The evolution of Napoleonic Britain

An idea in need of a story !

Napoleon wins !

Britain gains an overseer but keeps the monarchy

NB - the best chance navally would be to take advantage (unknowingly) of a "lost" period when the RN did not know where the French fleet was and to attack the Channel

Anyway, main points below

- royal family as OTL
- more or less freedom to make dynastic alliances within Europe
- Coburgs would still rise to prominence, as would Orange (who'd also remain exiles)

Assumptions of OTL can still be made in the ATL
- Charlotte had a short history of miscarriages, her death in childbirth is not unlikely
- this would still spark a marriage race amongst her uncles who can see the succession going their way
- Edward's marriage still seems likely, and his death not all that unlikely given his weakened health

Maybe Edward and Victoria have 2 children before he dies, if the exact circumstances of his death are not to be replicated. A sister for Victoria (VR) would be sweet

William and Adelaide may have slightly more luck in offspring than OTL but in general nothing much is changed enough, so we could be looking at a boy who is Prince of Wales but dies at 8 or so, or maybe 11, analogous to Anne's eldest

Ernest is a different matter - OTL his firstborn son was healthy, his 2 later daughters stillborn. With a Napoleonic victory he may well marry differently (don't forget Frederica was twice divorced and by 1815 in her late 30s).

Also, Cambridge might marry earlier and differently - as for earlier, his military career is going to be curtailed, if not wiped out, by a Napoleonic victory

Let us proceed

Charlotte sadly dies in 1817
George III dies in 1820
Edward, Duke of Kent dies in 1823
George IV dies in 1830
Prince William of Wales dies in 1831
William IV dies in 1835

I've given an earlier date of death for William IV under Napoleonic rule partly because his OTL raison d'etre for hanging on til Victoria was of age doesn't really apply under Napoleonic oversight - ie to prevent Ernest's accession to the throne. Ernest is a raging Protestant, and one can expect Paris to be aware of this, and to have contingency plans in place which William will be well aware of

Victoria thus ascends the throne aged 16

The Regency is going to be decided by the French overseer

Now, we must step back a bit and ask what a French overseer for the decade up to 1815 might have meant for the marriage of the daughters of George III. OTL his wife would not let them marry until they were almost past biological age to have children, and the only one with a probable child is Sophia, whose illeigitimate son may well have been her brother Ernest's

But if some of the marriages could have occurred earlier ?

Most especially that of Mary (born 1776) with her cousin William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester ? An extra ten years should be enough to get round the first cousin child-creating problem, and also would create enough of a POD to allow William Frederick to live longer than his OTL span of 58 years

OTL he died in 1834, but if he's got a couple of kids, lives a relatively stress-free life, and is involved in the Napoleonic overseer's equivalent to the Privy Council (council of state) then he may well live longer

Thus, in 1835 at the death of King William IV, William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, wife of Mary of England, father of a prince and a couple of young princesses, is chosen as Regent by the overseer for the 16 year old Victoria

This would be the ideal occasion for Ernest to rebel

He would be rebelling with the weight of the Orange Order, the Orange Lodges (at this time also strong within England) behind him, and his rebellion would also be seen as the last throw of militant protestantism

This rebellion would be bloody, no doubt involve troops from France and be a watermark in history - the defeat of the Protestant revolt, no matter how imperfect their leader, and the institution of true equality afterwards forced on Victoria who is in no position to resist

One would imagine Orange Lodges would be annihilated in the aftermath, and Ulster brought to heel

The first part of Victoria's reign would be in the shadow of this

Her marriage to Albert, a Coburg like her mentor Leopold, would go ahead asap, and from it would come many children - she loved sex, and both lines were very fertile

At the same time, her sister would also be approaching marriagable age. A name perhaps Louise, she would be best wed to someone whose allegiance would strengthen at the same time the British crown in Victoria's hands, and the alliance of Britain to France

A suitable husband thus would seem to be a leading member of the aristocracy who leans towards the French position. In the disastrous wake of Ernest's rebellion, such people would be like gold dust in Paris

Charles Henry Gordon Lennox,6th Duke of Richmond might suffice. He is of the line which saw the Richmond/Lennox Stewart line inherit the Gordon line also. Charles Gordon Lennox, 5th Duke of Richmond, born 1791, married 1817, died 1860 however looks up for butterflies. I don't see him supporting Ernest, which is a major plus, but his marriage may be iffy - OTL Henry Paget was only created Marquess of Anglesey in 1815 and that won't happen here, so such a marriage to his daughter will appear very unequal since he is only Earl of Uxbridge

Hence, the 5th Duke would most likely marry elsewhere, possibly within the French nobility who would invest Britain after its defeat. Possibly a daughter of Joseph Bonaparte might be available - with the Bonaparte house secure he would not need to marry his daughters to cousins within the imperial house, and at the same time his second daughter Charlotte (born 1802) marrying into a major British noble, pseudo-royal, line would be a coup

Thus, the child of the 5th Duke of Richmond & Lennox and Charlotte Bonaparte would be in line to be the 6th Duke. Maybe he is Charles Joseph Gordon Lennox and born perhaps 1820. With Victoria's sister being born around 1823, he would seem to be ideally placed to come to maturity in an unimpeached family with French connections and wed the Queen's sister around 1841

Whilst Victoria and Albert are rapidly producing children, their dynastic cause would be aided by her sister Louise, with Charles Joseph Gordon Lennox, 6th Duke of Richmond & Lennox, beginning to match her from the early 1840s

As for the rest of the dynasty, there is the Gloucester-Edinburgh line as above-mentioned, and the line of Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, which here would be via a very different wife indeed

Its basically a toss of God's coin who gets born when in a multi-child ATL marriage, so we could see Victoria's first child being a boy, perhaps Prince Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward after her father, with no false Albert in between - her father lived 4 or so years longer than OTL and she is likely to be more fond of his memory than seemed to be the case). If Victoria is 5 when he dies, she will always have that residual memory of the shadowy kindly dude who was there when she was little

We could see 4 lines continue with a fair few children each - the Gloucester/Edinburgh line, Victoria and Albert's, Louise and Charles Joseph's, and Adolphus of Cambridge's

Any of the other daughters of George III would become irrelevant, even if trumping Gloucester/Edinburgh because their husbands would be overseas monarchs/nobles, and the geographical proximity to the throne boosts the familial. Possibly the landgraviate of Hesse-Homburg continues long-term if Elizabeth's marriage to Frederick VI occurs earlier, but the actual possession of the territory would depend on the French

Possibly Amelia, youngest child of George III, would have lived also in this ATL. She died in 1810 in OTL aged 27 but in a world of French dominance could well live beyond this. Born in 1783 she would be the ideal match for a French noble in the victory period. Perhaps instead of marrying

- - -

At this point I ran out of fucking electricity and the next several paragraphs that hadn't been saved at that point were wiped out when all the power went off.

Still, who knows ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

OK, trying to put behind me the depression over the loss of what I'd written before, and the annoyance of not benig able to remember exactly what it was (I was pissed off so went to bed !) and hoping that the same thing doesn't happen again (77p on the electric as I start the evening), I'll try to move on and develop what I was trying to do with this thread

Eugene de Beauharnais married a Bavarian princess in 1806, but if we wave-wave 1805 as the invasion date, then he could well be headed for Britain as part of the invasion, or the follow-up.

I fancy Davout being created Duke of London in the French peerage, whilst Eugene marries Princess Amelia (born 1783, OTL died 1810). Whilst they may well not have the 7 children Eugene managed with his OTL wife, there could be 2 or 3, and Amelia could live another 5 or 6 years before succumbing to illness. Eugene would probably look to remarry at this point

Now, the position of French overseer would I guess be primarily a military one - commander of the French army in Britain, mixed with a civilian role as ultimate head of any French agencies in Britain. Maybe there is also extra-territoriality - French citizens in Britain who are accused of crimes are tried by French courts, and thus the overseer is responsible for the smooth running of this. He probably also has procurement and raw material / machine works quotas he has to ensure leave Britain for France each year.

I am looking at Eugene de Beauharnais taking on this role by perhaps 1815. His marriage to a British princess places him in a good position, and her death soon after he takes it on is an occasion for her funeral to be seen as a bonding opportunity between French and British.

I see his period of office as being the one where long-term systems of governance are implemented. The decade up to here has seen in theory the previous British system continue but with many many elements prorogued or suspended, whilst French emergency measures did things their way. Eugene's administration would look to make more sense of this - to reform British practice so that French emergency measures can be rolled back and a new agreed synthesis take their place

The Council of State would be essentially the successor organisation to the privy council and by virtue of it being more or less by invitation/appointment would include co-operative individuals and exclude troublesome ones. It would be where the British system of government, and the French system of governance, come together.

- - -

Of course Britain would always be one element of a European system, and it needs to be looked at how this develops as a whole if Britain is defeated in 1805

One thing I think is that there would be no real break with Russia - without Britain standing in opposition to Napoleon, Russia isn't about to invite them to attack her.

Russia will fight and defeat Sweden, and annex Finland, and maybe Bernadotte is adopted as successor by the man who then makes himself king of Sweden by overthrowing the defeated monarch - so much as per OTL, but without Britain standing against France, and with Russia standing beside France, Sweden and Bernadotte's future is going to be as an ally of the French Empire

There will of course be areas of trouble - the Ottoman Empire no doubt is the major one of these

Russia, even as an ally of France, has ambitions and rivalries, and one could imagine them trying it on, seeing how far they could push their own advantage, even to the brink of potential war scares with France, but not to beyond. Its realpolitik played large between distrustful allies

The position of the Ottoman Empire is also confusing in this - with Britain out of the way, France would look to reassert dominance in Egypt, and whilst initially doing this diplomatically, it would seem obvious that as soon as Britain is sorted out, France would look to reimpose direct control there

"As soon as Britain is sorted out" is a nice phrase covering a world of troubles ! There are going to be risings and rebellions in Britain, whilst Ireland is probably going to devolve into chaos until Euegene's administration. Defeating the British army, taking London and forcing king and government to a treaty is one thing. Holding them to it, and holding their subjects to it, is another matter.

As for Ireland, I envisage French unofficial support for revolutionary, separatist, nationalist, Catholic and anti-British elements who are no doubt all divided between themselves. The provisions of the Act of Union would be amongst those suspended during the first ten years of French hegemony, but I don't see France looking to break Ireland off from the UK completely. A state of civil war would give a good excuse for French garrisons as "peace-keepers" and for French warships, diplomats etc to be constantly within Ireland, which no doubt creates its own tensions between French-based entities and the office of the overseer in England.

Euegene is going to look to sort this out, to get the British to revoke the Act of Union, devolve full home rule under the British crown, including the right for French organisations to operate in Ireland under the auspices of the Dublin parliament rather than that at Westminster. London would still appoint the Viceroy, and the king would have perogative powers, whilst other aspects would be split between an over-arcing British policy, and subsidiary Irish ones.

For example, Dublin can control its home defence forces, militia etc, but if serving overseas they come under the British army. Dublin controls coastguard and coastal defence warships, but the British navy at a larger scale remains single and inviolate and able to use Irish bases. Dublin can control its own negotiations with France, and French agencies, as well as with the Vatican, but other foreign policy falls under London.

In immediate terms some of these are of course moot. Armed forces and foreign policy are going to be curtailed by French oversight, but Eugene is setting in place procedures for when they are not.

- - -

India is another big factor. A British defeat to France in Europe is a massive blow to British prestige in India, as well as one resulting in renewed massive French trade, and naval presence, and a severe curtailment in that from Britain. France doesn't need to seize any territory off Britain in India, simply take over their position and leverage. They have allies they can work with, whilst British allies will be weakened, and looking for new opportunities

Reconquest of Egypt falls within the overall India policy. From Roman times, Red Sea ports have carried European trade to India, and Napoleon is going to be looking at building this up. A Suez Canal may even be on the cards

Pacification of Britain, Balkan tensions, relations with Russia, expansion in India, and taking up France's position in the Caribbean could all take time

The war against the Ottoman Empire could come smoewhat, apparently, late in all this. But Russian ambitions on the one hand, and French needs for Egypt on the other would act as twin drivers. This could well all come to a head around 1815, at the time that Euegene takes up his position in Britain

- - -

While he is busy sorting out Ireland, integrating the British system of government into forward-looking priocedures, and dealing with the death of his wife, the rest of Europe is going to war with the Ottoman Empire

It probably becomes something of a hot potato in London too. If all of France's allies are sending contingents, should not then Britain do so too ?

This could be a curious situation - it would be best from Euegene's POV to raise volunteer regiments, and those most likely to volunteer would be Christian fanatics who see it as a new Crusade *(which Napoleon in his twisty-turny way is probably proclaiming it to be). Thus, with one eye on the future, the main backers of Ernest's rebellion twenty years later will probably be men who gained their experience of combat fighting in the volunteer regiments who went to serve with Napoleon in Egypt against the common, Muslim, enemy !

- - -

What of Napoleon himself, and his family ?

Louis, King of Holland, remains in that position, the reasons for his OTL overthrow by Napoleon never coming into existence since Britain was defeated around the time he was crowned. Sure, he may have "gone native" but without Britain as a continuing enemy, this is not something which threatens French interests. What would happen with his wife, Hortense de Beauharnais, I am not sure.

Without Britain after 1805, would Joseph ever need to be made King of Spain ? It seems unlikely, and thus he would remain as King of Naples. Spain would continue as an ally of Napoleon, probably basking in reflected glory, and thus hold onto its S and C American empire

Murat, married to Napoleon's sister Caroline, is Grand Duke of Berg OTL 1801-1808. After that he became King of Naples, but that is not going to be the case here. But all lives have different routes. He may even be dead - the highest profile casualty of the conquest of Britain, or perhaps killed in an act of terrorism/assasination afterwards

Napoleon probably still divorces Josephine in 1809 (when Marie Walewski gets pregnant with his child, showing where the fault lies). OTL he then marries Marie Louise of Austria, who gives birth to Napoleon II (to be) in early 1811. But he had at first hoped to marry one of Tsar Aleksandr I of Russia's sisters, but the Tsar would not allow this. Maybe he is more inclined towards it, given that Napoleon is the conqueror of Britain, and that France and Russia remain strong, if argumentative, allies ?

By 1810 only Grand Duchesses Catherine (born 1788) and Anna (born 1795) are unmarried. Given that Marie Louise was born in 1791, I am thinking that Napoleon would prefer the younger one. However, Aleksandr if he has to send one of his sisters to Paris, probably prefers it is the older one, and at 22 she is not exactly old, tho one wonders why she remained unmarried in that day and age. OTL she married the King of Wurttemberg and gave him 2 daughters. Let us say that Napoleon is luckier, and gets one son and one daughter out of her

Napoleon marries Catherine of Russia in 1810, she bears him Napoleon II (to be) in 1811, and a daughter, Leticia, in 1814.

- - -

Eugene is looking for another wife after 1816. As overseer, a wife would be vital for state occasions and the like, whilst it is the usual practice of the high nobility to remarry after the death of a spouse. He is probably Duke and Prince both by this time, able to meet with high British aristocracy on an equal footing. As Napoleon's step-son he is also close to the throne in his own right, as well as placed within the line of succession

Having married first a royal princess, the most likely option is for someone a step down, or for someone foreign. One is wondering about Jane Lennox, daughter of Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond & Lennox (a male-to-male descendant of Charles II). This would tie in with what I said for her brother Charles Gordon Lennox, 5th Duke of Richmond (after 1819) and his marriage to a daughter of Joseph Bonaparte, and their son the future 6th Duke marrying Queen Victoria's sister Louise

- - -

Playing with dynastic marriages, births etc is not an esoteric game for they determine, at the most essential level, who exists to take on roles and make decisions

In addition, marriages can cement alliances and tie families and nations into alliances of various types and sizes

And a marriage enhances one's own profile if it is to the right person, and that is basic politics and public relations


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I have mentioned four royal lines going forwards into the 1840s - those of Gloucester/Edinburgh, of Cambridge, of Queen Victoria and Albert, and of Princess Louise and Charles of Richmond &c

But I overlooked the attainted line, for an attainder there is sure to be against Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and all of his descendants. I mentioned before the possibility of his making an earlier marriage, better in terms of children, if not in terms of degree where the wife is concerned.

Its difficult to come up with a potential WHO for a bride, not least because this often depends on circumstances - eg meetings with people, family do's and so forth. Ernest had a sunken eye, and was generally hated by the media and by the people, but he had a certain charm, as probably evinced in bedding his sister Sophia. In the wake of defeat in 1805, he is slowly going to emerge as the Protestant Champion. He always longed for a combat command, but in OTL was kept away because he was reckoned likely to be a liability. I am wondering whether in the war against the Ottomans he would command one of the volunteer regiments ?

In getting ready to do this, he would have a high profile, c 1814, and thus would be attractive as a husband for any loyal protestant family. On the other hand, Augusta Wilhelmina Louis of Hesse-Kassel who in OTL married the Duke of Cambridge in 1818 would have been 17 in 1814, and also her father is the son of the daughter of George II. Its a Protestant state, and where was it in Napoleonic times ? It would exist at his whim, whilst be looking to expand and sustain itself - what better way than to provide Hessian volunteer forces for the new crusade ? Ernest could well meet with the Landgrave in planning this

Have them wed, and she would be pregnant as he departs.

- - -

Everything then depends upon the war against the Ottoman Empire

I could well see this lasting several years

With Russia involved it could well become more or less a war to DESTROY the empire, at least as a viable force

Ernest isn't going to be away the whole time, he could pop back and impregnate his young nubile wife from time to time

But I do see him staying the course, because his religion will come to define him

- - -

If we see Eugene depart from this world more or less according to OTL, he dies in 1824

His wife Jane is thus guardian for children, both those from his marriage to Amelia and those from his marriage to her - maybe he has 3 from the first marriage, and four from the second. OTL he was certainly fertile

1824 is soon after Edward, Duke of Kent's death in this ATL, but this won't necessarily ring alarm bells. However, the war could well be winding down, and Ernest may well see an opportunity to step into his late brother's shoes in some areas, and return home

If by this time we give him 2 living children, and one died in infancy, we could see him with a son born 1815, and a daughter born perhaps 1820. He's spent the best part of a decade fighting and defeating the Turks, and probably returns as a general who was fighting maybe outside Baghdad with many other allied forces under his command. Nothing is black and white and simple in this Europe

The next decade may give him another couple of living children, and a couple who don't make it.

Whilst Ernest had never acknowledged the validity of Eugene's position as overseer, they had made a working relationship and eventually come to respect one another in strictly delineated terms. But with Eugene's death and Ernest's return, the arrival of the new overseer sees a sharp decline in the relationship

I see the Protestants of Ulster as having been waging a civil war of resistance against the Dublin government for a decade or so by this time. Ernest paid lip service to them whilst he was away fighting the Turk, but on his return, and finding that Eugene's successor intends to marginalise him, he gets deeply involved

I would also see France beginning to take things for granted and thinking that not least because of the volunteer regiments' service in the war against the Ottomans, Britain is sorted. They could thus send an arrogant inexperienced person to replace the dead Eugene

Such a person may not see danger where it exists, may not understand what certain things mean, and may well be so involved in political structures that he controls or is involved in that he fails to look outside of them at what is really happening in the country

Thus, Ernest as a protestant hero, victor over the Turks etc, gets to buld his Orange Lodges up and down the country, manned and supported by veterans of his war, and their families and supporters

He sees it in a twin role - as a powerbase for himself when he challenges the French, and as a religious bastion against creeping Catholicism. Eugene may have been careful and diplomatic about such things, the new guy is brash and doesn't care because he doesn't know to care. Instance after instance is available for the Lodges to cite

- - -

Whilst Ernest makes trouble over the next decade he doesn't make a mainstream impact on politics

Denied a place in the Council of State (Edward's goes to their brother Adolphus citing spurious reasons of Ernest's absence, but really because the new guy doesn't want him there)

Ernest builds up a hard protestant base of support

The Orange Lodges in England come under the British government's remit, and that body fails to agree a common policy, repeated demands from the overseer serving only to polarise opinion and prevent any compromise

By the early 1830s, Napoleon's health is declining, his son's party are fighting for control of more and more aspects of state, and the military are restless

Britain is on the peripherary, many voices in Paris already speak of withdrawing from it and returning it to full self-government as an ally, and this is echoed by many royals and political figures in Britain itself

Oddly the overseer scores his only success here in stating to Paris that if free of French oversight Britain would rise up against them and become soon an implacable enemy. Whilst meeting with general scepticism, this nevertheless is heeded in the halls of power, and a new 10 year plan is drawn up in 1832

By this time, Prince William of Wales, aged 11, has died in 1831 and its now obvious that Victoria is going to inherit the crown upon William IV's death.

Napoleon dies in 1833, and his son from Catherine, Napoleon II acceeds as emperor aged 21. He is immediately faced with crises across Europe that take up his time and attention, but he has enough understanding to issue the overseer in Britain with a warning about dangers on the impending death of William IV

- - -

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

037771 said:

Would it not be more expedient for Napoleon to simply install one of his relatives? A la Louis in Holland or Joseph in Spain? He completely ignored the traditions of other old monarchies in Europe to do this, and im not sure why Napoleon would change a habit. I suppose it could be done before he has the idea of supplanting all of these old monarchies/client republics, i.e. if he invades in 1805, but what is his motivation in keeping the British Royal Family? Im sorry if i have at all burst any bubble old man....

Click to expand...

Well, yes in part - but he didn't overthrow the Hohenzollerns or the Habsburgs (tho he considered setting up an independent Hungary and asked Esterhazy if he was interested - he wasn't). Even with Poland he went with the legitimate dynasty - the Wettin.

I could argue Britain is a special case, and that he's not trying to rule it as such but to control it

Anyway, I do have an idea down the line which this builds up to, and the idea wouldn't make sense without this background

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Crises across Europe for Napoleon II ?

I guess this depends on the detail of the outcome of the Ottoman War

=

Russian minimum aims
= annex Principalities
= independence for Montenegro
= independence under powers for Greece and Serbia

Greater aims
= annex Constantinople
= sort out Bulgaria
= Dardanelles and Bosphorus

- - -

Maybe of more importance is the French

The initial set of objectives is going to be

- Egypt
- Sinai
- Palestine
- Syria and Lebanon
- Antioch
and perhaps Cilicia

But the logic of the war is going to draw them onwards

I have already alluded to Baghdad, and I think that is where it is all going to end

The Russians will be in Thrace, and will be in Eastern Anatolia.
Constantinople will be under siege, the Ottoman court will transfer East into Anatolia but with the Russians battling into Trebizond and Erzerum, its not secure

Thus it makes sense for the Ottoman last stand to be in Baghdad

This is not necessarily the end of the Ottomans, just the end of their resistance
EXCEPT at this period the imperial line is hanging by a thread, and I could well see it being extinguished

The Giray, ex-khans of the Crimea, are the acknowledged heirs, but I would reckon that someone would rise up to claim prominence, make peace with the Europeans, and hold together through force of arms and force of personality the shattered remnants of the empire

It won't be MUCH of an empire , and won't seem to be much of a threat

Mecca probably has gone its own way - I considered France sacking it, but reckoned that their allies in India wouldn't be too happy with this, and that Napoleon would reckon it an unncessary step. It probably thus achieves self-rule for the Hejaz, maybe under the Sherrifian line (Hashemite)

Napoleon also probably considered a land route across Arabia, but its Hell compared to the sea route from the Red Sea.

- - -

For both Russia and France swallowing all of this is one large dinner

Just as its beginning to stabilise, in the early 1830s, comes the series of crises between Napoleon and his son's party

Then Napoleon's death and all the associated crises across Europe

It is with this background that Ernest launches his rebellion in Britain

- - -

Longer-term of course France and Russia are going to have to deal with each other's ambitions but several other elements will come into play

Spain seems certain to be one of these elements

The United States of America definitely will be

Whilst China and Japan also seem likely to figure

- - -

By the early 1840s, Napoleon II will have secured control of his empire, of client and allied states, and Ernest's rebellion within Britain will have been crushed

The crushing of this will have involved a large number of French forces and will have taken Britain back in many ways to the 1805-1815 period where French oversight was near-control

Queen Victoria may be happily shagging Albert and producing many new children, but her powers and those of her government will be severely curtailed

Anglo-French nobles will increasingly come to dominate as France remotely rebuilds. The families I have already mentioned would benefit by having remained loyal to the crown during Ernest's rebellion, and by being seen in Paris as dependable

Napoleon II may be looking towards moving towards a situation where his overseer is a member of this Anglo-French fusion. He won't act precipitately to remove the guy who both caused and dealt with the rebellion, but he would be looking to increase the power and prestige of his potential replacement.

Whilst Eugene's children are British on the female side, by both his wives, they would bear French titles and names, and are not what Napoleon II is looking for

If the 6th Duke of Richmond (Gordon and Lennox) is descended from one of Joseph Bonaparte's daughters, cousin to the Lennox Beauharnais, and wed to Victoria's sister Louise, what of him ? One assumes that during Ernest's rebellion he would have to show loyalty but he will be 20 at most when it starts, and his father lives until the 1860s. What thus of the 5th Duke ? He wed a Bonaparte, his sister wed Eugene de Beauharnais, and his son married the queen's sister...

In addition to that he is pseudo-royal being descended from one of Charles II's ennobled bastards. Maybe by the mid 1840s, Napoleon II is happy to delegate to him ?

- - -

Returning to the question of Ernest's children, I would imagine that they have fled to the USA. Europe is out of bounds, and whilst the Bonapartes won't kill children, and whilst there are enough examples of children of traitors being reintegrated (eg Monmouth's), I think that the Protestant underground is going to be playing a part here

Getting the children out of Britain and to the United States will be a priority here. The British resistance thus becomes a small corner of American politics.


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Someone feel like commenting ?

Anyone ?

Hmm...

Erenest the Perverted of Hanover leading a royal rebellion against a Napoleonic Britain, and being exiled to the Americas?

I think we have a winner in the awesome charts...

Nekromans said:

Erenest the Perverted of Hanover leading a royal rebellion against a Napoleonic Britain, and being exiled to the Americas?

I think we have a winner in the awesome charts...

Click to expand...

Thanks !

Not sure if he would in person, of if he would be executed, and just his children flee into exile

I have a sort of plan for this down to 1870 but wanted to see if I was writing to myself, more or less

Thanks very much for the reply !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Are you writing a book online?

overboard said:

Are you writing a book online?

Click to expand...

Er, not sure !

I have ideas for this which gestated over 11 years, and was initially planned as a book

I have no idea if I do start it up properly how it would work

It MIGHT be that, or might just get to the timeline jump-off point where the novel was supposed to start

Thanks for the interest

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

If Britain is defeated in 1805, what happens to Spain? And Portugal, without a Britain to rely on, is still invaded?

Gonzaga said:

If Britain is defeated in 1805, what happens to Spain? And Portugal, without a Britain to rely on, is still invaded?

Click to expand...

IMHO they both basically settle up with Napoleon and cosy in for the long haul. Spain would be a victorious ally in 1805, contributing to the fleet. Portugal isn't about to stand on its own, and loses more by working against France than by coming to an agreement with them

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Why keep the monarchy?
In the 19th century if any country was to lose its monarchy it'd be those upstart Brits. Due to the wave of revolution in Europe and the state of the institution at the time I'd imagine this to be quite a height of anti-monarchal feeling too.

Leej said:

Why keep the monarchy?
In the 19th century if any country was to lose its monarchy it'd be those upstart Brits. Due to the wave of revolution in Europe and the state of the institution at the time I'd imagine this to be quite a height of anti-monarchal feeling too.

Click to expand...

Oh, you could do it as a POD/timeline in many different ways, and people are going to see different possibilities as being more likely than mine

I suppose I'm just trying to be interesting, and get the thing up to where I might try and write the story idea I have

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

You're being far too cautious in respect of what change would be effected. You seem to have Britain continung more or less normally, with a few minor dynastic changes. I don't think this is particularly likely. What Napoleon would want to do was to end what he saw, in typically revolutionary style, as the 'landholder' influence in Britain, whilst still keeping Britain stable.

First, George III would in all likelihood be off the throne. George hated Napoleon, and the feeling was mutual. You would have to have a monarch who was sympathetic, or would at least acquiesce with the French settlement - I think George IV could, at a stretch, fulfill this. At the very least, you'd have a permanent regency. In any case, I can see George III reacting in the same way he did to to loss of the colonies, and wanting to abdicate should there be a French invasion - the ultimate humiliation. So the question of deposition might not even arise.

Second, you'd have had some remodelling of the British system of government on France. So an expanded franchise, probably a more 'rational', enlightenment-based system of government, designed to bring in the middle classes and degrade the position of the aristocracy. Foxite Whigs would be in the driving seat in Parliament. You'd have also had attacks on Britain's trade potential, such as a repeal of the Navigation Acts and the Corn Laws.

Britain would move fifty years into the future politically and economically at a stroke - whether that would be sustainable is anyone's guess. I can see grave problems with it personally, certainly in the medium term - a more politicised middle/working class, a more socially unsettled country as a whole adapting to the economic upheval.

Ireland would almost certainly be given independence, whilst probably still retaining a fig-leaf of a constitutional link with Britain. Doing it would automatically give the French dominant influence and a huge amount of goodwill in a country which was seen as the backdoor to Britain and was already restive. Ireland would be a willing satelite all waiting to be set up, should the French just push the button - think along the lines of Poland.

Ireland would almost certainly be given independence, whilst probably still retaining a fig-leaf of a constitutional link with Britain. Doing it would automatically give the French dominant influence and a huge amount of goodwill in a country which was seen as the backdoor to Britain and was already restive. Ireland would be a willing satelite all waiting to be set up, should the French just push the button - think along the lines of Poland.

Click to expand...

I agree on the rest but I don't think so there. It was only 10 years ago that Ireland voted to join the UK. Things have soured slightly with no catholic emancipation but there's still a hefty support for London.

Leej said:

It was only 10 years ago that Ireland voted to join the UK.

Click to expand...

Are you serious here? The Irish Parliament was a Protestant body which had absolutely no more of a representative value to it than the British Parliament of this era did - like in Britain it reprsented the (non-Catholic) landowning elite. The Irish people themselves were in a revolutionary mood - the '98 was part of the reason for the Union.

Even then, Pitt had to resort to patronage and cajolery to get it through - Irish Protestants were just as lukewarm (at best) about the idea as Catholics were. It originated in Westminster, and was a British measure designed to 'safeguard' Ireland from invasion, and to bind Ireland more closely to the rest of the Isles economically and politically. The only real attraction for the Irish themselves was the suggestion of Catholic Emancipation - which ultimately Pitt, despite his best efforts, couldn't deliver on.

Ireland was so disaffected in this period it was straining at the leash to the extent of open rebellion, and Napoleon would have to be politically myopic not to take advantage of that. If Napoleon grants a devolved/independent Ireland, together with Catholic emancipation and a moderate franchise, then the French would probably have a solid ally for the next fifty years.

V-J said:

Are you serious here? The Irish Parliament was a Protestant body which had absolutely no more of a representative value to it than the British Parliament of this era did - like in Britain it reprsented the (non-Catholic) landowning elite. The Irish people themselves were in a revolutionary mood - the '98 was part of the reason for the Union.

Even then, Pitt had to resort to patronage and cajolery to get it through - Irish Protestants were just as lukewarm (at best) about the idea as Catholics were. It originated in Westminster, and was a British measure designed to 'safeguard' Ireland from invasion, and to bind Ireland more closely to the rest of the Isles economically and politically.

Click to expand...

All of which I'm aware of and said nothing against.

The only real attraction for the Irish themselves was the suggestion of Catholic Emancipation - which ultimately Pitt, despite his best efforts, couldn't deliver on.

Click to expand...

The union also helped to protect them from the worst excesses of the Irish parliament. Rather than being ruled by a body that was activly working against catholic Irish interests they instead had one which was quite indifferent to them as long as they behaved themselves.
IMO the act of union was probally the best thing ever to happen to Ireland.

Ireland was so disaffected in this period it was straining at the leash to the extent of open rebellion, and Napoleon would have to be politically myopic not to take advantage of that. If Napoleon grants a devolved/independent Ireland, together with Catholic emancipation and a moderate franchise, then the French would probably have a solid ally for the next fifty years.

Click to expand...

The trouble is though who would the power go to in Ireland?
It really lacked much of a middle class, especially outside of the big cities. The ideology for a 'free Ireland' all checks out, practically though...Very hard.

Leej said:

All of which I'm aware of and said nothing against.

Click to expand...

You said "Ireland voted to join the UK", with the suggestion that this was indicative of opinion in the country. That is not true. The minority which Britain trusted to run Ireland voted for the UK, and by a wafer-thin margin at that, against a background of "persuasion" from Westminster.

Leej said:

The union also helped to protect them from the worst excesses of the Irish parliament.

Click to expand...

What excesses? Prior to the 1780's the Irish Parliament was effectively a rubber-stamp.

Leej said:

IMO the act of union was probally the best thing ever to happen to Ireland.

Click to expand...

The Union was a shortsighted disaster which substantially increased the likelihood that Ireland would eventually go for all or nothing, with the balance weighted firmly in favour of nothing. It would have been better for all concerned if the British had kept Ireland in personal union but as a seperate state, and gradually reformed the Irish Parliament, which is what they were doing before the French Revolution intervened.

Leej said:

The trouble is though who would the power go to in Ireland?

Click to expand...

If I was Napoleon, I'd send in a strong, pro-French (Maybe even actually French) Lord Lieutenant (Viceroy) and take things slowly from there, gradually bringing in Catholic opinion, starting with the most responsible sections first.

Ah, Napoleon's planned invasion of Britain-- The Sealion of the 19th century.