Royal Family for British Dominions?

What would it take for let's say Australia, Canada, New Zealand & the Cape Colonies to have their own Royal families when given Dominion Status in the 1800's?

I was thinking like, Victoria or her parents or grand-parents having more children, surviving into adulthood then moving abroad to set up a Royal family based in each Dominion.

Also each Royal house would be governed by laws as in the UK, basically just figureheads at the front of the government, opening Parliament, heads on coins,stamps etc.

Regards filers.
 
Members of the royal family have served as governor-generals of the dominions the problems you would have is personal rivalry between family members.

Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II were cousins but still went to war with each other.

Also what happens when a royal family dies out or abdicates. Eg would Prince Albert, be able to become King of Great Britain when Edward VIII abdicated and be head of Canada or would he have to denounce one of his claims?
 
What would it take for let's say Australia, Canada, New Zealand & the Cape Colonies to have their own Royal families when given Dominion Status in the 1800's?

I was thinking like, Victoria or her parents or grand-parents having more children, surviving into adulthood then moving abroad to set up a Royal family based in each Dominion.

Also each Royal house would be governed by laws as in the UK, basically just figureheads at the front of the government, opening Parliament, heads on coins,stamps etc.

Regards filers.

I can't help but think that might be just asking for trouble down the line. If you establish Royal Families for each colony, it seems that over time the people of the colonies might regard their local royals as the true Royal Family, not the people living in England that have little idea what life is like in Australia, for example. The Colony Royals might also have their own lands as their first concern, not that of the UK and if their interests clash with that of the Main Royal Family, they have incentive to declare the colony as their own kingdom. And Great Britain's numerous enemies would also have incentive to try and court the Colony Royals away from the UK.
 

Yuelang

Banned
not to mention, that a certain country south of canada will sent revolutionaries to murder any canadian Royal family...

I'm talking about a certain commie in Caribbean
 
Which drunken, reprobate, womanizer, disappointment of a prince gets exiled to rule Australia?
If you offend Queen Victoria, are you rewarded by being crowned Prince of the Yukon?
If you display too much enthusiasm for Irish music and dancing, do you get sent to rule Newfoundland?
Does Victoria's favorite nephew rule the Bahamas?
Does her most ambitious nephew get crowned Prince of Mesopotamia ... to rule over a variety of tribes?
 
I can think of one, albeit unlikely scenario where this would work. But hey, this is the Alternate History forum and here scenarios can be unlikely as long as they are plausible. So here we go:

In order for it to work, it should take place between the 1820's and 1850's: The time of the Congress of Vienna, Congress of London and probably a few minor congresses more. So a time where the crowned heads of Europe regularly work things out by talking over lavish dinner parties the by sending out troops.

I am taking Belgium as an example. Much like in Belgium grievances over the united Dutch rule sparked a revolution, a similar uprising happens in an British colony: Both the peasantry as well as the British upper class object to Excessive English rule and a series of protests turns into an uprising and finally a revolution. Somehow their cause resonates with several European countries and so their 'diplomats' convince the assorted European royalty to call for a new congress in London, Paris, wait... Better in Brussels, to plead their case. After long debates independence is acknowledged, even by the British as long as the new country is a constitutional monarchy with:

scenario 1) the British monarch -Queen Victoria that is - remains head of state in a personal union. However for day to day business, she is represented by one of her sons. This works out pretty well, even better as planned as the prince becomes knowledgeable about the land, embraces its customs and if not already married, takes a local noblewoman. In any case his children are either born in the country or raised there since childhood. On Victoria's death, the local legislature dissolves the personal union and proclaims its viceroy, or his firstborn son as their new monarch. The new British king sees that it is better to have a family member ruling the country then risk a rift, agrees and the country has its own monarchy but remains a stable ally of the UK.

2) A pro-British king for the new country. After some vetting of the candidates, the delegation settles on either a close relative of the Queen, like a son or nephew with proven alliance to the British cause or a Belgian or German prince married to the British dynasty. Independence is thus more like autonomy from direct British rule but de facto union with Britain through a pro-British monarch from the house of Windsor/Saxony-Gotha/Belgium (and probably a whole series of other royal dynasties too).

So how would that work? Unlikely but still plausible? Or just plain nuts?
 
I think Scenario 1 is more plausible but I don't see a lot of European countries supporting an uprising of colonial subjects as colonization is starting to accelerate.
 
I can think of one, albeit unlikely scenario where this would work. But hey, this is the Alternate History forum and here scenarios can be unlikely as long as they are plausible. So here we go:

In order for it to work, it should take place between the 1820's and 1850's: The time of the Congress of Vienna, Congress of London and probably a few minor congresses more. So a time where the crowned heads of Europe regularly work things out by talking over lavish dinner parties the by sending out troops.

I am taking Belgium as an example. Much like in Belgium grievances over the united Dutch rule sparked a revolution, a similar uprising happens in an British colony: Both the peasantry as well as the British upper class object to Excessive English rule and a series of protests turns into an uprising and finally a revolution. Somehow their cause resonates with several European countries and so their 'diplomats' convince the assorted European royalty to call for a new congress in London, Paris, wait... Better in Brussels, to plead their case. After long debates independence is acknowledged, even by the British as long as the new country is a constitutional monarchy with:

scenario 1) the British monarch -Queen Victoria that is - remains head of state in a personal union. However for day to day business, she is represented by one of her sons. This works out pretty well, even better as planned as the prince becomes knowledgeable about the land, embraces its customs and if not already married, takes a local noblewoman. In any case his children are either born in the country or raised there since childhood. On Victoria's death, the local legislature dissolves the personal union and proclaims its viceroy, or his firstborn son as their new monarch. The new British king sees that it is better to have a family member ruling the country then risk a rift, agrees and the country has its own monarchy but remains a stable ally of the UK.

2) A pro-British king for the new country. After some vetting of the candidates, the delegation settles on either a close relative of the Queen, like a son or nephew with proven alliance to the British cause or a Belgian or German prince married to the British dynasty. Independence is thus more like autonomy from direct British rule but de facto union with Britain through a pro-British monarch from the house of Windsor/Saxony-Gotha/Belgium (and probably a whole series of other royal dynasties too).

So how would that work? Unlikely but still plausible? Or just plain nuts?

The idea of Victoria's sons Arthur and Leopold being titled Princes of Canada and Australia was mooted by Disraeli in the 1870s/80s.
 
The idea of Victoria's sons Arthur and Leopold being titled Princes of Canada and Australia was mooted by Disraeli in the 1870s/80s.
Why weren't they?

Even if it's just an addition to their official titles would it have any impact and would other dominions or colonies be added later?
 
...the British monarch -Queen Victoria that is - remains head of state in a personal union. However for day to day business, she is represented by one of her sons. Or just plain nuts?

Well, let me move from the plausible aspects all the way to just plain nuts...
Figure out how many separate dominions you want. With the exception of the heir apparent as Prince of Wales, the throne of each dominion is held by the nearest descendant of the sovereign-but not passed down through the individual line. Each time a dominion sovereign dies or abdicates, the throne moves to the next closest relative. This keeps the line of each throne as directly tied to the UK sovereign as possible. This could make for weird jumps of royal houses (well, since they are all the same royal house, maybe these dominion thrones would be royal cottages? Royal outhouses? No, no...not that last one). Finally, some sort of rule to make sure that marrying into another royal house does not pass the dominion throne away from the UK.

Any dominion sovereign could move their dominion and reign there or appoint a viceroy to represent in their stead. There could be some rights of each dominion to decide additional rights/responsibilities of their sovereign (local peerages/honors, head of church, etc.) and to work with the UK parliament on some detail of succession (does the sovereignty pass to the spouse before moving to another relative? Will it be limited to only males?, etc.).

Now, shoo away the butterflies, chase away the space bats and imagine Edward VIII abdicating his UK throne-but not out of the colonial line-and the next opening being the Colonial Throne of Jamaica. He becomes Edward I of the Colonial Throne of Jamaica and Head of the State Church of Rasta...

Should be an interesting coronation.
 
Last edited:
Why weren't they?

Even if it's just an addition to their official titles would it have any impact and would other dominions or colonies be added later?

I don't know but I suspect there was a sense that it might weaken the bond to the Mother County, which was so integral to the survival of the Empire.
 
I started the thread with just the Dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Cape to keep it simple.

Personally I don't think any member of the Royal family going to any place where there is not a white majority in the country would last very long, Jamaica, India especially, they'd be out on there ears after independence.

Ok, Queen Victoria was Empress of India, but she never set foot in the country.

Could you imagine the number of monarch's claiming refuge in the UK if after the "Winds of Change" blew through the British African colonies in the 60's. Especially when a load of them turned communist, with the thoughts of the Tsars in Russia still fresh in people minds.

Thanks for your input filers
 
Well, let me move from the plausible aspects all the way to just plain nuts...
Figure out how many separate dominions you want. With the exception of the heir apparent as Prince of Wales, the throne of each dominion is held by the nearest descendant of the sovereign-but not passed down through the individual line. each time a dominion sovereign dies or abdicates, the throne moves to the next closest relative. This keeps the line of each throne as directly tied tot he UK sovereign as possible. This could make for weird jumps of royal houses (well, since they are all the same royal house, maybe these dominion thrones would be royal cottages? Royal outhouses? No, no...not that last one). Finally, some sort of rule to make sure that marrying into another royal house does pass the dominion throne away from the UK.

That's a clever way to keep the power centralized in the UK royals. But what happens to the progeny of the current dominion royals? Do they get a lesser administration seat? They might resent someone from Britain who doesn't know the colony or the people coming in and taking what historically should be their throne.

Could a "Dance of the Dragons"-type scenario occur?
 
I don't know but I suspect there was a sense that it might weaken the bond to the Mother County, which was so integral to the survival of the Empire.

Why? They'd still be duke of [British title], earl of [British title] and baron of [British title] too, so that IMHO is not completely true, especially when they might never really move to Australia or Canada.
 
Such an arrangement might work if the British Empire becomes a legally established reality in such a way where the individual monarchs of the dominions are legally bound to Westminster and the absolute authority of the reigning British monarch.
 
Originally, the desire among Canada's founding fathers was to name Canada "The Kingdom of Canada."

However, it was nixed by the British colonial office for being in some ways deemed presumptuous but more importantly, it might offend American sensibilities. America had just come out of its civil war, and its powerful army was a cause of concern.

So they opted for Dominion instead.
Taken from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Canada#Adoption_of_Dominion

During the Charlottetown Conference of 1864, John A. Macdonald, who later became the first Prime Minister of Canada, talked of "founding a great British monarchy", in connection with the British Empire. He advocated, in the fourth Canadian draft of the British North America Act, the name "Kingdom of Canada," in the text is said:

The word 'Parliament' shall mean the Legislature or Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada.

The word 'Kingdom' shall mean and comprehend the United Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.

The words 'Privy Council' shall mean such persons as may from time to time be appointed, by the Governor General, and sworn to aid and advise in the Government of the Kingdom.

Canada's founders, led by Sir John A. Macdonald wished their new nation to be called the Kingdom of Canada, to "fix the monarchical basis of the constitution." The governor general at the time, the Viscount Monck, supported the move to designate Canada a kingdom; however, officials at the Colonial Office in London opposed this potentially "premature" and "pretentious" reference for a new country. They were also wary of antagonizing the United States, which had emerged from its Civil War as a formidable military power with unsettled grievances because British interests had sold ships to the Confederacy despite a blockade, and thus opposed the use of terms such as kingdom or empire to describe the new country.

New Brunswick premier Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley suggested the term 'Dominion', inspired by Psalm 72:8 (from the King James Bible): "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." This is also echoed in Canada's motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for "from sea to sea").

So I propose two scenarios:

First scenario, America is severely weakened early on. Either it never unites post Independence or it is severely weakened in an alt War of 1812 and doesn't do better from there.

Without a strong America, Canada is slower to unite and federates later than OTL along a more Australian model as Upper and Lower Canada (along with maybe Michigan or some other part of the great lakes) brings the rest of the colonies into her orbit (say by taking on the debt of the new provinces, ala British Columbia or by purchasing the Northwest territories).

This Federation happens around the turn of the century and labels itself a monarchy. A few decades later, it opts for more independence and asks for its own monarch from the ruling family.

Second scenario, America avoids the civil war altogether. Say maybe it successfully gets rid of slavery or confines in the very early 19th century when everyone thought it was on its way out.

America continues on, and its presence and size is deemed threatening enough to federate Canada, but not so much as to not give Canada its desired Kingdom status.

Same as in first scenario, Canada continues as a Kingdom in personal union with Britain. When it opts for more independence in the twenties or thirties, there comes the desire to have their own monarch in Canada and they get it.

Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, in both scenarios, follow Canada's lead and become Kingdoms. They all at point of independence ask for their own monarch.

They all stay in the Commonwealth, and the British crown is head of the Commonwealth.
 
I think OP is talking about the Emperor/Empress giving dominions out to family members as fiefs just like the Middle Ages,with these family members becoming vassal kings.
 
Top