That and Bayldon being cast instead of Hartnell so they don't really need to.
Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)
- Status
Maybe I exaggerated with the "you'll have to give me time"... Well, I didn't say how much, I guess. Here's the infobox and bio of Emperor and Autocrat Alexios V. I'll have the map done later - I'm kinda busy with school rn.
Alexios V (Greek: Αλέξιος Κωνσταντῖνος Κάρολος Στέφανος Ιωάννης Δημητήρος Ἀβρᾱᾱ́μ Μιχαήλ Παλαιολόγος-Δανία; romanized: Aléxios Kōnstantînos Károlos Stéphanos Iōánnēs Dēmḗtrios Abrāā́m Mikhaḗl Palaiológos-Danía; born 10 July 1965) is the current Emperor and Autocrat of the Hellenes.
Alexios was born in the Porphyry Room of the Great Palace of Constantinople, as the first child of the Prince and Princess of Hellas (later Theodore IV and Anna-Maria of Byzantium and Denmark). His father ascended the throne after the death of his uncle Michael XI in 1977, making 12-year-old Alexius the heir apparent. He received his primary, secondary and tertiary education in Constantinople and obtained a degree and masters in economics at the Aristotelian University of Thessalonica. In 1991, he married Duchess Catherine Mavrocordata, with whom he has five children: Princess Maria Irene (born 1992), Constantine Alexander, Prince of Hellas (born 1994), Prince George Pamphilus (born 1996), Prince Philip Simon (born 2000) and Prince Basil Nicholas (born 2003).
When his father died in 2006, after 29 years of reign, Alexios became the Emperor and Autocrat of the Hellenes and reigned over Greece, Anatolia, Cyrenaica, Azania, Erythræa, Antipodæa, and multiple other Indian, Chinese and Indonesian coastal enclaves. Since then, Alexios has reigned as a constitutional monarch, retaining significant powers. Currently, one of the main concerns of Alexios is the rising tensions in the Empire's Azanian provinces, with an ethnic and religious conflict between the Greek ắpoikoi and the native Azanians that has been slowly escalating since 1999.
Alexios was born in the Porphyry Room of the Great Palace of Constantinople, as the first child of the Prince and Princess of Hellas (later Theodore IV and Anna-Maria of Byzantium and Denmark). His father ascended the throne after the death of his uncle Michael XI in 1977, making 12-year-old Alexius the heir apparent. He received his primary, secondary and tertiary education in Constantinople and obtained a degree and masters in economics at the Aristotelian University of Thessalonica. In 1991, he married Duchess Catherine Mavrocordata, with whom he has five children: Princess Maria Irene (born 1992), Constantine Alexander, Prince of Hellas (born 1994), Prince George Pamphilus (born 1996), Prince Philip Simon (born 2000) and Prince Basil Nicholas (born 2003).
When his father died in 2006, after 29 years of reign, Alexios became the Emperor and Autocrat of the Hellenes and reigned over Greece, Anatolia, Cyrenaica, Azania, Erythræa, Antipodæa, and multiple other Indian, Chinese and Indonesian coastal enclaves. Since then, Alexios has reigned as a constitutional monarch, retaining significant powers. Currently, one of the main concerns of Alexios is the rising tensions in the Empire's Azanian provinces, with an ethnic and religious conflict between the Greek ắpoikoi and the native Azanians that has been slowly escalating since 1999.
The man in the pic is the actual Crown Prince of Greece, Pavlos of Glücksburg.
After an extensive 1 minute read of the Wikipedia article for "Born in the purple", I realized that it's a title reserved for the children born to a reigning Emperor and that they were born in an entirely lined-with-porphyry room in the Great Palace of Constantinople... I can't be bothered to change the entire lore again, so let's just assume that it changed with the centuries and now it's a title reserved for the children born of the main family line, and in that same room in the Great Palace. By the time Alexios was born, his father Theodore had just become the heir apparent of the Byzantine empire, and him and his wife, who had also just gotten married, moved to the Great Palace.
Family relations: Alexios V is the brother-in-law of the sister of the Emperor of Mexico, Agustín VI, first cousin of the King of All Spain, Felipe VI, and of the King of Denmark, Frederik X, thus being the nephew of the Queen Mother of Denmark, Margrethe II, and is also the nephew of the King of Nubia, Senouthios III, as well as a second cousin of Constantin III of Wallachia-Moldavia, of Peter IV of Croatia and Uros IX of Serbia.
As you can guess, apoikoi means colonist, coming from ἀπο- and οἶκος, meaning "away from home".
Easter egg: an Archimesazon shares his name with a certain bloatmaxxing legend in the bodybuilding sphere.
After an extensive 1 minute read of the Wikipedia article for "Born in the purple", I realized that it's a title reserved for the children born to a reigning Emperor and that they were born in an entirely lined-with-porphyry room in the Great Palace of Constantinople... I can't be bothered to change the entire lore again, so let's just assume that it changed with the centuries and now it's a title reserved for the children born of the main family line, and in that same room in the Great Palace. By the time Alexios was born, his father Theodore had just become the heir apparent of the Byzantine empire, and him and his wife, who had also just gotten married, moved to the Great Palace.
Family relations: Alexios V is the brother-in-law of the sister of the Emperor of Mexico, Agustín VI, first cousin of the King of All Spain, Felipe VI, and of the King of Denmark, Frederik X, thus being the nephew of the Queen Mother of Denmark, Margrethe II, and is also the nephew of the King of Nubia, Senouthios III, as well as a second cousin of Constantin III of Wallachia-Moldavia, of Peter IV of Croatia and Uros IX of Serbia.
As you can guess, apoikoi means colonist, coming from ἀπο- and οἶκος, meaning "away from home".
Easter egg: an Archimesazon shares his name with a certain bloatmaxxing legend in the bodybuilding sphere.
Last edited:
I probably would've given Bush New Hampshire, given that it was his second strongest state in popular vote percentage only after Utah in the real life 1988 US Presidential Election. Apart from that, good job.
Looking back at the popular vote percent; you're right! I tend to forget how recent NH's lurch to the left is haha
I'll make an edit to it, just for accuracy's sake.I'll be honest with you, I've got 0 clue why I wrote that. I haven't plotted out the Ottoman family tree yet. I have a very old page on familyecho.com from when my "TL" was still in its infant stage, where I developed the family tree of the Mexican monarch, Agustín VI. That later grew and extended to almost all of Europe, and the American monarchist countries, and the occasional non-European and non-American monarchs.
I don't wanna rush and have to revise everything later, so I'll give you some countries where he could potentially have family relations: Egypt, Assyria, Tocharistan, Bactria, Chorasmia, Sogdia, Sindh, Bengal, Uyghuristan, Mongolia, Qipchaqistan, Qimaqestan and Qarloqistan. However, they're not guaranteed. because I haven't plotted their family trees. The countries in bold are more likely since they're also Nestorian.
I see, but I also have some other questions:
1) Does the House of Palæologus have any branches?
2) Was Margrethe II of Denmark Queen-regent or Queen-consort?
3) Is Augustin VI of Mexico a Hapsburg or a Iturbide?
1.- Well, the Palæologus are actually the Palæologus-Danía - the main line went extinct after the death of Irene I (r. 1841-1892), who married Otto (Óthōn) of Bavaria. Irene and Otto only had one child, a daughter at that. Helena II (r. 1892-1913) married OTLs George I, who actually maintains the name William (Gouliélmos), and their line is the currently reigning one.
Btw, TTL doesn't have a central POD. Hell, it's not even a TL proper. It started as just a map with some lore that is currently expanding with time.
I didn't really do much research and I also said that I just make things up as time passes, often employing the rule of cool and ignoring plausibility and all that jazz (how else would Zoroastrians, Manichaeans, Tocharians, Bactrians and Sogdians, for example, still be around?). However, I can tell you about the current descendants of William and Helena - the King of Wallachia-Moldavia (Constantin III), the King of Serbia (Aleksander II), the King of Croatia (Josip IV), the King of Spain (Felipe VI), the heir apparent of Nubia (Philotheus), the children of the Counts of Évreux, the Duke of Aosta, the King of Hungary (Leopold I), the King of Perú (Andrés IV), the Duke of Kent, the Archduke of Baden (Maximilian II), the Grand Duke of Hesse, Prince Charles and the King of the Two Sicilies (Martin III).
2.- Margrethe II was, as IOTL, Queen regnant. The royal houses of some places remained virtually untouched, like Denmark. Others, like Sweden, are actually different - their monarchs are still members of the House of Holstein-Gottorp.
3.- Agustín VI is an Iturbide. His last names are de Iturbide y Orléans (his father, Fernando II, was a direct descendant of Agustín de Iturbide, and his mother is OTL's Anne, Duchess of Calabria, a child of the French King, Henri VI). Also, the Habsburgs are present in the Americas, more specifically, in the Kingdom of Louisiana (I sent Maximilian to Louisiana lol), which covers the entire Mississippi basin and the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia.
WI: William McKinley survived in 1901? (He later goes on to pass away in 1917.)
(This is my first time doing a Wikipedia edit thing yay!)
(This is my first time doing a Wikipedia edit thing yay!)
That's awesome man, makes my heart swell to imagine a world still with a Rome. Really cool wikibox, keep up the great work bro.
1996
1998
2000
2000 to 2002: Midterms and more
In 2000, the Democrats won a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the first time since 1976, in addition to winning the Presidency and holding the House with just slight losses. This, despite fears of voter fatigue after 8 years of a democratic president and 4 years of a democratic congress and fears of backlash over Clinton's second-term expansion of healthcare to children via reconciliation with strong partisan opposition, left the party feeling reasonably comfortable with moving in a more liberal direction (albeit cautiously, having to work with the still significant blue dog faction)
Also of some note, Charlotte Pritt won re-election for West Virginia governor in 2000. Having gotten the nomination for governor in a hotly contested primary in 1996 and then being swept to victory in the 1996 Democratic wave election, Pritt was nonetheless rather more liberal than the average West Virginia Democrat, and was seen as rather vulnerable going into the 2000 elections. Despite Republican campaigning leading to the GOP gaining ground in the state in the governor's and presidential races, Pritt was narrowly able to win a second term
Once in office, Gore made climate legislation a priority in his negotiations with Congress
The GREENS Act was the result of those negotiations, and is widely seen as a key part of Gore's legacy. Negotiations for the bill were fraught and full of conflict, with a number of conservative democrats uneager about or opposed to various proposed policies and afraid of butting heads with the fossil fuel industries. But Gore was able to apply enough pressure to get a bill passed that took various actions to shift the economy in a greener direction. The bill included carbon pricing (with revenue split three ways between a dividend, funding green initiatives, and deficit reduction), green infrastructure and research spending, nuclear plant construction, as well as other regulations and actions. Liberals took some issue with the subsidization of "clean coal" as well as the relatively low carbon fees, but the coal programs and reductions in carbon pricing (compared to earlier proposals) helped win over some key moderate Democrats (or at least convince some to merely vote against the bill while still voting for cloture, preventing a filibuster of the final bill). Some moderate/liberal Republicans such as Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, and Arlen Specter were also able to be won over to support the bill
The GREENS Act had very mixed reception even before all the congressional wrangling and sausage-making involved in its crafting. Conservatives hit the bill and the democrats hard, campaigning particularly in coal country. These attacks were counteracted to some extent by programs aimed especially at coal country and other areas reliant on fossil fuels, with some funding for nuclear plants, infrastructure, and research reserved for coal reliant areas like West Virginia. Furthermore, the governor of West Virginia, in what perhaps shouldn't have been surprising given her liberalism but nonetheless surprised many pundits given her state's coal industry, came out strongly in favor of the bill, and presenting a shift to a green economy as a potential boon for the (oft struggling) working class of various coal-reliant areas if done right
Still, at first it appeared as if the GREENS Act could have a significant negative impact on the Democrats going into the midterms, just as the first Clinton healthcare reform proposal did for the 1994 midterm elections. But some things happened to divert attention away from the matter. First, while the climate bill negotiations were ongoing, Democrats passed additional legislation. The child healthcare expansion passed in Clinton's second term as a temporary (by the nature of the reconciliation process) reconciliation bill was spun into a regular legislative action and made permanent, and the healthcare bill also included a federal expansion of medicaid to cover the unemployed and low-income workers (prior to these reforms, some states, having more latitude to set their own standards for medicaid, simply covered the disabled, elderly, parents, and the pregnant). This was (despite conservative grumbling) rather less controversial than the climate bill, and was seen as a positive in the court of public opinion for Gore and his party. Second, the US had entered a slight economic downturn, with unemployment rising somewhat, but Gore and Congress were quick to pass and sign stimulus legislation, and were widely seen as competently handling the situation. And third, 9/11 happened, and shot Gore's approval from middling levels to the high 70s (peaking at 80%)
After the attack, Gore demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan hand over Osama Bin Laden - this demand was rejected by the Taliban, which claimed an obligation to give refuge to Bin Laden. The Gore administration then began to prepare for war, and within a month, US military forces had entered Afghanistan. In the chaos of the aftermath of 9/11, pundits didn't exactly know what to expect, but were somewhat surprised by Gore's level-headed response: a strong denunciation of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban that harbored them, and support for extensive military action against them, but also noting the necessity of investing in building economy and institutions in Afghanistan once the Taliban were overthrown in order to "win the peace" and prevent the country from once again being a harbor for extremism and terrorism in the future (as well as noting that this would be a substantial undertaking and that it would be an effort America would have to play a large roll in bankrolling). This was seen as an attempt to clarify the goal in the intervention and avoid issues seen in the past with Vietnam, but on the other hand was not universally popular, with large swathes of the public in a state of bloodlust and being more in the mood for a simple rhetoric of payback than for the more complicated message of responsibility. Nonetheless, despite conservative attacks on Gore for "not going far enough" in his rhetoric, as well as for his passing of legislation expanding and increasing domestic security and counterterrorist measures that many conservatives urged didn't do nearly enough, Gore and the democrats retained pretty solid approval going into the midterms (though by then it had fallen from the highs of 80%), with 9/11 resetting the board somewhat and giving the democrats a good chance at avoiding the usual midterm setbacks via the "rally around the flag effect"
Due to democratic base satisfaction with Gore's accomplishments, as well as Gore's approval after 9/11 and general satisfaction with the course of the war in Afghanistan assisting the democrats with swing voters, the democrats had a second strong midterm showing in a row. As in the 1998 midterms, they lost a handful of seats but retained a decent majority in the house, and in the senate, despite predictions of at least some losses due to various democratic incumbents holding seats in pretty red states, the democrats were able to hold every seat they had won in 1996 (the last time this set of senate seats was up for election, given the staggered nature of the US senate), leading to the first time no party had a net gain in seats since 1982 and the first time no seats changed hands since the ratification of the 17th amendment for direct election of US senators. Having retained control of the house and kept the filibuster-proof majority in the senate despite getting bolder in legislative action, democrats entered 2003 with high hopes of carrying out more of Gore's domestic agenda
1998
2000
2000 to 2002: Midterms and more
In 2000, the Democrats won a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the first time since 1976, in addition to winning the Presidency and holding the House with just slight losses. This, despite fears of voter fatigue after 8 years of a democratic president and 4 years of a democratic congress and fears of backlash over Clinton's second-term expansion of healthcare to children via reconciliation with strong partisan opposition, left the party feeling reasonably comfortable with moving in a more liberal direction (albeit cautiously, having to work with the still significant blue dog faction)
Also of some note, Charlotte Pritt won re-election for West Virginia governor in 2000. Having gotten the nomination for governor in a hotly contested primary in 1996 and then being swept to victory in the 1996 Democratic wave election, Pritt was nonetheless rather more liberal than the average West Virginia Democrat, and was seen as rather vulnerable going into the 2000 elections. Despite Republican campaigning leading to the GOP gaining ground in the state in the governor's and presidential races, Pritt was narrowly able to win a second term
Once in office, Gore made climate legislation a priority in his negotiations with Congress
The GREENS Act was the result of those negotiations, and is widely seen as a key part of Gore's legacy. Negotiations for the bill were fraught and full of conflict, with a number of conservative democrats uneager about or opposed to various proposed policies and afraid of butting heads with the fossil fuel industries. But Gore was able to apply enough pressure to get a bill passed that took various actions to shift the economy in a greener direction. The bill included carbon pricing (with revenue split three ways between a dividend, funding green initiatives, and deficit reduction), green infrastructure and research spending, nuclear plant construction, as well as other regulations and actions. Liberals took some issue with the subsidization of "clean coal" as well as the relatively low carbon fees, but the coal programs and reductions in carbon pricing (compared to earlier proposals) helped win over some key moderate Democrats (or at least convince some to merely vote against the bill while still voting for cloture, preventing a filibuster of the final bill). Some moderate/liberal Republicans such as Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, and Arlen Specter were also able to be won over to support the bill
The GREENS Act had very mixed reception even before all the congressional wrangling and sausage-making involved in its crafting. Conservatives hit the bill and the democrats hard, campaigning particularly in coal country. These attacks were counteracted to some extent by programs aimed especially at coal country and other areas reliant on fossil fuels, with some funding for nuclear plants, infrastructure, and research reserved for coal reliant areas like West Virginia. Furthermore, the governor of West Virginia, in what perhaps shouldn't have been surprising given her liberalism but nonetheless surprised many pundits given her state's coal industry, came out strongly in favor of the bill, and presenting a shift to a green economy as a potential boon for the (oft struggling) working class of various coal-reliant areas if done right
Still, at first it appeared as if the GREENS Act could have a significant negative impact on the Democrats going into the midterms, just as the first Clinton healthcare reform proposal did for the 1994 midterm elections. But some things happened to divert attention away from the matter. First, while the climate bill negotiations were ongoing, Democrats passed additional legislation. The child healthcare expansion passed in Clinton's second term as a temporary (by the nature of the reconciliation process) reconciliation bill was spun into a regular legislative action and made permanent, and the healthcare bill also included a federal expansion of medicaid to cover the unemployed and low-income workers (prior to these reforms, some states, having more latitude to set their own standards for medicaid, simply covered the disabled, elderly, parents, and the pregnant). This was (despite conservative grumbling) rather less controversial than the climate bill, and was seen as a positive in the court of public opinion for Gore and his party. Second, the US had entered a slight economic downturn, with unemployment rising somewhat, but Gore and Congress were quick to pass and sign stimulus legislation, and were widely seen as competently handling the situation. And third, 9/11 happened, and shot Gore's approval from middling levels to the high 70s (peaking at 80%)
After the attack, Gore demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan hand over Osama Bin Laden - this demand was rejected by the Taliban, which claimed an obligation to give refuge to Bin Laden. The Gore administration then began to prepare for war, and within a month, US military forces had entered Afghanistan. In the chaos of the aftermath of 9/11, pundits didn't exactly know what to expect, but were somewhat surprised by Gore's level-headed response: a strong denunciation of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban that harbored them, and support for extensive military action against them, but also noting the necessity of investing in building economy and institutions in Afghanistan once the Taliban were overthrown in order to "win the peace" and prevent the country from once again being a harbor for extremism and terrorism in the future (as well as noting that this would be a substantial undertaking and that it would be an effort America would have to play a large roll in bankrolling). This was seen as an attempt to clarify the goal in the intervention and avoid issues seen in the past with Vietnam, but on the other hand was not universally popular, with large swathes of the public in a state of bloodlust and being more in the mood for a simple rhetoric of payback than for the more complicated message of responsibility. Nonetheless, despite conservative attacks on Gore for "not going far enough" in his rhetoric, as well as for his passing of legislation expanding and increasing domestic security and counterterrorist measures that many conservatives urged didn't do nearly enough, Gore and the democrats retained pretty solid approval going into the midterms (though by then it had fallen from the highs of 80%), with 9/11 resetting the board somewhat and giving the democrats a good chance at avoiding the usual midterm setbacks via the "rally around the flag effect"
Due to democratic base satisfaction with Gore's accomplishments, as well as Gore's approval after 9/11 and general satisfaction with the course of the war in Afghanistan assisting the democrats with swing voters, the democrats had a second strong midterm showing in a row. As in the 1998 midterms, they lost a handful of seats but retained a decent majority in the house, and in the senate, despite predictions of at least some losses due to various democratic incumbents holding seats in pretty red states, the democrats were able to hold every seat they had won in 1996 (the last time this set of senate seats was up for election, given the staggered nature of the US senate), leading to the first time no party had a net gain in seats since 1982 and the first time no seats changed hands since the ratification of the 17th amendment for direct election of US senators. Having retained control of the house and kept the filibuster-proof majority in the senate despite getting bolder in legislative action, democrats entered 2003 with high hopes of carrying out more of Gore's domestic agenda
Really? The Senate stays exactly the same, not even "no net gain" either way, zero seats changing parties at all?
Yeah. So, when I do these sorts of scenarios, I'll generally decide on some base swing vs OTL results, and then also apply an additional swing to take into account "incumbent advantage" to politicians who won in the previous election who didn't in OTL (and then do some spreadsheetdrudgery magic to figure out the new national swing and vote with that taken into account). It was a bit awkward for this since the source I've been using for incumbency advantage for some reason seems to have left out the 2002 senate rate (while having all else between 1952 and 2016), but going with the incumbency advantages for every other senate election between 1982 and 2008, even the lowest would result in the Dems holding every seat they won in this scenario's 1996, and the "base swing" I applied was not enough to flip any more states (Tennessee was kinda close tho). Also note that incumbency advantage isn't an exact science, and I may not even be applying it correctly, but its a pseudo-formulaic thing I do anyway, and just happened to result like this in this case
Yeah. So, when I do these sorts of scenarios, I'll generally decide on some base swing vs OTL results, and then also apply an additional swing to take into account "incumbent advantage" to politicians who won in the previous election who didn't in OTL (and then do some spreadsheet
Last edited:
- Status