not-deeply-racist Lennox-Boyd, you grow to sigh. Britain for the last two decades was a laughing stock, and you grow to have less pride in its past. The opposition is fractured after the collapse of Labour, and the government seeks to prioritise the Empire above really developing Britain as a whole.
Perhaps you flirt with separatism before reminding yourself it’s illegal, perhaps you drop out of politics altogether. But by 1966, there’s a man around, who promises to throw out all of the oh-so-bad past and make a new Britain. One that will be respected around the Empire. He promises scientific development, he promises a technological renaissance. And most crucially, he promises a rebirth. A rebirth of hope, of belief, of the idea that Britain matters even without Empire.
And that is why you vote for the devastating social revolution of Roy Jenkins and the Liberal Coalition in 1966.
It’s a bit of a scandal in the Empire that Britain voted socialist, but Malcolm MacDonald makes sure he will deliver. He brought the NHS (although that was tripartisan), keeps the tracks nationalised, etc., but finds his more ambitious ideas such as a permanent state bargain with trade unions like one pushed by the late Tory wartime Prime Minister Noel Skelton, frustrated by Imperial interference keen to water down Labour’s ‘radicalism’. This, combined with a lot of internal division and the fickleness of the Liberals, leads to five years of pathetic government comparable to 2017-2019. The Tories are back in. Luckily for you, it’s under a Skeltonite – Clement Attlee. Attlee is the one to truly bring around the postwar consensus, and his years are remembered as ‘basically what Skelton would have wanted’.
However, the Tory right strike just as he won a comfortable victory, and threw him out in favour of the Lord Salisbury.
Over those last few decades, especially the wartime era, you’ve grew used to imperial troops from all over fighting for you, and Salisbury is to you an unpleasant reminder of the old days. He promises to ‘keep Britain white’, and ‘reclaim Britain’s glorious past’. A die-hard Imperialist, he sees Britain as the core of the Empire, but just over the course of the Fifties embarrass himself and Britain in the process, accelerating the shift of power from Prime Minister to Lord President. But within his time, he politicised a lot of Britain’s past and associated them all with a fading glory of Britain as the sole dog in the Empire.
Once he was thrown out by the moderates coming back for revenge and replaced with similarly-conservative-but-not-deeply-racist Lennox-Boyd, you grow to sigh. Britain for the last two decades was a laughing stock, and you grow to have less pride in its past. The opposition is fractured after the collapse of Labour, and the government seeks to prioritise the Empire above really developing Britain as a whole.
Perhaps you flirt with separatism before reminding yourself it’s illegal, perhaps you drop out of politics altogether. But by 1966, there’s a man around, who promises to throw out all of the oh-so-bad past and make a new Britain. One that will be respected around the Empire. He promises scientific development, he promises a technological renaissance. And most crucially, he promises a rebirth. A rebirth of hope, of belief, of the idea that Britain matters even without Empire.
And that is why you vote for the devastating social revolution of Roy Jenkins and the Liberal Coalition in 1966.