Good King George - A Republican Britain and a Monarchist America

Would you like to see

  • More of the United Commonwealth

    Votes: 33 13.1%
  • United Provinces of America

    Votes: 143 56.7%
  • Patagonia

    Votes: 22 8.7%
  • European Affairs

    Votes: 54 21.4%

  • Total voters
    252
Non-Canon for North America, though other names are accurate as of 10/11/2022


7YyKceB.png


A bit of a work in progress.

\\
 
Last edited:
Cpd6R2H.png


A bit of a work in progress.

\\
Just as a consistency note, “United Commonwealth” seems to be the only country name not in all caps.

Also, as a minor suggestion, if the Netherlands do remain a republic, “Dutch Republic” may be a better name than the Netherlands, although again it’s not that important and is obviously tangential upon whether the Dutch do maintain a republic or not (personally I think it would be fun for Britain to have another aristocratic republic friend in Europe, but that’s just my two cents).

I also just noticed that Darfur is called “Darur.”
 
Last edited:
Road to War
The Road to War
"When did the Civil War begin, and when did it end? Americans say it started later and never ended, but Britons insist it started earlier and ended 2 centuries ago "​



Box 1.png
The Civil War's start date remains divided into two distinct camps. Within the United Commonwealth, the preferred dating begins with the attempted arrest of the King and his subsequent decision to publish warrants for the arrest of the known plotters and several other prominent Whig leaders, including the former Prime Minister, the Marquess of Rockingham. At the same time, Historians in the United Provinces use the Battle of Hyde Park as the starting point.

Regardless of which date, the lead-up is generally agreed upon by both factions. In the aftermath of the Seven Year's War, Britain began to abandon the policy of Salutary neglect towards tighter control of the Colonies. Britain had accrued large debts during the war and decided to deploy troops in the colonies to defend them from continued threats from France. Rockingham would begin moving in 1763 to pass a series of new taxation acts aimed at increasing authority in and revenue from the colonies to pay for the gains made during the war and the forces deployed to protect them.

These events may have been allowed to progress unobstructed had it not been for the prominent place of Benjamin Franklin in the King's court and that of several other Americans the former had bought with him. They began to argue that the King had a duty to uphold the rights of his subjects and that to abandon them would be in direct violation of his coronation oath. They convinced the King that under the notion of Virtual Representation it was, in fact, the King, and the King alone, that should speak for subjects not represented in Parliament. By mixing this notion with his minor absolutist leanings, George began interfering with Parliamentary efforts to tax the Colonies. While he had allowed the Sugar Act 1764 and the Currency Act 1764 to move through unaffected, he took action on the Stamp Act. While the King believed that the Colonies should pay for their defence, he agreed that the act had overstepped and recommended the list of items that would be required to bare the stamp be cut down and, most crucially, that it be paid in British currency, or colonial paper money, not only the former. While then Prime Minister Rockingham had been somewhat surprised by the King's action, he elected to follow the suggestions, though many within his party were outraged at the changes. This would prove to be only the start, and as Colonial opposition grew to Parliamentary acts increased, so did the popularity of the King, whose actions in their defence were widely reported on throughout the Colonies. A clear distinction emerged between the King who sought to aid them and a Parliament that embraced tyranny. The apex of these interventions came with the King's outright rejection of the Massachusetts Government Act, attempting to deal with the growing rebellion of the Colonies. The King reportedly didn't even give a reason for his actions, simply refusing his ascent and returning to an event he was hosting. Attended by Americans who welcomed the King as a hero.


When word reached the Whig leadership, they decided enough was enough and began to make moves to remove the King. After all, at this stage, it seemed clear the man was now following the advice of the colonists over his Government. This seemed to be merely an effort to take absolute power through covert means for the Whigs. A plan was hatched by the so-called "22", including Edmund Burke. Despite his support for Monarchy and sympathy for the American cause, he believed the King had gone too far in ignoring the advice of Parliament over the past decade and more.

The exact circumstances of the Storming of the Palace remain mirky. Even the term itself is falling out of use, as far from being a hero attack on the centre of tyranny as Whig leaders sold the event to the public, it was a half dozen men and a few loyal soldiers who informed the King he was to be removed in a park, and attempted to arrest him, only to be stopped by his guards whose loyalty had been misinterpreted. Though the men involved fled, the King quickly ordered their arrest for High Treason.


The Whig-dominated Parliament shielded the men, an act that incensed the King, who soon removed Rockingham as Prime Minister and appointed Lord North to form a new Government to confront the threat. Parliament outright rejected North as Prime Minister and forced the man to move his offices elsewhere, with North eventually setting up in St James's Palace at the offer of the King. Both sides would begin rallying forces to curtail the other, and fighting broke out in Hyde Park 14 days after the arrest attempt. And with that, the war started, spreading out across the country from the capital soon after. The colonies burst into chaos soon as word reached them about what was happening, and certain Governors and military officials backed Parliament. Already on the verge of war, the colonial elite threw their all in with the King.



And when the dust had settled, 300,000 men were dead.
 
Last edited:
Lord Protectors of the Commonwealth of Australia
  1. 1967-1977 - Richard Casey, 1st Earl Casey - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Liberal - Note - Governor-General from 1965
  2. 1977-1978 - Robert Menzies, 1st Earl Menzies - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Liberal - Note - Died in office
    • Garfield Barwick, 1st Earl Barwick served as acting Lord Protector from the 15th of May to the 5th of March
  3. 1979-1989 - Paul Hasluck, 1st Earl Hasluck - Home State - Western Australia - Party - Liberal
  4. 1989-1994 - Andrew Peacock, 1st Earl Peacock - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Liberal
  5. 1994-2004 - Robert 'Bob' Hawke, 1st Earl Hawke - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Labor
  6. 2004-2009 - Tim Fischer, 1st Earl Fischer - Home State - New South Wales - Party - National
  7. 2009-2014 - Paul Keating - Home State - New South Wales - Party - Labor
  8. 2014-2019 - John Howard, 1st Earl Howard - Home State - New South Wales - Party - Liberal
  9. 2019-present - Sir Steve Irwin - Home State - Cooksland - Party - Independent
 
The Road to War
"When did the Civil War begin, and when did it end? Americans say it started later and never ended, but Britons insist it started earlier and ended 2 centuries ago "​



View attachment 786350The Civil War's start date remains divided into two distinct camps. Within the United Commonwealth, the preferred dating begins with the attempted arrest of the King and his subsequent decision to publish warrants for the arrest of the known plotters and several other prominent Whig leaders, including the former Prime Minister, the Marquess of Rockingham. At the same time, Historians in the United Provinces use the Battle of Hyde Park as the starting point.

Regardless of which date, the lead-up is generally agreed upon by both factions. In the aftermath of the Seven Year's War, Britain began to abandon the policy of Salutary neglect towards tighter control of the Colonies. Britain had accrued large debts during the war and decided to deploy troops in the colonies to defend them from continued threats from France. Rockingham would begin moving in 1763 to pass a series of new taxation acts aimed at increasing authority in and revenue from the colonies to pay for the gains made during the war and the forces deployed to protect them.

These events may have been allowed to progress unobstructed had it not been for the prominent place of Benjamin Franklin in the King's court and that of several other Americans the former had bought with him. They began to argue that the King had a duty to uphold the rights of his subjects and that to abandon them would be in direct violation of his coronation oath. They convinced the King that under the notion of Virtual Representation it was, in fact, the King, and the King alone, that should speak for subjects not represented in Parliament. By mixing this notion with his minor absolutist leanings, George began interfering with Parliamentary efforts to tax the Colonies. While he had allowed the Sugar Act 1764 and the Currency Act 1764 to move through unaffected, he took action on the Stamp Act. While the King believed that the Colonies should pay for their defence, he agreed that the act had overstepped and recommended the list of items that would be required to bare the stamp be cut down and, most crucially, that it be paid in British currency, or colonial paper money, not only the former. While then Prime Minister Rockingham had been somewhat surprised by the King's action, he elected to follow the suggestions, though many within his party were outraged at the changes. This would prove to be only the start, and as Colonial opposition grew to Parliamentary acts increased, so did the popularity of the King, whose actions in their defence were widely reported on throughout the Colonies. A clear distinction emerged between the King who sought to aid them and a Parliament that embraced tyranny. The apex of these interventions came with the King's outright rejection of the Massachusetts Government Act, attempting to deal with the growing rebellion of the Colonies. The King reportedly didn't even give a reason for his actions, simply refusing his ascent and returning to an event he was hosting. Attended by Americans who welcomed the King as a hero.


When word reached the Whig leadership, they decided enough was enough and began to make moves to remove the King. After all, at this stage, it seemed clear the man was now following the advice of the colonists over his Government. This seemed to be merely an effort to take absolute power through covert means for the Whigs. A plan was hatched by the so-called "22", including Edmund Burke. Despite his support for Monarchy and sympathy for the American cause, he believed the King had gone too far in ignoring the advice of Parliament over the past decade and more.

The exact circumstances of the Storming of the Palace remain mirky. Even the term itself is falling out of use, as far from being a hero attack on the centre of tyranny as Whig leaders sold the event to the public, it was a half dozen men and a few loyal soldiers who informed the King he was to be removed in a park, and attempted to arrest him, only to be stopped by his guards whose loyalty had been misinterpreted. Though the men involved fled, the King quickly ordered their arrest for High Treason.


The Whig-dominated Parliament shielded the men, an act that incensed the King, who soon removed William Pitt as Prime Minister and appointed Lord North to form a new Government to confront the threat. Parliament outright rejected North as Prime Minister and forced the man to move his offices elsewhere, with North eventually setting up in St James's Palace at the offer of the King. Both sides would begin rallying forces to curtail the other, and fighting broke out in Hyde Park 14 days after the arrest attempt. And with that, the war started, spreading out across the country from the capital soon after. The colonies burst into chaos soon as word reached them about what was happening, and certain Governors and military officials backed Parliament. Already on the verge of war, the colonial elite threw their all in with the King.



And when the dust had settled, 300,000 men were dead.

Germans should probably be on the Loyalist side.
(But some Europeans could support the Revolutionaries instead)
 
...oh god does this mean that segregation in the united provinces ended only 30-40 years ago? and how did thatcher find herself in America?

edit: also wait, if Victoria was allowed to inherit then why is her uncle heir presumptive and not her sister?
 
The news sidelines describe the Lord Protector Irwin as just Lord Protector Irwin, without a national adjective. This implies the news article and thus Thatcher is Australian. So it is Australian segregation that continues into the 80s-90s. Also Apartheid iotl only ended in the 90s, so it wouldn't be too unusual.
 
Last edited:
The Kings and Queen of the United Provinces of America


p3ID11M.png


Currently under lockdown with COVID and being forced to watch Castle. So there's your answer to that.
Noticed that George VI’s son Edward and his nephew Nicholas were made Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex respectively. Did Edward and Nicholas married women who were descended from Adolphus and Augustus Frederick or did the lines of the latter two died out?
 
...oh god does this mean that segregation in the united provinces ended only 30-40 years ago? and how did thatcher find herself in America?
The news sidelines describe the Lord Protector Irwin as just Lord Protector Irwin, without a national adjective. This implies the news article and thus Thatcher is Australian. So it is Australian segregation that continues into the 80s-90s. Also Apartheid iotl only ended in the 90s, so it wouldn't be too unusual.

Good thought, but no. Thatcher is a very controversial and well-known woman so the writer of the article didn't feel the need to state where she was from. But without giving too much away, she was Prime Minister of the Cape of Good Hope. And her legacy is.... debated.

As for segregation, it came down a little earlier ITTL due to how the post civil war era was run. Things are better, even if only marginally

Wait, how is there George IV and George VI but no George V?

Damn! How did I miss that! Just fixed it! Thanks for pointing it out.

edit: also wait, if Victoria was allowed to inherit then why is her uncle heir presumptive and not her sister?
Um...question to @Lewie - is the "no marrying Catholics" rule still in play?

That might be a better idea than what I had planned to happen! And a good cause for a change to the rules!

United Portugal-Brazil? Yours is the first TL where I see this! Loved it.
Also, who colonised South Africa, Australia and New Zealand ITTL? Is it the British as in our world?

Thank you! It's something I've always wanted to explore! So I thought why not include it here!
And yes. They were all British Coloines I'll be doing a world map in 1938 very soon that will cover all that!


Noticed that George VI’s son Edward and his nephew Nicholas were made Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex respectively. Did Edward and Nicholas married women who were descended from Adolphus and Augustus Frederick or did the lines of the latter two died out?

Both those lines died out in the early 1900, leaving the titles vacant. Though there use was rather controversial at the time. As in the UC it was felt that the King using them was inappropriate.

ZOOMER QUEEN, I REPEAT, ZOOMER QUEEN

Ha!
 
How did the attacks get carried out and kill 6000 people? Did planes crash into Parliament and the palace? Even then, I don't think 6000 would fit in them.

Concerning an unrelated subject, I believe to have read somewhere here that the Americans viewed the House of Bonaparte as illegitimate, which is understandable because America is monarchist and Napoleon usurped the throne in their view. But this is at odds with the fundamental basis of the American state: that God has given the royal house a mission to reign over their peoples justly and respect their liberties; this the Bourbons failed to do, losing their “Mandate of Heaven”, if you will, allowing for a new family to take the throne. How did and still how do the Americans reconcile these two viewpoints?
@Lewie Do you mind answering this question? It seems you've missed it or the information in the answer would spoil an update that would've been posted soon.
 
How did the attacks get carried out and kill 6000 people? Did planes crash into Parliament and the palace? Even then, I don't think 6000 would fit in them.

Concerning an unrelated subject, I believe to have read somewhere here that the Americans viewed the House of Bonaparte as illegitimate, which is understandable because America is monarchist and Napoleon usurped the throne in their view. But this is at odds with the fundamental basis of the American state: that God has given the royal house a mission to reign over their peoples justly and respect their liberties; this the Bourbons failed to do, losing their “Mandate of Heaven”, if you will, allowing for a new family to take the throne. How did and still how do the Americans reconcile these two viewpoints?

Sorry! I missed this!

That attack will be a large-scale event striking the capital and New York; I'll have some martial on it very soon.

Most Americans view Napoleon as another Burke, a man that betrayed his King and then placed himself at the very pinnacle of power, for many that act alone was enough to discredit the man permanently. Add that to the fact that France aided the loyalist side; there was very little support for Napoleon. Some do view it that way, though, that the House of Bourbon was rightfully overthrown for acting against the interests of the people, and while perhaps a new house should have taken power, the way it played out was an outrage.

What to do about Napoleon was a source of much debate among Americans during the early 19th century.
 
Top