The American Monarchy

Could anyone tell me if this royal line is at all possible (as in, are there any glaring errors)? If you'd like, you can give it a shot and tell me what happened here, although I've hinted at it in other posts. I'm working on a timeline and this royal line (if it's at all acceptable) is going to be the basis for it:

http://www.freewebs.com/althistmisc/index.htm

Unfortunately, it was too big to post here and the forum doesn't support the tables, so you'll have to use the link...

Queens Rule

Seems like you have a lot more Queens than most lines, Does this have a effect on womans rites.

Yes, the balance of Queens vs. Kings (as opposed to Europe) is off. There are 4 Queens to 5 Kings (6 if you include William Guelph). However, out of the first 150 years, only 2 are Queens and combined they rule only the same length of time as Queen Vic did in England. Women's rights may be slightly advanced, but not by much, since there are only 2 Queens vs. 4 Kings between 1815 and 1965.

DuQuense said:

Seems like you have a lot more Queens than most lines, Does this have a effect on womans rites.

Click to expand...

There would likely be some effect upon women's rights, but not much. For instance, in early opera, in English works female characters tend to be stronger than in contenental opera due to Elizabeth's long and successful reign.

As an example, the first English opera was Venus and Adonis, where Venus, as a goddess, is clearly the boss. The second was Dido and Aeneas, wherin Dido throws out Aeneas for even THINKING of leaving her (though she does subsequently die of grief), whereas in Monteverdi's Orfeo, Euridice doesn't do anything at all except die a couple of times and cry.

I agree that there are too many queens. While the Kingdom of America wouldn't necessarily adopt the Salic Law, they would probably definately uphold the belief that the Crown would pass from father to son, with daughters being the exception when no sons are available.

I think you are a little too all over the board with the titles. There would probably be a pecking order of titles because of importance. In Britain the eldest son of the Monarch is the Prince of Wales, then there is the Duke of York, Princess Royal, etc. One only makes reference to being the "1st Duke of Etc." usually in geneaology or family reference, its not part of the title.

Also:
Father: Henry Friar (Lord Henry)

it would be more proper to say:

Father: Henry Friar, Lord Huntington (the title of where he is lord of)

In my own American Monarchy ATL, the Heir Apparent bears the title of Crown Prince and Prince of America. Tho Prince of Columbia has a certain ring to it also. The other children of the Monarch are Royal Dukes and their titles incorporate state names, ie. the Duke of New York and the Duchess of North Carolina. Tho their full titles would remain, Prince George, Duke of Pennsylvannia. The children of the Royal Dukes would incorporate place names from the particular state of the parent into their titles. The eldest son of a Royal Duke would be a Duke, tho any brother or sister would be titled Marquis or Marquese, and the titles for succeeding generations will slowly peter out at Baron or Baroness.

General plot:

HM King of America
HRH the Crown Prince
HRH Prince, the Duke of Pennsylvannia
Marquis of Allentown
Viscount Lansford
Earl of Windber
Baron Renovo

Also, in true Hannoverian fashion, there would probably be a repetition of certain names - most likely George, William or Frederick. Conservative names, so I think Nathan and Colin, will probably be right out. At least for the first century or so.

In the end the best source is DeBrett's at: http://www.debretts.co.uk/
for the way peerages and nobility should go.

This may be a stupid question but I'll ask it anyway otherwise I'll never know: If a King dies, and he has a living brother and a son, who does the throne revert to, the brother or the son?

It depends

In England, it goes to the oldest legitimate son, or to his children, and then to the second oldest son, and to his children, etc, then to the oldest daughter, and her children, and then the second oldest daughter, and her children, etc. In Europe they mostly go only through the male line, except Denmark (IIRC) changed the law to go through the oldest child, period. Wales used to elect one of the children or grandchildren of the king, and other places would change the rules as they pleased.
William the Bastard inheirited because everyone was afraid of him. He rebelled against his father when he was nine, but they patched it up before he offed the old man. Then he grabbed England.
Luxemburg switched to allowing the females to inheirit after it split off from Belgium when they had a female inheirit and Luxemburg was only male inheiritance, and then the Grand Duke only had daughters, so they changed the law.
Franz Joseph disinheirited one grandson because he did stand up comedy as a profession, and disinheirited his grand nephew because he married a mere countess. Franz Joseph became emperor of Austria at 18 because his brother was literally an idiot and the throne was almost overthrown in the 1848 rebellions.

Franz Josef became Emperor of Austria in 1848 because his UNCLE, Ferdinand I, was, among other things, an idiot - perhaps more like a halfwit. I can't quite remember why Franz Karl, FJ's father, was passed over. I think that Franz Ferdinand's morganatic marriage to Sophia resulted because he married outside the Imperial Court, not just that Sophia was a countess.

In my timeline the final title was His Imperial Majesty King ______, Emperor of America and the Philippines, King of Hawaii, Protector of the Pacific. The Eldest son became Crown Prince ______, Arch-Duke of New England. Other siblings were given various "duchies", Duke of Canada, Duke of Columbia, Duke of Caribea, Duke of Appalachia.