That Wacky Redhead

[NCW8]

A damned shame. I guess you're not writing a utopia, either. Still: there's no doubt that Life of Brian would fail to pass muster with American investors in Ronald Reagan's 1970s!

It also means that we won't be able to ask "What has the BBC ever done for us ?"

Ah, the Holy Grail of alt-sci-fi: Blake's 7!

Mind you, it is, unsurprisingly, not Blake's 7 as we know it. In OTL's series, Blake didn't lead a group of seven escaped prisoners. The count of 7 was only achieved after Calley (who wasn't a prisoner) arrived and also included the ship Zen.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[stevep]

If Terry Nation does end up using the Daleks in a episode of Blake's 7 in this time line, it would technically mean that Blake's 7 is in the same continuity as Star Trek . . . . .

Incidently, is there a separate forum for discussing the timeline? Because the author's responses seem to contain more comments to respond to than I recall from the previous posts.

Jinx999

Technically both the doctor and the modern daleks are inter-dimensional themselves. Hence it could be that their able to intrude into the Blake's 7 universe from the doctor's one.

Or it could even be said that the universe of Blake's 7 is the mirror universe from Star Trek.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Mind you, it is, unsurprisingly, not Blake's 7 as we know it. In OTL's series, Blake didn't lead a group of seven escaped prisoners. The count of 7 was only achieved after Calley (who wasn't a prisoner) arrived and also included the ship Zen.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Nigel

Good point, although Zen was the computer, not the ship. [Unless my memories getting even worse!] That would imply there would be no outsiders making up the 7, at least until casualties started occurring.

Steve

 

[NCW8]

Good point, although Zen was the computer, not the ship. [Unless my memories getting even worse!]

You are, of course, correct. I'm the one who has to worry about his memory

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Mr Teufel]

Hmm. A reduced REDACTED war means a reduced Hippy movement; that might mean reduced fame for the Beatles. It might mean reduced interest in Tolkien, too.

 

[stevep]

Hmm. A reduced REDACTED war means a reduced Hippy movement; that might mean reduced fame for the Beatles. It might mean reduced interest in Tolkien, too.

Mr Teufel

Might have an effect on the 'counter-culture' as will the lack of Nixon/Watergate. Wouldn't have much impact on the Beatles as their 'conquest of America' was prior to the POD. Not sure about the impact on LTOR and other modern fantasy.

Steve

 

[NCW8]

Not sure about the impact on LTOR and other modern fantasy.

TTL has probably been denied The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins .

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Brainbin]

I have trust in that he can write an update that is as interesting to read as the subject material allows, so I would say: yes, I am interested in reading such an update.

I'm grateful for your interest, LordInsane! And from what you've said before, I think you'll be interested in his planned topic of discussion...

Do you really need to ask? Of course we do!

Thank you very much, TheLoneAmigo, and welcome aboard! Always nice to see another Australasian reading along.

Fully agree.

Glad to hear it, Steve

You are very welcome - and yes, I wouldn't mind e of pi's contribution one bit.

Excellent! (I won't comment on your show ideas, as we've since moved that discussion elsewhere.)

Given the timeline he's co-author of, is e of pi going to update us on the Space Programme? If so, I'd really like to see his update!

Well, he does have a more diverse field of expertise than that for which he is so well-known, as you shall soon see for yourself!

Maybe they'd just pull back to reveal Charles dressed as a Pearly King.

Wow - to be honest, I wasn't sure how to convey that Prince Charles was in dire straits, but that would do it!

Of course - did you really need to ask ?

I certainly didn't think so, but I suspect that e of pi preferred to err on the side of caution.

I still think that describing The Tomorrow People as a "Rip Off" is a bit strong, so I'll guess that you're planning something.

What I'm trying to convey is that people would accuse it of being such, without having necessarily checked their facts.

British shows certainly have more mainstream popularity in the US ITTL, but I don't think there's been a big change in the number of US shows coming to the UK. There's obviously more Star Trek and the Muppet Show will count as an import. OTOH, there won't be MASH or Mork and Mindy and the American version of The Liver Birds will likely not be imported (unlike Laverne and Shirley OTL). Also the Richard Pryor show is unlikely to make it to the UK, so Robin Williams' debut on British screens is going to be delayed.

All in all, it appears to be a wash, then. Of course, there's also Desilu sending Doctor Who back over, which makes for quite the bizarre round-trip...

Incidently, is there a separate forum for discussing the timeline? Because the author's responses seem to contain more comments to respond to than I recall from the previous posts.

If I haven't responded to certain posts that were made prior to my most recent update, I'll usually respond to those first (in chronological order). Is that what you meant?

Perhaps to some extent, but it was more that the characters were supposed to be pompous egotists who wanted to portray themselves in a glamorous, Errol Flynn saves Burma single-handedly, kind of way, and it was more of a funny contrast for them to be revealed as never having seen action at all rather than just have them be frontline troops but not have done anything remarkable.

That does make sense. It just seems incongruous to me, given how much emphasis was placed on the importance of the Home Front.

Mainwaring was a far more sympathetic and complex portrayal of the stuffy pompous egotist pseudo-veteran than Foggy or Captain Peacock though. I suspect one reason why this was such an archetypical character was that there were a lot of real ones knocking around Britain in the 1970s, and for some reason a lot of them seemed to gravitate towards becoming schoolmasters...

But there being a real-life inspiration for these sorts of characters definitely makes sense, and helps to explain the irreverence in their portrayal.

Just catching up. Impressive as ever.

Thank you for the compliment, Falkenburg

For what it's worth, add my vote in favour of e of pi contributing to your TL (Mmm, Pie!).

Your vote has been noted and logged. And the pie has been consumed. (It was delicious.)

Hopefully I'll have something more pertinent to add once I've actually digested the last few Updates.

I look forward to your further thoughts on them!

Or it could even be said that the universe of Blake's 7 is the mirror universe from Star Trek.

No, in the Mirror Universe, it was the (Terran) Empire which called the shots - they were honest in their megalomania

Hmm. A reduced REDACTED war means a reduced Hippy movement; that might mean reduced fame for the Beatles. It might mean reduced interest in Tolkien, too.

The ship has already sailed for the Beatles long before the butterflies can take hold; Tolkien, too, has seen the core of his fanbase firmly entrenched by the late 1960s.

TTL has probably been denied The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins .

Nimoy first performed the song on July 28, 1967 - that's just early enough for me to save that piece of glorious kitsch from oblivion

And since you've been so link-happy lately, allow me to return the favour...

 

[vultan]

How did I miss the update on Blake's 7?

Very quality stuff, Brainbin. Obviously I don't know very many details regarding non-genre British television, but I can appreciate the detail.

Interesting what people have got to say about Blake's 7 possibly being added to the increasingly unwieldy Star Trek/Doctor Who continuity... throw in Legend of the Force and Galactica, and it's gonna make the pre-Crisis DC Universe look neat and organized.

 

[NCW8]

What I'm trying to convey is that people would accuse it of being such, without having necessarily checked their facts.

I can't recall it being so described at the time. Bear in mind that if The Tomorrow People were generally seen as a "rip off", it wouldn't have lasted for six years and wouldn't have had a remake in the Nineties.

That said, it is of course subject to butterflies. Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article (insert grain of salt here)

At this time, ITV was keen to find its own answer to Doctor Who although Price never really envisaged the show as such but more as an outlet for his own personal ideas and beliefs. Very early on, Ruth Boswell was brought in as associate producer and script editor as she had experience of children's fantasy drama (Timeslip and Tightrope). Thames effectively poached Doctor Who director Paul Bernard to help set up and oversee the first season. He would be credited as director for two stories but was unofficially a third producer.

Ruth Boswell wanted Lynn Frederick for Carol, the female lead, but following a meeting with her, Paul Bernard felt she was a bit too upper class and precious for what he had in mind as he saw the character as being similar to Doctor Who's Jo Grant. They finally settled on Sammie Winmill who was relatively well known for playing Nurse Crumpton on the popular Doctor at Large situation comedy.

The obvious butterfly is that ITTL they wouldn't be looking for a "Jo Grant"-style character. Maybe they would want a "Linda Johnson"-type character instead. Having an American character in the cast would obviously be a big change.

However, it is by no means certain that Paul Bernard would be picked as director/producer of the show. He was a director on Doctor Who in season 9/10 OTL and given the changes wrought by the Yank Years, that could easily be different ITTL. If he weren't a director on Dr Who, then he probably wouldn't be hired for The Tomorrow People. In that case, the first choice of Lynn Frederick might be cast in the role of Carol. Also, without Bernard, the title sequence for the series would look very different as he was heavily involved in its development.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[e of pi]

Interesting what people have got to say about Blake's 7 possibly being added to the increasingly unwieldy Star Trek/Doctor Who continuity... throw in Legend of the Force and Galactica, and it's gonna make the pre-Crisis DC Universe look neat and organized.

Well, I think Trek fans are unlikely to consider Doctor Who part of the same continuity. For one, the crossover isn't part of the syndication package, which could arguably make it less "canon," especially as nothing else from Who is ever referenced again. Also, we're talking about Trek fans, who produced the Puritans--people who are reluctant to even accept the miniseries as canon. Given those, I'm not seeing Trek's fandom embracing Who as part of Trek's canon. But this, I should mention, is just my opinion, we'll have to see where Brainbin takes things.

 

[Mr Teufel]

Myself, I think there'll arguments even within the Puritans. After all, their thesis is "Only the First Voyages," which clearly leaves room to include the episodes that include Dr Who.

I can see a case for, "There's a being in the Star Trek universe that has the appearance and some of the characteristics of Dr Who. But whether it's the same being as the Dr Who in the Who franchise is debatable. Anyway, he's probably from a non-cannon parallel universe."

 

[e of pi]

Myself, I think there'll arguments even within the Puritans. After all, their thesis is "Only the First Voyages," which clearly leaves room to include the episodes that include Dr Who.

Actually, their thesis is, "Only the Trek We Approve of," which isn't necessarily the same thing. Once you've given yourself authority to start declaring Desilu-produced Trek non-canon, why can't Trek that's only half Desilu-produced be non-canon? But yeah, I think it'll basically be like you say: the episode itself will exist in a canon grey area, and none of the Who universe outside of it will be canon for most fans.

 

[Brainbin]

Appendix B, Part VI: Everybody Votes, Sometimes

Map of the European economic situation in 1975. Countries in BLUE are members of the European Economic Community (EEC). Countries in GREEN are members (full or associate) of the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA). Countries in RED are members of the Warsaw Pact. Countries in GOLD are aligned with the People’s Republic of China. Countries in BROWN are members of the Forward Coalition (Backwards Bloc). Note that Portugal is a member of both the Backwards Bloc and the EFTA.
​

“Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

– Winston Churchill, addressing the House of Commons; November 11, 1947

For all that the 1960s were increasingly remembered as a decade of turmoil and unrest, the 1970s were not particularly stable either: they were a period of exceptional highs and lows, marked by pronounced economic fluctuations, and ever-shifting socio-political attitudes. Very few of the countries of the world – be they part of the First, Second, or Third – found themselves in much the same place by the close of the 1970s that they were as the decade began. The only constant was change, whether the societies in which these changes took place were democratic or as far away from such an idealized concept as was possible while still maintaining the overall façade…

Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 38th President of the United States on January 20, 1977, seventeen days after the members of the 95th United States Congress. For the first time in more than two decades, the Chief Executive and control of both Houses of Congress belonged to the Republican Party. (President Eisenhower and the 83rd Congress had been the most recent tandem to accomplish this feat). Many of the members of the GOP caucus were supporters of the more libertarian, conservative ideological wing of the party, fostered by Reagan’s idol, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sr., of Arizona, and shepherded by Reagan himself. This faction was named the “Reaganites”, after their President and de facto leader, as a counterpoint to the more liberal “Rockefeller Republicans”, who had supported the former Governor of New York; these were now personified by Reagan’s running-mate, Vice-President Charles Mathias. There was plenty of room for both factions in both houses of Congress, as the Republican domination could not be overstated: the GOP held 259 of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and 62 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Attempts were quickly made by the new party of the supermajority to institute legislative reforms – particularly those which sought to mitigate the dreaded filibuster tactic in the Senate [1] – but were (unsurprisingly) met with a great deal of hostility on this score by both the Democratic and American parties (both masters of the technique). However, they did achieve a measure of success in working to divide-and-conquer, depriving the Democrats of such titles as “Minority Leader” and “Minority Whip”, arguing that – as another party with a minority of legislators served in both Houses, that title was a misnomer. [2] This had been a sticking point with the Republicans for some time, as the Democrats had not represented the majority of seats in the Senate of the 93rd Congress (in fact, they held only 48 of the 100 seats officially, tying them with the Republicans; independents who caucused with the party effectively gave them the majority). The American Party, unlike the Progressives (in their many incarnations through the first half of the 20th century), seemed very much here to stay by the mid-1970s, so the Republicans (who knew that the party appealed at least as much to Democratic core voters as to those who might support the Republicans) sought to take advantage. Talk of the “permanent Republican majority” emerged at this time, though (as is always the case) such confidence in their supremacy would not last forever.

But President Reagan certainly had a chance to enact some of his policies in the meantime, and that’s precisely what he did. First and foremost, at the insistence of many influential economic minds within his party, he placed the United States back on the gold standard, as the “shock” from the collapse of the Breton Woods system under Humphrey was believed to have contributed to the worsening of what had at first seemed to be the relatively mild recession which had followed the Oil Crisis. [3] But President Reagan’s crowning fiscal accomplishment, by the reckoning of many of his supporters, was the reduction of the income tax rate for the top bracket of earners from 70% to 50%, as part of his economic strategy (nicknamed “Reaganomics”), and based on the “Laffer curve”, which postulated that income taxes in excess of 50% disincentivized taxpayers from working to earn additional income, which in turn reduced potential revenues for the government (and also reduced consumer spending). This rate was the lowest for the top bracket since prior to the Great Depression (it was raised from 25% to 63% in 1932). 50% was also an important milestone for optics purposes, and indeed many policy-makers argued that it was only logical for a person to keep at least half of what he earned through wages, interest, or profits from business and investment (capital gains were another matter entirely); though obviously most states also imposed income taxes, which when combined with the federal rate would equal greater than half of the income earned by the highest earners. At the same time, Congress also simplified the tax structure, reducing the number of brackets from 25 to 14, with the lowest bracket also seeing its rate reduced, from 14% to 12%, allowing lawmakers to trumpet “lowering of taxes across the board”. [4] Naturally, the lowering of taxes was wildly popular among the masses.

The social policy bills passed under the Reagan administration, on the other hand, were more controversial. The tent-pole piece of such legislation was known as the Liddy Act, named for its primary sponsor, Rep. G. Gordon Liddy of New York. [5] As with the lowering of taxes, it was a decided triumph for the libertarian faction of the Republican Party, described as “forever vindicating freedom of speech over fear of indecency in all forms of media”. This rhetoric was grossly exaggerated; the near-omnipotent FCC, though restructured, retained most of its censorship powers (in fact, it was the privately-operated MPAA that seemed more shaken by the new regulations), but it captured the spirit of the law very well. Talk radio – prior to the passage of this legislation, a largely benign and “soft” segment of the radio industry (that which remained, at least, following the migration of scripted, dramatic programming to television) – found itself given powerful teeth, with the presence of figures who became stars on the national stage. One of the defining early examples was Sam Steiger, a strong libertarian figure from a strong libertarian state – Arizona – who defied the “racist” label attached to many controversial figures within the movement by virtue of his ethnicity and religion, being Jewish. [6] One side effect of the bill was to eliminate the Family Viewing Hour, due to opposition from the right as well as the left. However, it remained de facto at all three networks, due to the preponderance of young children who were still awake at 8 o’clock in the evening. It was obviously too late to save Those Were the Days, though Norman Lear did (very reluctantly) support the bill (the First Amendment made for strange bedfellows), later describing it as the only worthwhile piece of legislation passed by the Reagan administration. Certainly, it would prove one of the most enduring and influential.

Despite Reagan working to pass social legislation at the federal level, the true cause célebre was a proposition in his home state of California. The Briggs Initiative, formally Proposition 6, proposed that all gay and lesbian persons (and even those who were sympathetic to their plight) be banned from teaching, or even working, in the California public school system; this was for fear that they would “contaminate” children. Homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder from the DSM-II by the American Psychological Association in 1974 after extensive lobbying by gay rights activists, who had joined the Sexual Revolution after the Stonewall Riots of 1969. However, public acceptance of the condition (or lifestyle, or orientation – terminology varied even more widely than views on the matter) was limited, even as the 1970s came to a close. The mid-to-late-1970s were, in general, a reactionary period, which had culminated in this proposition. However, and perhaps surprisingly, the conservative establishment largely opposed the proposition; the most surprising naysayer was President Ronald Reagan himself, to the astonishment of his staffers and supporters. “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this” [7], he famously announced at a campaign appearance for his former running-mate, Governor Houston I. Flournoy (who also opposed the initiative, as did his Democratic challenger, Jerry Brown), who was running for re-election. Reagan’s opposition ensured the collapse of the proposition, but he was hardly the only high-profile politician to oppose it. Los Angeles City Councilman George Takei, riding high from his appearance in Star Trek: The Next Voyage earlier in the year (his first acting role of any kind since 1971), made his first foray into larger-scale politics when he vocally condemned the Briggs Initiative while taking questions at a press conference announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the (federal) 28th Congressional District. [8] He would eventually lose that nomination – both that seat and his present council district (whose boundaries fell partially within it) were largely African-American, and indeed Takei had been returned to council in the 1975 general election by a surprisingly narrow margin against a black opponent. Takei would announce his retirement from municipal politics in 1979, having largely completed his objectives with regards to developing an advanced mass transit system for the city of Los Angeles, and now inspired to take his ideas “on the road”, as it were.

Just as was the case in the United States, the government in the United Kingdom had a seemingly-insurmountable lead in its (elected) legislature, the House of Commons. William Whitelaw, like Ronald Reagan, had seen his party swept in as a reaction to the perceived mismanagement by the ruling party of the time – across the Pond, it had been the Democrats, but in the British Isles, it had been Labour, led by Harold Wilson. And though Hubert H. Humphrey had only survived the end of his term by mere months, Wilson had a much longer tenure out of office; after resigning his seat in late 1974, he sought a second career as a television personality, meeting with varying success. [9] But on the whole, he faced much less hassle than the party he left behind; Labour was bitterly divided between the more established, moderate, pro-Europe right-wing and the younger, grassroots, anti-European left (opposing union on socialist or even Marxist grounds). Labour, being on the left side of the British political spectrum, and having been forced to withdraw to their electoral strongholds after their devastating defeat in the 1974 election, was mostly dominated by this leftist rabble thereafter; they naturally chose one of their own, Michael Foot, as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (and, potentially, a future Prime Minister) to challenge Whitelaw and his Tories in the next election. [10] That was a long time in coming, however, and despite headaches in facing (or rather, putting off facing) the trade unions, the economy was mostly good in the intervening years. Polls showed the Conservatives with a solid lead throughout their first term back in Government. Largely, this was because Whitelaw did his best not to make waves.

That said, he was capable of taking a stand, if need be. For example, his Tories, in contrast to Labour, were far more united on the issue of joining the European Economic Community (being mostly in favour). But despite having campaigned in 1974 having promised to “reach a fair and equitable arrangement for admission to the EEC”, he eventually resisted working to bring this about, for a myriad of reasons. For one thing, the “temporary” arrangement which was worked out with Canada, at the behest of its Prime Minister Robert Stanfield, to solidify trade relations between those two countries (and fortify existing treaties with Australia and New Zealand) in the wake of the EEC postponing the admissions process after the Oil Crisis was proving a surprisingly profitable enterprise for all involved parties – it helped that, between them, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia were three of the ten largest economies in the world, even as late as 1975. The linchpin, however, was a fatal mistake made by the French President, Francois Mitterrand, in continuing negotiations with Whitelaw and his Cabinet. Mitterrand, who was the de facto leader of the EEC, had been spearheading closer economic ties between its members in the wake of the Oil Crisis (which was naturally quite devastating to the oil-poor organization), and his pet project was a joint currency. [11] As the British pound sterling had only recently been decimalized by the mid-1970s, he felt that the attachment of the British people to their ancient currency was not so strong as to prohibit discussions with the British government which would entail joining the new currency. Mitterrand, ordinarily a fairly canny politician, would later describe this as the biggest mistake of his political career. Though the French President had sought to make clear that monetary union was intended as a long-term objective which would follow years or even decades of integration, the headline naturally made far greater waves than the fine print. The overall attitude of the British population toward joining the organization, which was generally neutral beforehand (depending, of course, on the precise phrasing of polling questions), grew increasingly hostile, and Whitelaw reluctantly put the issue on the back-burner. The “Commonwealth Trade Agreement”, meant only as a temporary substitute to integration with the EEC, seemed ever-more permanent with time. However, this in turn created a big problem in Ireland, whose economy and trade relations were tied so closely to those of the United Kingdom that it effectively could not join the EEC, even though it, unlike the UK, had agreed to all of the entry conditions. The Irish trade issue was the primary source of tension between both countries in the British Isles through the 1970s; the British felt obliged to “look after” a country which had left the fold decades before, whereas the Irish resented the British controlling their destinies; they were emphatically not interested in joining anything with the “Commonwealth” label attached, which would require some legalistic wrangling.

However, that section of “Free” Europe outside of the EEC was not restricted solely to the British Isles (particular since many in the British Isles believed themselves “With Europe, But Not Of It”). In fact, against the backdrop of British attempts to sort out their position relative to Ireland and to France, several countries in Southern Europe found themselves living out entirely different situations. Fascism, though largely discredited and certainly stigmatized in the aftermath of World War II, continued to endure on the Continent. Indeed, two regimes from that era remained in place into the 1970s: Nationalist Spain, and the Estado Novo in Portugal. Another, the military junta in Greece, continued to move toward the far-right ever since the King was effectively exiled in 1967 – though Greece remained a de jure monarchy in the tradition of interwar Hungary in the meantime – the process greatly accelerated by the Cyprus Incident of 1974. All three countries, despite doing very well indeed economically prior to the Oil Crisis of 1973, were hurt very badly by it, especially as their European neighbours entrenched themselves in their various economic alliances; Portugal was a member of the EFTA, which also contained oil-rich Norway, but they were embroiled in a lengthy and costly colonial war, which served to mitigate that advantage. Thus, these pariah states decided to seek closer ties, forming an association which was described internally as the “Forward Coalition”, espousing quasi-fascist policies and anti-communism; opponents (generally on the European left) quickly labelled it the “Backwards Bloc”, a name that only gained more currency when South Africa and Rhodesia, both under white minority rule, joined their organization. South Africa, despite having been a pre-WWI “White Dominion”, and founding member of the Commonwealth, had been suspended from that organization as a result of their apartheid policies. Rhodesia, which illegally declared independence from the United Kingdom, was certainly not on speaking terms with her erstwhile sister nations either. These five countries were united in their opposition to socialist thought in general and Communism in particular (a cornerstone of fascist ideology), particularly Red China, the preeminent boogeyman of the far-right in the 1970s. Several South American countries were openly sympathetic to the Backwards Bloc, but did not formally join them.

The long-standing dictator of Portugal, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, was already a very old man by the turn of the 1970s. An accident in his own home in 1968, causing minor injury, served to reinforce this fact, and reminded him uncomfortably of his own mortality. [12] The Estado Novo regime which he had formed would need a figurehead to continue on without him. Taking inspiration from his longtime friend and colleague, Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the dictator of neighbouring Spain, Salazar decided to appoint Duarte Nuno, the Duke of Braganza, and Pretender to the long-vacant throne of Portugal (as the nation had been a republic since 1910) to the position. Salazar had toyed many times in the past with installing Duarte Nuno as a figurehead monarch; now, he felt, it was an idea whose time had finally come. In fact, Salazar was recently deceased when Duarte Nuno became King of the restored Kingdom of Portugal in 1972, replacing Americo Tomas, who had been President since 1958 (re-elected by the legislature in 1965, which similarly acclaimed Duarte Nuno in 1972), at the end of his term. [13] Duarte Nuno took the throne as Edward II, King of Portugal and the Algarves, officially known in Portuguese as “O Regressado”, or “the Returnee”. As the last King of Portugal, Manuel II, had died in 1932, by which time Duarte Nuno was his Heir Presumptive, this allowed for an unbroken line of succession. However, the elderly King, aware of his precarious position on the newly restored throne, constantly deferred to the Estado Novo government despite his very presence securing the support of conservative, ultra-religious, and reactionary elements within Portugal. His opponents had many, rather less complimentary names for the King, such as “O Impotente” – the impotent – or (more to the point) Vitor Emanuel, a reference to the penultimate King of Italy, whose reign had been dominated by his fascist ministers, most notably Mussolini. The regnal name Edward II was appropriate as well, for it evoked the legendarily ineffectual English King of the same name.

However, Duarte Nuno did have an effect on the Francoist regime next-door in Spain. Generalissimo Franco, himself a very old man, had planned on reinstating the monarchy to succeed him, though he favoured Juan Carlos, the son of the pretender Infante Juan, whom he believed too liberal for the job. Edward II died in early 1976, having “enjoyed” his restoration for barely four years, which were fraught with stress and anguish. His son Duarte Pio, the Prince Royal of Portugal, succeeded him as Edward III, against the better judgement of many within the Estado Novo regime. Their fears were not unfounded, as the new King immediately began working to pass liberalizing reforms. The situation in Portugal, appropriately enough, was echoed almost precisely in Spain; Franco, however, did not choose the nominal Pretender (Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona, and son of the last reigning King, Alfonso XIII), but that man’s son, Juan Carlos, creating him the Prince of Spain in 1969 and designating him heir-apparent, hoping to groom him to continue the Francoist regime after his passing. Generalissimo Francisco Franco died in late 1975, and the following year (at which time he was still dead), Juan Carlos began instituting reforms. The two monarchs, born seven years apart, became close friends and each made their first official state visits in their monarchical capacities to each other in 1976. After constitutional reforms were complete, Portugal withdrew from the “Backwards Bloc” in 1977, at the same time signing a peace treaty with India recognizing their “lawful and legitimate” annexation of their former colonies, and withdrawing from Angola, Mozambique, and mainland Portuguese Guinea in Africa; this marked the final departure of European colonial forces from the Continent. However, Portugal retained control of their insular colonies throughout the world, including Madeira, the Azores, Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, Macau, and part of the island of Timor in the East Indies. [14] Spain followed a similar trajectory, though they retained none of their colonies. Democracy coming to both countries near-simultaneously, and through similar means (constitutional monarchy) resulted in what commentators described as the “Iberian Sunrise”. Edward III thus acquired the popular nickname “O Democrata”, or the democrat. “I serve at the Will of the People” became his catch-phrase, and later his motto.

And then there was the last remaining Backwards Bloc member in Europe. The sudden – and, from the point of view of the Greek population, far from tragic – death of the Queen Mother, Frederica of Hanover, in surgery did much to bolster monarchism in Greece, given her meddling in the reign of her son during his active rule in the 1960s. [15] The threat of her being allowed to do so should Constantine II return to Greece loomed over any attempts at his restoration, but her death allowed him to be perceived as his own man, for better and for worse. As the junta regime dragged on through the 1970s, and the Greek reputation as a pariah state was solidified by their continued affiliation with the Backwards Bloc, even as Spain and then Portugal withdrew from the union; this left Greece as the sole European representative thereof, as the two major Western European economic blocks – the EEC and the EFTA – further crystallized. This proved devastating to Greece in the wake of the major global recession that commenced in 1978, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the junta was concerned. Democratic uprisings broke out throughout Greece, and (inspired by the Iberian Sunrise) various political leaders invited the now-orphaned Constantine II to return to his throne in early 1979. [16] The white-controlled government of Rhodesia finally collapsed under its own weight that same year, being without allies in Europe; this left South Africa as the sole surviving member of the Backwards Bloc as the decade came to a close.

Greece wasn’t the only country whose people took inspiration from the Iberian Sunrise. In fact, a resurgent wave of monarchism spread throughout Europe, even reaching the three solidly republican titans of the EEC, though ultimately to no effect: Italy, where monarchism was strictly outlawed by the constitution, which naturally scuttled any organized support for a restoration; France, where, in addition to disagreement between the three pretenders for the throne (Legitimist, Orleanist, and Bonapartist), a century of republicanism had led the political class to accept the system as the best of the worst; and even West Germany, though support there was also divided between two pretenders: the legitimate Prussian heir, Louis Ferdinand von Hohenzollern, and the “Pan-German” candidate, Otto von Habsburg. Otto was (obviously) the candidate of choice among Austrian monarchists as well, popular and respected among all classes for his vocally liberal-democratic political stances. However, the notion of his installation as a “pan-German” monarch of a combined West German and Austrian state was a pipe dream, though it may have perhaps hampered his (slightly) more realistic chances at his dynasty being restored to the throne of Austria. (The rest of the former Habsburg Dominions, all of which were Communist, obviously saw little popular support for such a restoration). In the end, the popularity of monarchism in these republican countries was the result of a vocal minority (as well, perhaps, as a certain romantic nostalgia), and the odds of their success ranged from small to negligible. Then again, the same could have been said for those countries which did see monarchical restorations in the 1970s. [17]

And then there was the exact opposite situation: a monarch facing the risk of being popularly deposed. At the request of the Shah of Iran, whom President Reagan viewed as “one of our most important allies in the Middle East”, American troops were dispatched for anti-insurrectionist purposes. This attracted ire from certain sections of the American population, fearful of repeating the overseas quagmire of a decade before, but the key difference was that the American military of the late-1970s was all-volunteer, and much more strictly regulated than the free-for-all of decades past. The “task force” dispatched to Tehran was a small core of elite units; in the opinion of many strategists, the Shah was overestimating the possibility of an uprising. Nevertheless, they worked to keep the peace; this proved a more difficult task than anticipated, especially in the face of numerous armed uprisings, starting in late 1978 (caused by a wide variety of disparate factions, most in opposition to, and a few in support of, the regime). [18] The American government, having been fed reports by forces on the ground, began urging the Shah to consolidate his support base in the country, which subsequent fact-finding investigations found to be perilously thin. It soon became clear that American peacekeeping forces, rather than being an unnecessary dalliance, were the glue keeping the regime together, and the Shah was reluctantly obliged to accede to their demands, implementing reforms which would bring the government closer to the Persian Constitution of 1906 in order to appease the bourgeoisie. In spite of this, an American military presence would remain for some time, fearful of rebellion not only by the omnipresent Communist insurgent threat but also by the fundamentalist followers of the Ayatollah. The Shah, notably, was one of the few monarchs whose popularity did not see a boost in the late 1970s, despite that era being one of the best periods for public support of that institution in the latter half of the 20th century. Still, the peace held, however tenuously.

The atmosphere of Détente with the Soviet Union cultivated by both Hubert H. Humphrey in the United States and his counterpart, Comrade Brezhnev in the Kremlin (surprisingly) continued, though in a more muted fashion, under the staunchly anti-communist and far more bellicose Ronald Reagan. Despite this, Cold War tensions did not wholly dissipate. In fact, the situation in Europe appeared to present a microcosm of the global situation in the 1970s; the nebulous tripartite situation of years past was beginning to crystallize, though one of those blocs most certainly did not collapse under its own weight, in contrast to the Backwards Bloc. Indeed, that ill-fated organization’s arch-nemesis, Red China, decided to pick up the pieces in Southeast Asia where the United States had left off a decade earlier, invading the very country in which American troops had become mired not so long ago, and facing hostile international reaction (not to mention finding themselves in a very similar situation). Red China had entered the 1970s as a power on the rise; most of the world had finally, belatedly recognized that they controlled the vast territory and population lost by Generalissimo Chiang and his Kuomintang in the 1940s. However, the Cultural Revolution, starting in the late 1960s, had proved utterly devastating to the people and the economy of the would-be Great Power. As was the case in most totalitarian regimes, including many of the Backwards Bloc states which stood diametrically opposed to Red China (autocracy made for strange bedfellows), it fell into disarray upon the death of Chairman Mao Tse-tung [19], centre of the cult of personality called Maoism, in 1976. It was decided that Red China would continue to follow their leader’s economic policies, resisting any and all attempts to shift toward capitalism, and prove their mettle by extending their sphere of influence – and not just in Southeast Asia, but also into India, the second-largest country in the world by population, and one of the most significant of Third World, non-aligned states. Many of those countries which had reluctantly switched recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic were now sorely regretting it. The United States, notably, never extended even informal acknowledgement of Red China (lacking the political capital to do so under Humphrey, and then the will to do so under Reagan); of all the NATO countries which had acknowledged the People’s Republic, the one which came closest to revoking that recognition was Canada, which had made the initial gestures of goodwill under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (also a good friend of the Cuban Communist dictator, Fidel Castro), who was followed by the far more traditionalist Robert Stanfield, who had even caused a kerfuffle at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, when he refused to reject the Taiwanese Olympic team at the behest of the Pekinese delegation.

With regards to domestic issues in the Great White North, Stanfield found his attentions divided between the four corners of the Dominion that stretched from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the Earth. Quebec had been a major focus of his premiership, and that alone raised the ire of most of the rest of Canada, particularly Alberta, which was the economic engine for the whole country after the Oil Crisis. Although Stanfield and the Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed, were on fairly good terms, it very much seemed to Stanfield that it would be far more difficult to alienate Albertans than it was to appease Quebec voters, and Quebec had many more seats than any of the Western provinces (despite the latter being a longtime base of support for his party). Then again, he was between a rock and a hard place. The New Democratic Party, eager to take advantage of previously missed opportunities in the West, selected as their leader Rural Saskatchewan MP Lorne Nystrom; the Opposition Liberals, on the other hand, were bound by party convention to select an Anglophone leader to succeed the Francophone Trudeau. They chose John Turner, an English-born MP from Ottawa, who sadly lacked the charisma and dynamism of his controversial predecessor, and thus failed to appeal to either English or French Canada. Finally, Réal Caouette, the leader of the Social Credit Party, and never in the best of health, decided to retire from politics, to be replaced by the younger André-Gilles Fortin, who emerged from the hotly-contested party leadership convention as the staunchly federalist alternative (versus his separatist opponent). [20] The Socreds, like the NDP, had once been much stronger in the West, and Fortin decided to attempt to rebuild the party there in a way that his Quebec-oriented predecessor had never done (as his leadership had been defined largely in opposition to English Canada). The sense that there was enough for everyone was cemented by a reapportionment of the electoral districts, or ridings, which had come into effect for the 1978 federal election. The House of Commons gained 18 seats, increasing from 264 to 282. Vote-rich Ontario saw the plurality of these gains, but both Quebec and the West saw greater representation as well. None of the four Atlantic provinces, where Stanfield was most personally popular, gained a single seat.

It was largely this reapportionment which allowed the Tories to be returned with a slight majority, winning 149 seats (a net gain of seven on top of the 142 that they had won in 1974). The vagaries of the First-Past-The-Post electoral system saw them gain seats (despite losing vote share, though they remained above the vital 40% threshold) largely because the PCs mostly lost support in areas where their support was overwhelming, but maintained their popularity, or even saw boosts, in more competitive regions, which tended to be more highly populated; this resulted in their picking up the lion’s share of the “new seats” apportioned for the new Parliament. Stanfield maintained strong support in his Atlantic home base, and the Liberals – led by new Opposition Leader John Turner – failed to catch on in Western Canada, barely holding their own even in their Quebec strongholds (losing several seats in the English-language regions of Montreal to the Tories). The Tories and their surprising strength in Canada’s largest city – they had won all of one seat on the Island of Montreal in 1974, but took nearly half-a-dozen in the region in 1978, including the former Liberal stronghold of Mount Royal, once held by Pierre Trudeau himself [21] – echoed the provincial situation, in which the former French-Canadian parochial nationalist party, the Union Nationale (which had merged with a social credit splinter group and was subsequent renamed the Union Conservateur) won significant support among Anglophone voters for the first time. However, this was against the backdrop of the victory by an avowedly separatist party – the Parti Québecois, led by the charismatic Premier René Lévesque – in the National Assembly of Quebec. [22] Unlike the previous premier, Bourassa, he was not particularly willing to play nice with the government in Ottawa, and immediately got to work attempting to establish the primacy of the French language in the province. Despite their disappointing results, the Liberals remained as the Official Opposition; the NDP made marginal gains, though these were below expectations for the most part. The Socreds lost several of their Quebec seats, to both the Tories and the Liberals, and though they became competitive in Western Canada once again, they failed to actually break through and win seats – in fact, they served mainly as spoilers, allowing for vote-splitting of the two right-wing parties (themselves, and the PCs), for NDP candidates to come up the middle between them. (The Liberals, once again, failed to win a single seat west of Manitoba.)

Across the Pond, in another Commonwealth Realm, in another election also held in early 1978, the status quo also endured. Though they lost seats, the Whitelaw Conservatives had far too great a lead in the House of Commons for their majority to have been whittled away, and the campaign by Michael Foot (who was on the far left of even his own party) did not endear him to the moderate swing voters, many of whom felt that Whitelaw was being far too easy on the trade unions. (Foot did not make the disastrous gaffe of claiming that Whitelaw was being too hard on them, but that was one of the few “risky positions” he did not take, with predictable results.) The Liberal Party performed moderately well in the election, gaining ground from the Conservatives, as did the Scottish National Party, who gained solely from the Tories in the election. However, the Conservatives (through their Ulster Unionist allies) performed well in Northern Ireland, where the situation had improved considerably from the late-1960s. Whitelaw was thus returned in 1978 with a majority of 73 (reduced from 142 in 1974) [23], though with the expectation that a confrontation with the trade unions – deferred during his first term thanks to the improving economy – would be inevitable in his second, especially after the second recession settled in by the end of that year.

In the United States, the elections of 1978 were, predictably, not terribly good news for the governing Republicans, who had reached their peak and had nowhere to go but down. That said, it was unfortunate for President Reagan that the late-1970s recession hit in the third quarter of 1978 – late enough that the Canadian federal election and United Kingdom general elections had already taken place, but not those of the United States, which were bound by law to occur on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of each and every November. Even so, a particular sticking point for many within the party was that many of the liberal and moderate Republicans who had worked with Democrats to stymie some of the proposed bills favoured by Reaganites had been returned, including Clifford P. Case in New Jersey and, surprisingly, Edward Brooke in Massachusetts, maintaining the two-member standing of minorities within the Upper Chamber. [24] But perhaps not coincidentally, the Republicans saw better-than-expected voter retention with minorities; an estimated quarter of black voters stayed true to the GOP, due largely to the resurgent AIP/ADP allowing Republicans to point to that party as the home of racists, segregationists, and the intolerant. Interestingly enough, and despite the Iranian regime being depicted by its opponents as overly secular and hostile to the historical Islamic communities in the region, the Republicans did better among Muslims than among any other ethno-religious minority in the United States (Arabs and other “White Muslims” voted overwhelmingly for the GOP; ironically enough, Black Muslims voted far less Republican than either non-Black Muslims or non-Muslim Blacks). It was primarily the working-class white voters who had come out so strongly for Reagan in 1976 who were turning against him now; the socially conservative “Archie Bunker vote” lived on, despite the end of Those Were the Days. Archie Bunker himself no doubt would have been a steadfast supporter of the Briggs Initiative (just as firmly as Carroll O’Connor, the actor who had played him, was a staunch supporter of gay rights), and would no doubt feel deeply betrayed by his one-time idol, “Ree-gan”, for whom he so vigorously campaigned in 1976, in hopes of bringing back the “good old days”. The generation gap and alienation of older people from ever-changing social mores weren’t going away anytime soon.

The American Party, despite being hammered by both the Republicans and the Democrats as “racist”, “fascist”, and “reactionary” – allusions to Adolf Hitler abounded – performed better than it ever had in the 1978 election, winning 22 seats in the House of Representatives and an astonishing five in the Senate, though this jump was partly attributable to the death of incumbent Alabama Senator James Allen, at which time Governor George Wallace (who was term-limited, and could not run for that office again) appointed himself to replace him, winning the special Senate election of 1978 without serious opposition; even the “National Democrats” did not run anyone against him, focusing their energies on the other seat, vacated by Independent Democrat John Sparkman, which was also won by the ADP (House Leader Walter Flowers sought that golden opportunity to move on up). Their success was obviously due to their having co-opted the social conservative vote, even in areas far afield from their traditional Southern base. Their 1972 candidate for Vice-President, John G. Schmitz, ran for and won a State Senate seat in California, even as the Briggs Initiative which he supported went down in flames. [25] However, it was not all sunshine and roses for the American Party; their 1976 candidate for President, and Leader in the Senate, Lester Maddox, was narrowly defeated in a three-way race to retain his Georgia seat, losing to another former Governor, Democrat Jimmy Carter. [26] It was an unquestionable bright spot for the Democratic party, given their underwhelming result opposite the Republicans, who, despite moderate losses in both chambers of Congress, maintained their commanding leads there – the full impact of the recession would not become obvious until 1979, and many voters remained wary of handing power back to the Democrats (who had enjoyed unfettered control of the US government for fourteen years) so soon – one of the reasons that the third-option American Party did so well. The AIP/ADP won more seats in the House than any third party since the Populists in 1896 (though, it must be said, the Populists won a larger percentage of seats, as the House was smaller at that time).

Though the old Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, remained in the Senate, he stepped down from his leadership position, tired of constant squabbles between the various factions of the Republican Party, and deciding to serve out the remainder of his term as a backbencher. A more diplomatic candidate, Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee, was chosen to replace him. In the House, on the other hand, Rep. Gerald Ford continued to serve as Speaker of the House; though he, like Scott, was a moderate, he thoroughly enjoyed holding the Speakership and was well-regarded by all of his fellow Representatives on both sides of the aisle.

Perhaps the most widely-followed election of 1978 had nothing to do with any of the democratic governments of the world, but with the Conclave in the Vatican City, which was due to select another Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the previous Pontiff (Paul VI) having died after a fifteen-year tenure. There were some 750 million Catholics in the world, more than in any other country save for Red China, and so the question of who would be chosen as the spiritual leader of more than one-sixth the global population was obviously one which would have major ramifications. Many from within and without the Catholic community were vocal in their opinions as to which sort of man should become the next Bishop of Rome; or, more accurately, as to which sort of man should not. No non-Italian had served as Pope since Adrian VI, 450 years earlier, and indeed many felt that the next Pontiff should have come from outside Europe, let alone Italy, as the Catholic population was burgeoning in the Third World. However, of the historic assemblage of over 100 Cardinals, more than half of these were European, and a full quarter were Italian; this proportion included all of the serious candidates, just as had always been the case. In fact, the list of papabile in 1978 included a notable contender from previous Conclaves in Cardinal Giuseppe Siri. A staunch conservative, he failed to consolidate support from the liberal and moderate Cardinals; however, said liberals and moderates also failed to coalesce around one of their own as an alternative. This impasse resulted in a compromise candidate after the third day of voting: the affable, well-regarded, and perpetually smiling Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, who took the Papal name of Innocent XIV, which was something of a throwback, as the previous Pope Innocent had reigned over 250 years before. [27] The famous proclamation “Habemus Papam!”, followed by the crowning of Pope Innocent XIV with the famous Papal Tiara, came on March 15, 1978 (ironically, the Ides of March, a fateful day indeed for a prior Pontifex Maximus); just in time for the new Pope to prepare for Easter celebrations the following week. [28] And so, the cycle began anew…

---

[1] The filibuster, though hardly invented by American politicians, was certainly perfected by them. IOTL, legislation was passed in 1975 which allowed to the support of only three-fifths of serving Senators (usually 60) to invoke cloture (ending debate). ITTL, this legislation did not pass, for a variety of reasons (up to and including it having been filibustered by the acknowledged masters, the Democrats and the Americans). After 1976, the GOP was finally able to pass a similar law ITTL.

[2] The last party with widespread national support to have a sustained tenure in Congress – the Populists – predate the establishment of formal leadership positions in the House and the Senate. IOTL, no such third party has yet emerged since then, but the AIP seems to be here to stay by the late 1970s ITTL.

[3] IOTL, the United States never returned to the Gold Standard after the “Nixon Shock” of 1971. ITTL, the “Golden Interregnum” lasted for about three years.

[4] Most of this tax legislation was passed in 1981-82 IOTL.

[5] G. Gordon Liddy is best known IOTL for his involvement in the White House Plumbers until President Richard M. Nixon. However, this followed a failed attempt to primary Rep. Hamilton Fish, IV, in the 28th Congressional District of New York in 1968, which was then in Dutchess County. He would be elected in the Republican Revolution of 1974 ITTL.

[6] Steiger, ITTL, ran for President in 1976, as opposed to running for Senate; IOTL, he won that the primary against paleoconservative John Bertrand Conlan, who did make great hay of Steiger’s ethnicity as part of a very ugly and hard-fought campaign. Conlan thus won the Senate seat ITTL, where he serves alongside none other than Barry Goldwater, Sr. Steiger later switched the Libertarian Party, on whose ticket he ran for Governor in 1982, before indeed becoming a talk radio host in later life.

[7] This comes verbatim from an OTL editorial written by Reagan, and published on November 1, 1978.

[8] No, Takei does not “come out” at any point while emphasizing his opposition to the Briggs Initiative, especially as he makes plans for a national run.

[9] Wilson did the same thing IOTL, though he was on the whole more successful in doing so ITTL (though he’ll never be the next Parkinson or the like).

[10] The more moderate James Callaghan became Labour leader upon Wilson’s resignation in 1976 IOTL. Foot would not become the party leader until 1980, after Callaghan was massively defeated by the Tories, led by a Mrs Thatcher, in the 1979 general election.

[11] Mitterrand, IOTL, the President of France from 1981 to 1995, was the strongest advocate for what became the Euro, using it as a bargaining chip during the German reunification process. By this time, of course, the United Kingdom was already part of the EEC (soon to become the EU), though it still opted out of the Euro.

[12] That accident caused him a severe brain hemorrhage IOTL, which led him to effectively step down from his longtime position as Prime Minister in 1968; ITTL, he is able to secure his succession before his (slightly later) death.

[13] Tomas remained President until the Carnation Revolution of 1974 IOTL.

[14] Portugal retained only Macau IOTL. East Timor, upon gaining independence, was immediately invaded by Indonesia.

[15] IOTL, the unpopular Queen Mother also died in (elective and cosmetic) surgery, in 1981. ITTL, this happens in 1976 instead.

[16] A popular vote taking place in early 1979 to confirm the restoration of Constantine II as King of the Hellenes gives him 55% support; IOTL, he received 30% support in the 1974 referendum (though this was up 10% from another referendum, held in the previous year). It should also be noted that Constantine II has largely stayed away from Greek politics during his exile, though not always by choice; however, this endears him to his people and gives his promises to reign as a constitutional monarch some additional weight.

[17] Support for the monarchy in many of these European countries is, perhaps, overstated by monarchists and their sympathisers; even in Portugal and Greece, it was a near-run thing. However, and as you might imagine, it does not stop alternate historians from suggesting that various other European countries (most frequently Italy – after all, the May King, Umberto II, was still alive at the time) might have gone monarchist in the 1970s.

[18] These minor incidents rapidly escalated by early 1979, of course, developing into the Iranian Revolution. The Shah repeatedly appealed to the United States for help in the late 1970s IOTL, but was met with continued rejections; ITTL, the staunchly anti-communist and interventionist President Ronald Reagan sends troops in the summer of 1978, against the advice of his staffers, and is able to delay the fatal blows long enough for last-ditch reforms to take hold.

[19] The use of the traditional Romanized spelling Tse-tung for his name, as opposed to the “official” Pinyin of Zedong, is deliberate, as is the use of Peking (reserved in the present-day of OTL only for duck) instead of Beijing.

[20] Turner did indeed replace Trudeau as leader upon the latter’s retirement in 1984 IOTL, serving briefly as PM before his party suffered a massive defeat in that year’s election. For the NDP, Ed Broadbent (representing the urban, working-class riding of Oshawa) was chosen as leader over Nystrom upon the resignation of David Lewis IOTL, but Broadbent was defeated by Michael Starr in 1972 ITTL and (after a failed 1974 rematch) returned to academia. Finally, after Caouette retired from politics (greatly injured in a snowmobile accident), Fortin did indeed replace him as leader, before he died tragically in a car crash.

[21] Mount Royal, purportedly the strongest Liberal riding in Canada, nearly went Tory in their landslide victories of 1958 and 1984, as well as in 2011 IOTL. Though it went Liberal in the by-election following Trudeau’s resignation, that came before the investment by the government in Montreal bore fruit (with the successful Olympic Games, and then the launch of the Montreal-to-Mirabel “Rocket” line).

[22] The Union Conservateur won over 12 seats in 1976 ITTL (Union Nationale won only 11 seats IOTL), with over 20% of the vote (only 18% IOTL), clearing both thresholds for Official Party Status in the National Assembly (it is not clear if the Union Nationale was recognized as such IOTL, as sometimes exceptions have been made).

[23] In 1979 IOTL, the Tories formed a workable majority of 42.

[24] Both Case and Brooke lost in 1978 IOTL – in fact, Case was successfully primaried.

[25] Schmitz is the highest-profile AIP/ADP legislator from a nominally “liberal” state, being a member of the Upper House of the state legislature.

[26] Carter did not attempt his maverick Presidential run in 1976 ITTL, given the Muskie-Jackson Battle of the Titans.

[27] IOTL, of course, Cardinal Albino Luciani was chosen as the compromise candidate instead, and he selected the Papal name John Paul, in honour of his two immediate predecessors, John XXIII and Paul VI. It was the first double-barrelled Papal name in history, and the first new Papal name chosen in over a millennium (since Pope Lando in the early tenth century). He lasted about a month in the position before he was succeeded by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, who took the name John Paul II in his honour.

[28] John Paul I retired the Papal Tiara IOTL; Paul VI had used it only for the Papal coronation, a tradition that Innocent XIV chooses to continue.

---

Many thanks to Thande, vultan, and my newest consultant, Dan1988, for their invaluable advice in the making of this update! Also, thanks to Archangel for his help with Portugal, and to Don_Giorgio for his help with Greece. And, finally, thanks again to e of pi for proofing. It took quite some time to bring everything together, but I hope that you all found it as enjoyable to read as I found it rewarding to write! Though, I must admit, this update was never too far from threatening to run away from me.

There is an awful lot of information to digest in this very long update, for which I must apologize. I’ll be happy to answer any and all questions you might have, and I hope to post infoboxes with regards to the vital statistics of the various elections I’ve discussed in this update (except for the Papal Conclave, of course).

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Awesome update Brainbin. No Iranian Revolution, means no Argo ITTL.

 

[Lord Insane]

Uh-oh. Going back on the gold standard? That... is not the good idea the influential Republican economic minds think.

 

[stevep]

Brainbin

Fascinating and entertaining. I rather like the way Britain is developing although hopefully Whitelaw will now face up to the unions. He should be able to win and re-balance power in Britain without going to the excesses of Thatcher and her successors.

Going to be interesting in Iran as the Shah hangs on, although not really sure if he was intelligent enough for real reform so it could just delay matters. Also I like that Portugal keeps E Timor and hence prevents the bloody Indonesian occupation.

On the other hand it sounds like China is seeing their gang of four or TTL equivalent being successful. Meaning their going to be much less of an economic threat but something of a military one. How long before US military support, excluding boots on the ground, is being set to communist Vietnam, or possibly more likely it will be the Russians providing support, in which case the Amur could flare up again. I take it in TTL Taiwan still holds the 5th permanent seat in the UN.

We could see a markedly better relationship between the west and the Soviets as they both look with concern on events in China. The attempts to gain influence in India could be messy as that state was somewhat unstable at the time and some regions had significant communist influence. However how closely they would be to the Maoist viewpoint I don't know. Another potential flash point might be Macau and Hong Kong. The other potential problem is what is going on in Afghanistan as pressingly the USSR is seeking to expand influence here but may need to step in to secure control, especially if also possibly clashing with Maoist elements.

What is the situation in the ME? Can't remember if the 73 war happened and if so whether you have had Egypt start to change to a pro-western stance? Also the big depression at the end of the decade comes a bit earlier and [so far anyway] isn't related to another big oil hike.

I presume when you say Spain gave up all its colonies you include the former Spanish Sahara, which has probably been occupied by Morocco as OTL but do you include the two coastal cities?

Anyway a very interesting world you have here.

Steve

 

[Thande]

Good and very long update. A lot to digest, as you say.

As LordInsane says, going back on the gold standard is a very bad idea, as Winston Churchill found in the 1920s. Ben Disraeli predicted this would happen: he said that people would associate the gold standard with good economic times in the 19th century and thus think the adoption of the gold standard caused a good economy, when the reality was that a good economy caused the adoption of the gold standard, and if the economy was currently weak then the gold standard would just make it worse.

Just as was the case in the United States, the government in the United Kingdom had a seemingly-insurmountable lead in its (popular) legislature, the House of Commons.

I know you mean as in the other meaning of the word, 'elected by the people' etc., but it's just wrong to use the words 'popular' and 'House of Commons' in the same sentence

The monarchist revival is interesting--as you say in the text, it's one of those things which is unlikely on paper, but we know from the OTL lone example of Spain that it can happen, and Spain had just as much hostility to its monarchy as Portugal. Naturally recent events have shown that this restoration may not be permanent, of course...

The bit about still using Wade-Giles and terms like 'Red China' suggests China is not going to open up any time soon and is likely to delay its OTL rise as an economic power. I should point out that the adjective is 'Pekinese', not 'Pekingese' (I believe this stems from inconsistent transliteration back in Victorian times, with the French normally spelling it Pekin without a G) although it sounds rather daft to our ears because we now think of that solely as a name of a breed of dog (for similar reasons it is hard to talk about people from Alsace or Dalmatia...)

I wonder if this will also change the rise of things like kung fu films and programmes based on Chinese literature like The Water Margin becoming popular in the West, as happened OTL in the 70s...

echoed the provincial situation, in which the former French-Canadian parochial nationalist party, the Union Nationale (which had merged with a social credit splinter group and was subsequent renamed the Union Conservateur) won significant support among Anglophone voters for the first time.

I seem to recall being told that the word 'conservateur' has negative connotations to French speakers both in France and Quebec, hence why francophone conservative parties tend to avoid it, though you might well know more than me on this.

Even so, a particular sticking point for many within the party was that many of the liberal and moderate Republicans who had worked with Democrats to stymie some of the proposed bills favoured by Reaganites had been returned, including Clifford P. Case in New Jersey and, surprisingly, Edward Brooke in Massachusetts, maintaining the two-member standing of minorities within the Upper Chamber.

Interesting--was this inspired by recent OTL events in American politics, when Obama supposedly had a supermajority in both chambers but often couldn't pass the laws he wanted because some of the Democrats in question were moderate to conservative 'Blue Dogs'?

Anyway, glad I could be of some help with the British portions of this.

 

[stevep]

Good and very long update. A lot to digest, as you say.

Very true.

As LordInsane says, going back on the gold standard is a very bad idea, as Winston Churchill found in the 1920s. Ben Disraeli predicted this would happen: he said that people would associate the gold standard with good economic times in the 19th century and thus think the adoption of the gold standard caused a good economy, when the reality was that a good economy caused the adoption of the gold standard, and if the economy was currently weak then the gold standard would just make it worse.

Agree, both that going back to gold is likely to cause problems and that Disraeli highlights a broader problem of people confusing chance events or trends with results that are often totally unrelated to them.

I know you mean as in the other meaning of the word, 'elected by the people' etc., but it's just wrong to use the words 'popular' and 'House of Commons' in the same sentence

I know it sounds unnatural but then we are talking about 70' Britain and furthermore an alternative one. It hasn't yet seen the victory of despair and the abandonment of the idea that people can work together for progress. Morally hadn't been rejected, although a number of the paths towards it being advocated were distinctly dubious. Hopefully TTL will avoid that totally. [Or is it just that I was young and optimistic then and old and cynical now?]

The monarchist revival is interesting--as you say in the text, it's one of those things which is unlikely on paper, but we know from the OTL lone example of Spain that it can happen, and Spain had just as much hostility to its monarchy as Portugal. Naturally recent events have shown that this restoration may not be permanent, of course...

In the long term nothing is permanent. However could see such a revival in such circumstances, with a few favourable tweaks.

I wonder if this will also change the rise of things like kung fu films and programmes based on Chinese literature like The Water Margin becoming popular in the West, as happened OTL in the 70s...

Probably not as both OTL were successful prior to Mao even dying and while China was still struggling with the aftermath of the cultural revolution. In fact it could be that thinks that looked back to ancient Chinese traditions and myths could be see an a counter-part to the ultra hard line China of the time. I.e. elements saying 'this is the true China not the bunch of thugs in Peking/Beijing. IIRC we're already had a successful kung-fu series, although distinctly different from the OTL one.

Steve

 

[Brainbin]

Thank you all for your comments so far! As always, your questions and observations will be answered at a time when I am able to give them the thoughtful response that they so richly deserve. In the meantime, a small programming note: I have attached a map to the beginning of the latest update, depicting the economic situation in Europe during the height of the Backwards Bloc era. I apologize for the crudity of the illustration, as cartography is not one of my strengths; however, they do say that a picture is worth a thousand words. All the better, since the update itself was already 8,000 words long... The infoboxes and other visual aids will follow, though not quite so rapidly, alas.