Hereditary American Empire ???

[Beck Reilly]

Is there any possible way that a Empire/Kingdom with a dynasty or royal line of Emporers/Kings could develop in, at least, the northern parts of the United States between 1750 and 1820?

P.S. If possible, probably not, I'd like that family to be the Adams' (i.e. John, John Quincy, Charles F...)

[IchBinDieKaiser]

The most likely would be the Washingtons. If Washington excepted the offer from his officers to perform a coup, he could have become a king or dictator, which ever suited him more.

[rubyug]

I doubt it. The American people did not want a king. Especially not another one named George.

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by rubyug

I doubt it. The American people did not want a king. Especially not another one named George.

Myth and hoo-ha. The colonial patriots merely wanted autonomy and self-government. Independence was stumbled upon as a result of the military conflict, and the decision to form a Montesquieuan three-branch republic formed as a result of the Continental Congress' and Washington's steadfast refusal to let a dictatorship form.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that a monarchy would form in the US after the 1780's, but for somewhat different reasons that you think.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I believe a hereditary American empire dating from the founding era is unlikely almost to the point of ASB for the following reasons:
1. The sentiments of the people. The common man was very opposed to any sort of centralized government, aristocracy or monarchy. The Federal Constitution was fiercely opposed in many states on the grounds that it "squinted towards monarchy". A real attempt to create or impose a monarchy would have engendered even greater (dare I say, overwhelming, opposition) from the farmers, small merchants and mechanics who made up the bulk of the American population at that time.
2. The sentiments of the Founders. The worst insult one of the Founding Brothers could use against another was to call him a "Monarchist" George Washington and John Adams were enraged when Thomas Jefferson and his hired scribblers (no bias from me) called them secret monarchists intent on destroying the republican virtues of the American nation. You would therefore need a massive personality transplant involving at least Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Knox and others to even get a core of conspirators willing to consider a monarchy.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

I think the most likely way would be to have the US break up after not ratifying the Constitution. Then there could possibly be a backlash against decentralizaton and maybe a monarchy could form in one or two states (I could see Hamilton in New York). If you want to create a united American monarchy, then you'd have to get one of the states to become very militaristic and conquer the rest (though that would be ASB).

[Superftagn]

Well they liked the Roman Res Public as inspiration a lot more than Greek democracy, so maybe there could of been an Imperator role instead of a President.

There's a head of government (the head of the majority party in Congress) and then a head of state, the Emperor.

Wouldn't be hereditary though, though political dynasties would happen just like in OTL with the presidency.

The Emperorship would be for life, but Emperors would be impeachable?

Especially if Arnold had won in Canada and they found themselves negotiating and buying the American continent while giving the Brits big concessions and whatnot in exchange (and no War of 1812)...

The States govern themselves individually and then they govern themselves collectively through the Congress. However the face of the Union and it's yet to be states territories all together is the Emperor?

[black angel]

well well, the only two of the founding brothers that could of been King/Emperor were Ben Franklin, and George Washington, in both cases the Succession is a problem, Washington having no kids of his own, Franklin's oldest child and only son was a Loyalist who when to England after the war and never came home. both the Adams were hated, Jefferson was a republican tomb stone with the voice of a 5 year old girl, Alexander Hamilton was too junior and seen as Washington's man

any way if we go with George Washington (George I or is it IV?) his heirs could be his step-grandson George Washington Parke Custis, or to the line of his brother Samuel Washington, this how ever is were things get messy, should it go to his little brothers oldest sons oldest son or to George's still living nephew? and given that Samuel Washington was married 5 times thats just throws every thing into the air, also George's youngest brother out lived him (by a little) so throw that in there

there was a plan to make Prince Henry of Prussia King of the USA, though he never had kids so a crown union between the USA and Prussia would be close at all times

if we make Ben Franklin king the crown would goes to his daughter Sarah Franklin Bache.

[Kevin Renner]

Originally Posted by black angel

if we go with George Washington (George I or is it IV?) his heirs could be his step-grandson George Washington Parke Custis,

Could we wind up with R E Lee as Prince Consort?

In reality I think the USA missed the boat to a degree in terms of some of the trappings of monarchy. And that is in terms of honors ala knighthoods etc.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It is fun to think about an American monarchy and to speculate about royal or imperial families but I really believe that this topic is ASB. The Founding Brothers were deep dyed, thorough going republicans. Some of them may have believed in an "aristocratic republic" like Rome where great families and talented individuals would be granted deference by the mass of the people and some (Jefferson especially) were believers in undiluted republicanism with next to no government and each individual standing on his own. However, as a group they agreed on the basic ideas of representative government, the sovreignty of the people (at least white male people) and limited government.
Even if one or more of the early leaders of the Republic had designs on royalty, the great bulk of the (armed) people would not stand for it. This can be shown by the ease by which Continental Army mutinies were put down, the impossibility of any one but Washington even considering a crown or a dictatorship (and he denied it out of hand) and the fierce opposition to the Constitution and the Federal Government (armed in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion) because it even hinted at something like a monarchy.

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Beck Reilly

Is there any possible way that a Empire/Kingdom with a dynasty or royal line of Emporers/Kings could develop in, at least, the northern parts of the United States between 1750 and 1820?

P.S. If possible, probably not, I'd like that family to be the Adams' (i.e. John, John Quincy, Charles F...)

It's possible; though it would need a POD in the 1760's to be plausable/non-ASBish. In my "Course of Human Events" TL (see sig below) King George III appoints his brother Edward as Proprietor of the North American Continental Crown Lands in 1764. When the Continental Colonies attain independence in 1789 he become King Edward I. The TL is currently advanced to the early 1850's.

[Dr. Waterhouse]

Actually I've started nibbling around the edges of Lord Grattan's timeline and like very much what I've read. That said, there's another fun possibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Prussia

Not just a monarch, but a Hohenzollern. So instead of a Louisiana purchase, I suppose we'd just swipe it Silesia-style. Prince Henry is nonetheless kind of an interesting character, but I have to imagine the whole thing would collapse anyway once he actually crossed the Atlantic and saw what he'd be ruling.

"Ach, God no, take me back to Berlin!"

I don't know enough of the actual context to say how far a King Henry of the United States movement would get. But it is fun to think about. Until 1914.

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

It's possible; though it would need a POD in the 1760's to be plausable/non-ASBish. In my "Course of Human Events" TL (see sig below) King George III appoints his brother Edward as Proprietor of the North American Continental Crown Lands in 1764. When the Continental Colonies attain independence in 1789 he become King Edward I. The TL is currently advanced to the early 1850's.

[Umbric Man]

Originally Posted by Dr. Waterhouse

I don't know enough of the actual context to say how far a King Henry of the United States movement would get. But it is fun to think about. Until 1914.

They can just pull a Windsor.

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Umbric Man

They can just pull a Windsor.

True, after a century+ and a few generations of separation in the family tree that wouldnt be too difficult. They could rename the royal house (if some of the OTL placement of the capital is followed) after the district -- Columbia or the river -- Potomac.

[Dr. Waterhouse]

Not quite what I was thinking of, although I see your point. So, let's suppose we have two Hohenzollern monarchies, and that even if there's not substantial executive power invested in the monarch here, there's prestige. And let's suppose it's not a situation like the post-Utrecht Bourbons in France and Spain but a situation where there's closely aligned national interests, where for instance in the Civil War when the secessionists went to Britain to intervene, Frederick the whatevereth wrote his dear cousin in Berlin and the Prussians applied counterpressure that kept Britain out, and that once again when the French tried to establish their empire in Mexico the same Frederick the whatevereth wrote the same cousin in Berlin and Prussia did something awful to France in reprisal (which is totally ASB considering the period we're talking about, but indulge me ).

So basically imagine that the family relationship has created the situation where the answer to the inferiority complex that characterized nineteenth century America's relationship with England has been Berlin.

And imagine that the effects of all this have not already deleted Canada or some other permutation of British North America.

WWI basically gets fought on this continent, too.

This could be an interesting timeline. I call dibbs.

Originally Posted by Umbric Man

They can just pull a Windsor.

[Dr. Waterhouse]

On second thought...

Indeed, sir? This is not the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It is not even the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksberg. It is the Hohenzollerns, a thousand years old and with a few Holy Roman Emperors shaking around the family tree! And if you were to so much as suggest a nationalistically inspired name change in 1914, no doubt they would come at you with limbs shriveled from centuries of inbreeding and pointy helmets to manfully vindicate the honor of their august house!

Have at you!

Originally Posted by Umbric Man

They can just pull a Windsor.

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

They could rename the royal house (if some of the OTL placement of the capital is followed) after the district -- Columbia or the river -- Potomac.

The House of Maryland, perhaps?