If you have Lafayette use "Gilbert" you'd delay the inevitable "George III" for at least a generation. Presumably by then relations with Britain would be much better. I also like the idea of an American Emperor. "Emperor Gilbert I of these United States" has a nice ring to it.
Death of a Republic (A monarchical USA timeline)
- Thread starter Schnozzberry
- Start date
If you have Lafayette use "Gilbert" you'd delay the inevitable "George III" for at least a generation. Presumably by then relations with Britain would be much better. I also like the idea of an American Emperor. "Emperor Gilbert I of these United States" has a nice ring to it.
George Benjamin has a nice ring. But I still favor Gilbert. After all the custom of regnal names may not sit well with this recently republican nation, could be seen to be putting airs on a tad; to have the king be someone too good for the name he was born with.
I sgree that king may be too close to the PreRevolution. Emperor would be the first pack with its history of election. But it would also I think draw some unflattering parallels. Grand Prince was a title I had not considered. The meaning of prince works well. Hmm, perhaps the monarch would be Prince of each State and then Grand Prince of the Union as a whole?
I sgree that king may be too close to the PreRevolution. Emperor would be the first pack with its history of election. But it would also I think draw some unflattering parallels. Grand Prince was a title I had not considered. The meaning of prince works well. Hmm, perhaps the monarch would be Prince of each State and then Grand Prince of the Union as a whole?
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
All of these ideas are pretty cool. While they are good ideas, I won't be doing regnal names, just because I don't think Americans would be too happy with an excessively ornate monarchy. For the same reason, I don't think they would use the title of Emperor. But that will change.
But I do like the idea of using Prince instead of King or Duke. My main idea was to have America be ruled by a Grand Duke or a First Duke, but I think Grand Prince or First Prince would sound better; and with the fact that Prince does come from the Latin for "First Citizen," it would make the monarchy seem more in lines with American ideals of Liberty and Equality.
As for the states though, they will definitely be using a lot of different titles. For a while, I've got an idea of a "Title War" between the states, where each state adopts increasingly ornate titles like "Supreme Grand Archduke." This will end pretty quickly, but even afterwards there will be plenty of different titles like Duke, Margrave, Count, Landgrave, etc.
But I do like the idea of using Prince instead of King or Duke. My main idea was to have America be ruled by a Grand Duke or a First Duke, but I think Grand Prince or First Prince would sound better; and with the fact that Prince does come from the Latin for "First Citizen," it would make the monarchy seem more in lines with American ideals of Liberty and Equality.
As for the states though, they will definitely be using a lot of different titles. For a while, I've got an idea of a "Title War" between the states, where each state adopts increasingly ornate titles like "Supreme Grand Archduke." This will end pretty quickly, but even afterwards there will be plenty of different titles like Duke, Margrave, Count, Landgrave, etc.
The states will be kept?! Will the (lets call it that) Prince be the head of state (duke, minor prince, margrave, landgrave, count) of every state or will they be assigned of? And will there be a centralizer who will do away with the states in favor of a more centralized province system with different, more compact and smaller borders for each one?
So First/High Prince would be Lafayette's original title but he'd be later be retroactively declared the first Emperor of the United States? I still like the Emperor ruling over a collection of sovreign states that @LordVorKon implied that it would be.
I personally don't like using Prince as the title of the head of state. It's just too well associated with the heir to the throne for my taste. I personally like Grand Duke more. I can understand the symbolism behind the idea.
I do like the idea of increasingly arrogant titles for the states, though.
It may be a little early but I'll be looking forward to TTL's version of Mormonism popping up in the future.
Hmm, High Prince. I have ever heard that title outside of Brandon Sanderson, and there its one word: Highprince.
That may be to the good, a new title for a new kind of monarchy. Uncoventional would be a selling point. "Not a King or Emperor to reign over these people. But one raised up by the people and entrusted with the crown and throne by their will. A High Prince. And by this divine right of the peopel may he reign and by it too may he be cast down should he err from the path of the righteous!"
High Prince Gilbert I, of the House of La Fayette, Lawful Sovereign of the Union, its States, and its Territories, Protector of the Constitution, Defender of all Faiths, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and First Citizen of the Electorate.
That may be to the good, a new title for a new kind of monarchy. Uncoventional would be a selling point. "Not a King or Emperor to reign over these people. But one raised up by the people and entrusted with the crown and throne by their will. A High Prince. And by this divine right of the peopel may he reign and by it too may he be cast down should he err from the path of the righteous!"
High Prince Gilbert I, of the House of La Fayette, Lawful Sovereign of the Union, its States, and its Territories, Protector of the Constitution, Defender of all Faiths, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and First Citizen of the Electorate.
Skallagrim
Banned
There is also the fact that, quite apart from the obviously handy 'Princeps' connection, the word 'prince' used to mean 'ruler' or 'sovereign' in a general sense. Think of Machiavelli's The Prince, which could more accurately be called The Ruler. There was a whole genre of 'educational works' intended to instruct rulers, and these books were typically called 'mirrors for princes'.
So calling the monarch of the USA a prince isn't actually that far-fetched.
So calling the monarch of the USA a prince isn't actually that far-fetched.
Who is in France right now to dissuade or encourage the Marquis regarding an offered throne? Would his wife support such a move? After all it would mean leaving France, never to return save perhaps as a state visit and even that seems unlikely with the journey involved and the burdens they would take up.
I still think the capital city will end up named for Washington.
I still think the capital city will end up named for Washington.
I think America will retake North Carolina. Both to secure Virginia and to link up with Franklin. But I wonder if they can press further South than that?
Pointlessly stumbling along the pre-1900 when all of a sudden I hear Gilbert I .... I hope you like squatters, because I'm akin to a cockaroach.
To be truthful, I'd been toying with the idea myself for fun, but hadn't found much discussion on the subject, so this excites me! May I ask, as I prepare to look through what's already written, is it fair to assume this will be a constitutional monarchy with a remaining elective legislature?
Edit: I've jumped the gun on Gilbert I, I realize, but there's hope and I don't wanna pack all my stuff up. I for one think Lafayette could do a lot for early Protestant-Catholic relations within the American monarchy. Every American views him as a hero of the Revolution. If made monarch, his descedents are unlikely to stay Catholic, but having the first ruler of the country being a highly respected, and revered Catholic could have a very positive effect on America's psyche.
To be truthful, I'd been toying with the idea myself for fun, but hadn't found much discussion on the subject, so this excites me! May I ask, as I prepare to look through what's already written, is it fair to assume this will be a constitutional monarchy with a remaining elective legislature?
Edit: I've jumped the gun on Gilbert I, I realize, but there's hope and I don't wanna pack all my stuff up. I for one think Lafayette could do a lot for early Protestant-Catholic relations within the American monarchy. Every American views him as a hero of the Revolution. If made monarch, his descedents are unlikely to stay Catholic, but having the first ruler of the country being a highly respected, and revered Catholic could have a very positive effect on America's psyche.
Last edited:
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
The capital will be in a different spot, after all Washington did choose it to be real close to his home but with him being dead, that won't happen.
Well, for as cool as it would be to keep New Africa, it isn't a proper Haiti-esque situation. There are still a hundred thousand whites in New African territory, and with winter coming up, well there might be a food problem.
I'm glad you like it, even for things that (while likely) are still uncertain. The USA will be a Constitutional monarchy, with the King's powers being fairly weak. I think the best descriptor would be a "crowned republic."
And the improved association with Catholics is without a doubt one of the big reasons why I'm leaning towards Lafayette. Imagine an America more willing to assimilate when imperial ambitions turn towards Latin America, and an America more willing to take more immigrants from South and Central Europe. It's a big cultural change that would be pretty interesting in my opinion.
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
Perhaps the Pope might even visit the USA before 1965. I need to do some more research on the papacy though before I get too much farther with this. I'll confess to being a protestant, and therefore fairly unaware of how the
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
Also, before I forget yet again, I made another spoiler Wikipedia infobox for 10K views, but I've been forgetting to post it and now this timeline's gotten to 13K views. So, anywho, here's a large spoiler about everyone's favorite bull moose.
Really? I had not realized.
One unfortunate side effect of a Catholic monarch may be an association between hard line republicans and hardline Protestants in the years too come.
One notion bouncing in my head is that New Hampshire holds to republicanism and withdraws from the union and is joined by Vermont and Maine in a Northern Union.
Md139115
Banned
Don't worry, as a Catholic, I would be happy to help. Anything for a
Similarly to the cultural impact of a beloved Catholic monarch, the rise and fall of New Africa could mean a lot for the development of the young Union, in either the positive or the negative. If, however far down the line, conditions don't improve for minorities, like the African Americans, the memory of New Africa could be the very base of African nationalism.
Depending on the reaction to New Africa's defeat, I see the possibility of the nation going down one of two, rather polar opposite, paths. Either way, the Carolinas and Georgia are going to be political non-entities for a time as they recover as, though they'd have their votes, they wouldn't have a lot of political weight behind them initially as in OTL, being gutted by the revolt. The federalists and centralizers may be able to accomplish a thing or two in that time, might even see one of those three switch camps if siding with the federalists means greater federal support for repairing the infrastructure of the state.
On one side of the coin, it may be a cause for a great reduction of slavery in this timeline. Not necessarily its death knell, but with a slave revolt having devastated three states, there will be considerably strong arguments to oppose its expansion into the territories. 'Lest we see the Union almost torn apart again.' Depending on how resilient and difficult it would be logistically to route the revolt out completely, there's possibility for negotiation between the two sides, securing some freedoms, possibly designating a state for African Americans in the West?
Such might be a stretch, but it's likely to be a much more popular idea than integration based on the time period, even if representation in Congress is a bit distasteful to the views of false superiority in those times. There's potential in it to create a more us vs. then mentality that could damage race relations later on, but so early in the time frame and the more than likely still distributed African American population, even with their own state, the interactions in the affairs of the country and shared political interests of those in identical geographical circumstances could see them and the rest of the area well integrated with each other by modernity, though it'd be a long road.
Alternatively, after the rebellion is defeated, the general feeling could be that of highly oppressive vengeance. It'd certainly be grim, and I doubt I need go into details with any person of today what the brutality of slavery could be even on good days. Such could lead of repeat revolts, and continued arguments against emancipation, using ridiculous arguments that their freedom would automatically equate with violence. Something like that, or any of the other sort of hogwash reasoned at the time to support the peculiar institution. That could end up going a number of ways.
I find the phrase 'Crowned Republic' to be quite intriguing. There is ample opportunity here to explore different and unique views on society that did not occur IOTL. I could easily see the modernity of this world bringing a whole new assortments of hypocrisies associated with the U.S., as well as a unique view of itself that could become a popular topic of debate.
That subject being the United States continuing to claim the title of the birthplace of modern republicanism, despite having a king. I picture we could see a First Prince/Emperor (I'm kinda digging First Prince as title, it's certainly unique and would add to the State's claim to not be a aristocratic state by any stretch) or prominent politician arguing how the American monarch is different than any other. Speeches like: "The monarch is not given the divine right to rule by god. No, he is raised in American soil, like the sturdy oak, bred among a people of freedom, not to rule a people but be raised by them, with only the intent to safeguard their democratic freedoms forever." Lots of clever, largely philosophical arguments (hopefully better phrased than me in a rapid stretch of brainstorming) that can ultimately be reduced to self-aggrandizement by cynics but would see endless debate and flame wars on forums such as these.
Monarchy and Republicanism, twisted together in such a unique matter, in the shape it takes on the American psyche and how the government operates. There's a excess of options one could take such a culture over two hundred and fifty so years of development. The mental image of a successful and long lasting First French Republic (or something like that) existing in modernity, grinding their teeth whenever the United States declares itself the first bastion of Republicanism is so beautiful to my imagination.
I concur with the sentiments on improved association with Catholics. I'd often imagined a timeline where Canada came into the ranks, and ended up staying (rather difficult, but not unattainable under certain conditions) with the Union having a similar effect. Doubtless a singular person instance such as this would be more effective (being groups of people are much easier to turn into nameless, colorless evils), though in that case I'd not wanted to sacrifice the full republican spirit of the State's enterprise (hadn't considered a different view than anything in OTL, the 'crowned republic').
Speaking of the Québécois a moment however, Lafayette's cultural impact will also assist relations with that group. Shared French descent won't do much because of the Québécois general resentment towards the French for abandoning them. Later generations after Lafayette would likely find love from the French Canadians in their shared respect for the French language. Even if the majority of the nation lies in other beds of culture and belief, having a figure at the helm that holds the traditions and practices of the minority in adoration would do a lot to assuage their position in the Union.... if it ever came to that haha
My assumption is that the only way New Hampshire could do that is if a new, rebel government is declared. The representatives of the legitimate state government ratified the Constitution, in which a section of the agreement was a vote would decide whether the government would be purely Republican or a monarchy. In other words, they agreed to the authority of the vote's ruling when they ratified the Constitution. They would've likely suspected it would've fallen easily on the Republican side upon signature, but....
It's true , of course, that they could declare independence anyways, but it'd be for nought. Whatever men lead this cause, even if they were the ones who signed the document, would be declared illegitimate and a new state government would be declared. They could let them go, but that would mean secession is acceptable practice, a bad principle for a blossoming union to espouse.
I doubt Maine would find itself joined to them, as it is still legally part of Massachusetts. Inhabitants will be few, and far apart. Even if they side with secessionists, they're rebels against the state of Massachusetts. New Hampshire would probably spring right away from that rather than join, as it'd be a gainless engagement that would only obliterate the already dismal chance the Union will allow them independence.
And Vermont, well... the major problem with the independence of any of these three, regardless of the other reasons I've listed, is the most prominent one for why Vermont won't be allowed exit. Giving up any of these northern, underpopulated territories is essentially inviting the British to set up shop. They'll either dominate the small republic(s) in every aspect, or outright annex the lands into Canada. No one wants to feed the British anymore land, it'd be a nightmare for the American self-image if nothing else. Thirteen united colonies fought until freedom, only to have one be swept back into the fold, it'd be humiliating and rhetorically damaging.
Vermont's invasion could also be easily warranted by Congress and King. As of the revolution's end, New York and New Hampshire both claim the territory as their own. If it's solely Vermont, it could be split down the middle between the two. If New Hampshire is part of the fighting, New York will swallow it whole. It'd spell the end of an OTL state, at least for a few decades. No doubt separate statehood movements would be rampant around the Green Mountains either way, with a good chance of being successful once time dulls memory.
In all frankness, however, part of me would much enjoy some British intrusion on what should be American soil in these stressful times. Could alter the political climate in interesting ways, and bring out revanchist patriotic tendencies later on in time.
Also, ya, possible Catholic influence will definitely set those hardliners in the Republican camp for a time at least. Might discredit some of the more extremist views of the group in timeline, but the monarchy will already be severely limited by the democratic spirit that permeates through the country, so they likely won't be synonymous. Then again, it's unlikely anyone comfortable with the constitutional monarchy and its restricted king would self-affiliate as a Republican, rather likely a Democrat as the term becomes more accepted. The affiliation will likely change or wear off as time goes on and the political system evolves. The Democratic Party is no longer the bastion of conservatives and people of the Deep South after all.