Happy New Year to all!

Another social development that should be considered is the vestiges of feudalism in colonial BNA. Patroonships in New York (relic of the Dutch colonial administration that managed to be maintained somewhat until in the mid-19th century because they became English manors after England took over New Netherland, but later contributed to the Anti-Rent War in the late 1830s), the Seigneurial system in Quebec (Canada in our timeline abolished in 1854), and in fact the all of the land grants from proprietors and the Crown to people in North America and subsequent leases and selling of original grantee land parcels to others, virtually covering all of America at the time. Would the Crown have radical title over all land in British America? How would these vestiges of feudalism impact land policy and development as time goes on? Would these feudal vestiges be abolished?

Would the Royal Proclamation of 1763 have an impact on Indigenous land title like it does in Canada today? Where it supports Indigenous land titles and establishes that the Crown has a fiduciary duty of care?

Would the British government and North American government also try to make an American aristocracy with barons, baronets, knights, and maybe higher titles like earls, marquesses, and dukes so as to bring the colonial elite into the imperial fold better by giving them some aristocratic recognition?
 
Happy New Year to all!

Another social development that should be considered is the vestiges of feudalism in colonial BNA. Patroonships in New York (relic of the Dutch colonial administration that managed to be maintained somewhat until in the mid-19th century because they became English manors after England took over New Netherland, but later contributed to the Anti-Rent War in the late 1830s), the Seigneurial system in Quebec (Canada in our timeline abolished in 1854), and in fact the all of the land grants from proprietors and the Crown to people in North America and subsequent leases and selling of original grantee land parcels to others, virtually covering all of America at the time. Would the Crown have radical title over all land in British America? How would these vestiges of feudalism impact land policy and development as time goes on? Would these feudal vestiges be abolished?

Would the Royal Proclamation of 1763 have an impact on Indigenous land title like it does in Canada today? Where it supports Indigenous land titles and establishes that the Crown has a fiduciary duty of care?

Would the British government and North American government also try to make an American aristocracy with barons, baronets, knights, and maybe higher titles like earls, marquesses, and dukes so as to bring the colonial elite into the imperial fold better by giving them some aristocratic recognition?
I actually haven't thought about that and in fact, that might be something I need help with. At least as far as feudalism titles and proprietorship goes. Meanwhile, I can see Indigenous land titles being established among the Five Civilized tribes, or at least granted some level of immunity. There was a de facto aristocracy IOTL of some sorts so maybe that is worth exploring.
 
I actually haven't thought about that and in fact, that might be something I need help with. At least as far as feudalism titles and proprietorship goes. Meanwhile, I can see Indigenous land titles being established among the Five Civilized tribes, or at least granted some level of immunity. There was a de facto aristocracy IOTL of some sorts so maybe that is worth exploring.
For the titles, there was some push, but nothing came of it really, to establish a formal American aristocracy, perhaps with the lesser titles of knights, esquires (sons of knights I believe, but don't quote me on that) baronets (hereditary knights basically), and barons (lowest of the peerages), so as to properly build up the British constitution (mixed regime of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy via the King, Lords, and Commons) as the colonial systems (governor, council, and assembly) that aimed to emulate the British constitution failed to really develop the aristocracy in the provincial council. The council acted as the local House of Lords but was totally appointed and at the whim of the governor in many colonies, or appointed by the provincial assembly (representing the Commons) in some others. While councilors had the wealth to be the aristocracy and were, in fact, the local elites, they were appointed by the Crown/assembly with the advice of the governor but could be removed at any time, or had to get the good graces of the governor/assembly, while the Lords in Britain had independent wealth, title, and position from the Crown and Commons. Perhaps a fostering of lesser titles for the gentry and having these titled persons dominate provincial councils will help contribute to a stronger imperial system in America and keep them in the Empire longer, perhaps have some aristocrats in the UAC Senate to guide things and policy as the Lords/US Senate were rather powerful in the 19th century. However, there was some pushback from some colonial voices against a formalization of any aristocracy, but with barely avoiding a revolution or containing the violence as it broke out in this timeline, "co-opting" the colonial elites with some titles and addressing grievances with home rule (as you have already established) could help more with keeping America in the Empire longer.

Having the Five Civilized Tribes have some protection and autonomy would be in British imperial character, and the FCT were somewhat already accepted by the real-life US government until Jackson, and they could gain more autonomy if they fought for Britain in some war, perhaps best if the war was in the Americas. Or local circumstances changed so as to break down the drive to get the FCT out of Georgia in the first place.
 
Last edited:
For the titles, there was some push, but nothing came of it really, to establish a formal American aristocracy, perhaps with the lesser titles of knights, esquires (sons of knights I believe, but don't quote me on that) baronets (hereditary knights basically), and barons (lowest of the peerages), so as to properly build up the British constitution (mixed regime of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy via the King, Lords, and Commons) as the colonial systems (governor, council, and assembly) that aimed to emulate the British constitution failed to really develop the aristocracy in the provincial council. The council acted as the local House of Lords but was totally appointed and at the whim of the governor in many colonies, or appointed by the provincial assembly (representing the Commons) in some others. While councilors had the wealth to be the aristocracy and were, in fact, the local elites, they were appointed by the Crown/assembly with the advice of the governor but could be removed at any time, or had to get the good graces of the governor/assembly, while the Lords in Britain had independent wealth, title, and position from the Crown and Commons. Perhaps a fostering of lesser titles for the gentry and having these titled persons dominate provincial councils will help contribute to a stronger imperial system in America and keep them in the Empire longer, perhaps have some aristocrats in the UAC Senate to guide things and policy as the Lords/US Senate were rather powerful in the 19th century. However, there was some pushback from some colonial voices against a formalization of any aristocracy, but with barely avoiding a revolution or containing the violence as it broke out in this timeline, "co-opting" the colonial elites with some titles and addressing grievances with home rule (as you have already established) could help more with keeping America in the Empire longer.

Having the Five Civilized Tribes have some protection and autonomy would be in British imperial character, and the FCT were somewhat already accepted by the real-life US government until Jackson, and they could gain more autonomy if they fought for Britain in some war, perhaps best if the war was in the Americas. Or local circumstances changed so as to break down the drive to get the FCT out of Georgia in the first place.
The titles issue is something I will probably need to work on. You can PM me if you like for some possible titles of previous politicians before Calhoun and some other things related to titles.
 
Hi guys. I've been thinking about this so it's time to announce it. I'm putting this TL on temporary hiatus so I can focus on my other two TLs more because I'm having more fun with those in comparison to this one. It will be resumed, though, so don't worry forever.
 
Hi guys. I've been thinking about this so it's time to announce it. I'm putting this TL on temporary hiatus so I can focus on my other two TLs more because I'm having more fun with those in comparison to this one. It will be resumed, though, so don't worry forever.
Tbch I really enjoy the French Floride TL most so I hope you focus on that most
 
UAC Map Circa 1828
I don't think I've posted in quite some time, but here is a map of the UAC Circa 1828
UAC Map 1828.png
 
While I am planning out what happens next in my Southern-Less USA TL Redux (which is more difficult than it looks), I've decided I might update this TL first while I think about it. I've also come to the decision @SashaBonaparte148 that while there will be de facto titles, there won't be de jure titles like in Britain.
 
On the other hand, I might continue the hiatus as I am planning a reboot of my Huguenot TL with hopefully more accuracy to it. I'm not abandoning this though.
 
I can say with a high level of certainty that Central and Eastern Europe in particular will be interesting (right now I am right about the Germanosphere).
 
Top