American Monarchy

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Campbell1004, May 8, 2009.

  1. Campbell1004 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    New England
    Technically this begins before 1900, but ends in the current year. Its not even a timeline.... just something I cooked up.

    Washington Dynasty (1783 – 1829)

    King George I (1783 – 1799)
    King Bushrod (1799 – 1829)

    Adams Dynasty (1829 – Incumbent)

    King John I (1829 – 1848)
    King Charles (1848 – 1886)
    King John II (1886 – 1894)
    King Charles II (1894 – 1954)
    King Charles III (1954 – 1999)
    King Charles IV (1999 – Incumbent)

    Comments are required to continue existing.
     
  2. metalstar316 Minion of the Wicked

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    East Virginia.
    I guess the POD is Washington installs himself as emperor? There seems to be a lot of that lately.
     
  3. jorbian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    I think they would take different reignal names... I think Bushrod might have taken George II...
     
  4. Campbell1004 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    New England
    Metalstar316 - I believe Washington was offered the chance to serve as a monarchy of a weak central government with strong states rights (correct me if im wrong someone).

    As for this being a popular subject, I believe this has been a popular subject since the beginning of the United States of America, a most prominent and alluring what if?

    Jorbian - Despite what Bushrod may or may not have done regarding his name. I chose to use the original names of the sons, because I believe that though this is a monarchy, it is an American monarchy. And who ever said that we Americans do things the way that anyone else does things?

    I also wanted because to be able to recognize the actual historical persons.
     
  5. Lord Grattan consigned to OTL

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Location:
    Michigan USA
    This scenario is a well plowed field. Have you done a forum search to see what others have written previously on the subject?
     
  6. Campbell1004 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    New England
    I have but was unsatisfied with the end result. It is much more fun to make your own.
     
  7. Zioneer Grumpy Mormon Left-winger

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Location:
    People's Republic of Deseret
    Why go the whole monarchy way? Why not try something between a kingdom and a republic? Why not a noble republic?

    Doge George Washington has a nice ring to it.
     
  8. Campbell1004 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    New England
    Because I thought an American Superpower Monarchy in modern times would be interesting. Would you mind telling me what a Noble Republic is?
     
  9. Umbric Man Umbric Manned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Location:
    Middle of Whoa-Hio
    Sounds like 'oligarchy' to me. ;):p
     
  10. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    It's a Republic where power rests in the hands of a few very important nobles. These nobles are usually more than just the upper echelons of the aristocracy, they essentially ARE the aristocracy - if there are other land owners, they are insignificant next to these nobles. The nobles then rule the country as a council, with their right to sit on the council being hereditary. Among them, they also elect one man every year (or sometimes for the lifetime of the elected man) to be their ruler - in Italy this figure was given the title "Doge".

    It's really a system best suited to merchant republics, though - countries where the national income is so closely related to the personal fortunes of the big business-owning families that those businessmen are the natural rulers of the country anyway. But it could be adapted for other situations.
     
  11. Campbell1004 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    New England
    I like that idea a lot, and I feel it could apply to a mercantile-keen America with ports up and down the east coast. But the problem with such an America is the fact that Britannia rules the Waves. If Britain ever wanted to hurt America they could just blockade their shipping and the American economy goes to shit.

    It could easily be adapted to the south, where the most powerful plantation owners head the state in some sort of council. Seems very realistic to me.
     
  12. Tom Kalbfus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    I think Thomas Jefferson might have something to say about this. How about having Jefferson filling the role of Oliver Cromwell, in that he overthrows the monarchy for a time, but his measures are so extreme, and he turns out to be so antislavery, that the slaveowning classes support a return to the monarchy, then we pick up with John Quincy Adams for example. I think there are way too many Charleses for example and too many Roman numerals too. I think American Monarchy would follow the early Roman example where the Roman Emperors picked their successors and groomed them for power rather than their firstborn male heir outomatically inheriting the throne. An unexpected death of a monarch might lead to an American Queen however.
     
  13. Tom Kalbfus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    I think the Americans did rebel against something, I think if we did a monarchy, we'd do it differently from the British whom we were rebelling against. I like the early Roman Model. I think support of the military institutions and the military's support of the Emperor or King would be key. The person who wanted to be Emperor would therefore strive to be popular among the ranks of the Army and if popular enough the Army would make that person Emperor. The decline of Rome only really began when Emperors began inheriting the throne from their fathers, this tends to produce medeocre leadership and crazies such as Nero and Caligula. I think the leaders of an American Monarchy would be well versed on classical Roman history, and if they give a fig about the country they lead, they would want to select whoever they think would run the country best rather than their children, at least if their ego doesn't get in the way. Now if we want a superpower American monarchy, it has to do things right for a time in order to get their, so the corrupt decandent monarchs would have to come later in history rather than earlier. The Earlier Kings would have to be more in the mold of Augustus Caesar rather than Nero.
     
  14. ImperialVienna Franz Joseph's Moustache

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Empire of Greater Pennsylvania
    Here's an alternate proposal:
    House of Washington
    George I (1783 - 1799)
    House of Washington-Cutis
    George II (1799 - 1857)
    Mary I (1857 - 1873)
    House of Lee
    George III (1873 - 1913)
    Robert I/George IV/Anne I/Mary II (1913 - ????)
     
  15. Campbell1004 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    New England
    House of Washington (1783 – 1799)
    King George (1783 – 1799)

    First American Republic (1799 – 1805)

    President Thomas Jefferson (1799 – 1805)

    House of Adams (1805 -

    King John (1805 – 1848)


    I need someone to succeed John Q. Adams, and someone to succeed him who doesnt like slavery. That will make a path for the Second American Republic, and after a second civil war a Constitutional Monarchy will be instituted.



    Will work on it later.
     
  16. Tom Kalbfus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    How did slavery die in the Roman Empire?
    John Q. Adams was antislavery, and it is in fact easier to end slavery if your an empire rather than a republic, especially if you have a large standing army to enforce your edicts. All emperors and Kings aren't all bad just like all Presidents aren't all good. In a democracy you have a method for removing bad presidents, in an empire, the emperor or king can afford to some degree to be unpopular with his people. An Emperor sees things from his point of view, that is how to maintain his power, he doesn't necessarily give a squat about the slaveowners down south, he has to make the calculation about what's best for him and his dynasty. Slavery is inefficient, the Monarch has only to look at the example of France to see what happens if there is a general uprising, and in such things Kings and Emperors may lose their heads. I think a successful monarch is going to be guided by Adam Smith, and will probably see things such as slavery as inconsistent with free market principles, and might like to add to the tax roles by taxing freed slaves as well. Besides overly powerful slave-owners might become rivals to the King, something he could do without.
     
  17. The Kiat I'm going to Nixonland!

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    The Left side of the State.
    I can't see a man like Washington wanting to be king. He had the chance and walked away.


    And where are the American names? Charles? Wouldn't he be King Charlie?
     
  18. Wolfpaw Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Location:
    God Hates Flags
    House of Washington
    • King George I (1789-1799)
    House of Washington-Custis
    • King George II (1799-1857)
    • Queen Mary I (1857-1871)
    House of Washington-Custis-Lee
    • King George III (1871-1913)
    • King Robert I (1913-1914)
    • King Robert II (1914-1922)
    • King George IV (1922-1948)
    • King Robert III (1948-present)
     
  19. Narrava New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    What if, say, the war would last too long. The major Eurpean powers would not intervene directly. Resources of both sides would be slowly depleting and Britain agrees to give the U.S.A semi-independence (something like Canada, but with more rights, I guess). Washington would become the king of the new U.S.A.

    The Washington dynasty (especially Bushrod) would follow an pro-British line, this would make them unpopular amongst the Americans, which still remember the stories of the heroic struggle for independence.
    This results into an Adams coup, which would be using support of most of the American Nobility (they are all, most certainly, for an full independence), and the second American war for independence.
    This time, using the support not only of most of the population (~70%), but also of the "six nations" (despite the benefits they gained from remaining loyal to the crown, they joined on the side of U.S.A.in hope of gainig full independence, which was promiced by the decisive Adams) the revolution turns into an owervhelming success. Thus into an full independence of the states, and perhaps, more land (say, Canada, inspired by the fact the British had actually given up part of their positions in America decides to join the union. Not completely of course, it would bekome an United Kingdom of Canada and America (yes, I know, Canada IS America, got to come up with a better name)).
    What next? Conflicts with the independent Iroquois? Leaves a field for fantasy
     
  20. AmIndHistoryAuthor Banned

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Interesting to imagine the public reaction to stories about Venus Williams and Washington under TTL. Regardless of whether the stories were true or not, I could see Venus's children becoming a rallying point for slave revolts and/or abolitionists, a claim on the throne from no less than slaves.