Death of a Republic (A monarchical USA timeline)
- Thread starter Schnozzberry
- Start date
Change that to Gilbertians and I think we have a winner! Sounds a lot like "Robertians" or "Capetians". Gilbertigians sounds like we're going for Merovingians and while I like it, I don't think it sounds as smooth. Though ultimately it will be authors decision that counts. To the Gilbertians the fourth race of Kings!
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
Sorry for it being yet again no update, but I saw more questions and 80+ alerts from @TheImperialTheorist (Sorry, I got confused between you and @Emperor of Greater India for a moment) and decided to not leave it as a draft for half a week this time. Glad to know even more people are finding it fun, and it is pretty cool to see a large number of alerts telling me that.
Glad you like it! The won't be the House of America yet, but the royal house might change to that to ease tensions when republicans become a problem again.
Don't tempt me.
Probably the House of Motier because Americans wouldn't be the happiest with the Marquis' existing house, the House of La Fayette, having ties back to France when the Marquis became First Prince.
Not really, although a there might be a few more New World monarchies, and republicanism might have a slower start. But after all, who says the French have to go revolutionary to get the republic train rolling? After all...
A bit bare I know, but I actually want to keep whom goes revolutionary a bit of a secret.
AAAH! I said don't tempt me!
Glad you like it! The won't be the House of America yet, but the royal house might change to that to ease tensions when republicans become a problem again.
Don't tempt me.
Probably the House of Motier because Americans wouldn't be the happiest with the Marquis' existing house, the House of La Fayette, having ties back to France when the Marquis became First Prince.
Not really, although a there might be a few more New World monarchies, and republicanism might have a slower start. But after all, who says the French have to go revolutionary to get the republic train rolling? After all...
A bit bare I know, but I actually want to keep whom goes revolutionary a bit of a secret.
AAAH! I said don't tempt me!
by the way, it has not been made clear to me if rhode island is or isnt an absolutely independant country. but is it?
Kaze
Banned
Well done. I have seen people object to the name of Gilbert. How about this instead, the title of the monarch instead of prince, grand duke, or king - the title is "George"; the heir apparent's title "Franklin"? So if by chance Abe Lincoln becomes monarch, which is unlikely in this timeline he would be called "George Abraham Lincoln" and his son would be called "Franklin Robert Todd Lincoln."
If you excuse my tone, it sounds a bit idiotic to give a regal title a common name, like "George" or "Bob." At the same time, the title of the American monarch could perhaps hail from ancient titles, like "First Consul" or "Prīnceps."
I suppose so. Plus, it would seem fitting to honor a man that has done much to his country, so "George" is a good name to elevate as a title.
Where is this antiGilbert sentiment coming from?
Frankly I think you would have a hard time getting people to take such a thing seriously. The name of the neighbor and the miller, plus grandpa, is now also the title for king? I think the proposal would amuse more than move.
Frankly I think you would have a hard time getting people to take such a thing seriously. The name of the neighbor and the miller, plus grandpa, is now also the title for king? I think the proposal would amuse more than move.
Perhaps as a normal man, yes, but this is a man who has done heroic things for his nation, and was willing to spend his life to become a leader.
I dont think America.at this.point considers itself the successor to the Roman empire or is eager to mimic such traditions. "King" should be enough until the reach from sea ro shining sea, and they annex Mexico (please please please) after which "Emperor" should suffice. George Washington was also.the first name of Gilberts son soooo i dont see why.George cant be just another dynastic name.
From people with a dark gaping void where their hearts should be.
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
Why not both?
It will remain independent, but as of the point ITTL, it's a bit hazy. I'll clarify it in an update.
While a fairly nifty idea, I don't think it would work. The term Augustus was already a honorific, and Augustus Caeser was given the title, it wasn't his name. And Caeser was adopted as a title, rather than a name, a couple of generations down the road.
We'll actually have an Empire before that, after all Louisiana has to enter the Union. But, the nationalistic pride that could be drawn in trying to establish an empire from pole to equator might be tempting when someone has to keep themselves in power.
I'm not quite sure, but I'm reasonably certain it's the most controversial thing amongst everyone who's been responding. I absolutely love it.[/QUOTE]
Names becoming titles is definitely a thing, but perhaps more often than not what we take as a name was really a title. Caesar was a family name of sorts if I understand correctly. Despite seeing it explained I don't really understand the Roman classical naming system; both the Romans, who appear to have had a very limited supply of acceptable normal personal names, and the Greeks with a larger supply of them but no established general family name system I have noticed, were prone to giving notable people extra terms such as "Aristedes "The Just"' or what have you, and the familiar widespread system of someone going by an extended name saying what city or town they hailed from is a major thing too.
Personally I have enjoyed suggesting a TL where the Roman Dukes of Britain had their act together more, organized a hold-out of Romanized Britannic civilization and were around instead of Charlemagne (that is, Charles "the Great") to serve as the new western Emperor anointed by the Papacy--in that scenario I gather "Arthur" was not a given name but a Britannic honorific made up for a particular hero, meaning "Bear man" or something like that, and in the ATL this name is made up for a leading Dux of particular importance, either a predecessor of the Emperor or the same guy--and then the title of Augustus Arthur or some suitably Latinized form becomes established; "the Arthur" would be a term interchangeable with "Emperor" or "High King" should a language like OTL English evolve anywhere.
But if in fact Arthur were a common name equivalent to Bob or Joe, I don't suppose that would work so well.
Nor is there much precedent for this kind of thing in European Christendom; I don't think anyone ever expected the Norman dynasty would have its kings known as "The William" or the Plantagenets "The Richard" or what have you.
George is also terribly ambiguous in this context; while I don't think any names more recent than "Caesar," which did become the titles "Kaiser" and "Tsar" in German and Russian, became alternative titles to Emperor or king, it was and is very common for dynasties to keep naming the main heir a traditional king name, often the same one generation after generation, as Louis is typical of French kings, and as it happened the Hanoverian dynasty was stuck on "George" at this very time. A new king can of course take a new name and this where at least some "Georges" in the British succession come in but by and large they got this as their first name at birth.
So--there would be worse than the common danger of mixing up the American monarch with the Hanoverian succession should the Americans unaccountably (with all due respect to General and Dictator Washington) choose to honor their greatest (prior) leader with naming all kings "George." Much worse, because the whole sentiment for royalism in America, while I will not gainsay the author's assertion was popular enough to turn into a majority sentiment under the right conditions, was also a position on the political spectrum, one that more radical revolutionaries identified with some justice as conservative and perhaps, they would argue, unpatriotic, calling into question whether there ever should have been a Revolution in the first place and undermining the belief that national identity could take a different and in the revolutionary (radical anyway) view more rational form than identification with a monarch as a person and a royal line of succession. We know that at least some anti-monarchial democrats still exist despite being discredited by the extremism of certain recent events; even if they wind up criminalized by "lese majeste" legislation they will remain (fewer, but all the more diehard for being forced underground, and perhaps more liable to be politically active, if anonymously and criminally so).
So--the name "George" is unfortunate out of all possible choices because it could be read as a dogwhistle of hard core Tories who regret the whole Revolution and back an American monarchy as a substitute for the British one they never intended to break from or belatedly regret having been snookered into so doing. It gives ammunition and cover to American radical democrats who could indiscriminately so accuse all American monarchists of being secret Tories, and to attack monarchist policy as inherently unpatriotic.
If regnal names identical down the generations were the universal custom in Europe, it might be more of a dilemma, but in fact even nations like France and dynasties like their Bourbons allowed the predominant flow of "Louises" to be interrupted with the occasional Charles or Francois; the Danes and Swedes would mix it up a bit, even the Saxon royal house would mix up their George Augustuses with various permutations. The American thing to do would be to call a king a king, and just use their first name, whatever it happened to be.
Gilbert is a little weird to my ears but it definitely has a royal ring to it--especially if one's studies go back to the Dark Ages of course! I did not know until reading this thread that this was LaFayette's given name, I'd only ever seen him referred to as just "LaFayette" or even "Lafayette"--the former more correct version is flagged by my spell checker, the simplified run together version is not! I presume "La Fayette" would be most correct but my spell checker disapproves of that too, and apparently changing his allegiance from the King of France to become the American king would have the side effect of stripping him of claim to that French title he is known universally by OTL.
I agree that if Americans are going to give their new kings any distinctive unique new title, they will not borrow anyone's name (except insofar as Caesar or Augustus are actually names--the latter is particularly useless for being a common given name in various languages) but instead use titles borrowed from Latin or perhaps French, conceivably Greek though that would be quite dubious, possibly though quite unlikely Hebrew (those most likely to support it might also find it a bit sacrilegious, and also unwise in that IIRC the book of Chronicles has Samuel trying to dissuade the Israelites from adopting a king in the first place and warns them of calamities the new practice would bring on them--more political ammo for the republicans)! Probably not Anglo-Saxon because the vogue for finding roots of English speaking democracy in the pre-Conquest English tradition would not come for another century; maybe earlier in the Romantic period of literature, but it is still far too early for even that.
We'd just stick with "king," I think, with "royal" as an adjective, and leave it at that, maybe going for "emperor" from the get-go instead, or adding it later. No further weirdness is required and if a new king's given name is no good for a reign they will sparingly add a new one--probably not George, until either US relations with Britain are much better or the British royals have backed away from that name.
I don't see "Gilbert" becoming fashionable either though it could be the default name for someone named "Ichabod" or some such by their mother; by and large I think Americans would prefer to remember each king separately and distinctly with the drama of making up yet another new and exciting name for the heir becoming part of the tradition. Americans might pride themselves on never ever having to add a Roman numeral to any king's name, since each one is unique and distinct; assuming the former Marquise de La Fayette turns out to be a really good king, it might seem terribly presumptuous and asking for trouble to give any successor the same name by act of will. In fact Gilbert might become a common American name for everyone but the royal house.
Is it the plan at this point to not only have a monarchy, but a fixed dynastic succession as well? To some monarchists that is the whole point of having a monarchy, but others will point to the idea of an elective monarchy and hope each US king is chosen on merit--as Lafayette has been!
Personally I have enjoyed suggesting a TL where the Roman Dukes of Britain had their act together more, organized a hold-out of Romanized Britannic civilization and were around instead of Charlemagne (that is, Charles "the Great") to serve as the new western Emperor anointed by the Papacy--in that scenario I gather "Arthur" was not a given name but a Britannic honorific made up for a particular hero, meaning "Bear man" or something like that, and in the ATL this name is made up for a leading Dux of particular importance, either a predecessor of the Emperor or the same guy--and then the title of Augustus Arthur or some suitably Latinized form becomes established; "the Arthur" would be a term interchangeable with "Emperor" or "High King" should a language like OTL English evolve anywhere.
But if in fact Arthur were a common name equivalent to Bob or Joe, I don't suppose that would work so well.
Nor is there much precedent for this kind of thing in European Christendom; I don't think anyone ever expected the Norman dynasty would have its kings known as "The William" or the Plantagenets "The Richard" or what have you.
George is also terribly ambiguous in this context; while I don't think any names more recent than "Caesar," which did become the titles "Kaiser" and "Tsar" in German and Russian, became alternative titles to Emperor or king, it was and is very common for dynasties to keep naming the main heir a traditional king name, often the same one generation after generation, as Louis is typical of French kings, and as it happened the Hanoverian dynasty was stuck on "George" at this very time. A new king can of course take a new name and this where at least some "Georges" in the British succession come in but by and large they got this as their first name at birth.
So--there would be worse than the common danger of mixing up the American monarch with the Hanoverian succession should the Americans unaccountably (with all due respect to General and Dictator Washington) choose to honor their greatest (prior) leader with naming all kings "George." Much worse, because the whole sentiment for royalism in America, while I will not gainsay the author's assertion was popular enough to turn into a majority sentiment under the right conditions, was also a position on the political spectrum, one that more radical revolutionaries identified with some justice as conservative and perhaps, they would argue, unpatriotic, calling into question whether there ever should have been a Revolution in the first place and undermining the belief that national identity could take a different and in the revolutionary (radical anyway) view more rational form than identification with a monarch as a person and a royal line of succession. We know that at least some anti-monarchial democrats still exist despite being discredited by the extremism of certain recent events; even if they wind up criminalized by "lese majeste" legislation they will remain (fewer, but all the more diehard for being forced underground, and perhaps more liable to be politically active, if anonymously and criminally so).
So--the name "George" is unfortunate out of all possible choices because it could be read as a dogwhistle of hard core Tories who regret the whole Revolution and back an American monarchy as a substitute for the British one they never intended to break from or belatedly regret having been snookered into so doing. It gives ammunition and cover to American radical democrats who could indiscriminately so accuse all American monarchists of being secret Tories, and to attack monarchist policy as inherently unpatriotic.
If regnal names identical down the generations were the universal custom in Europe, it might be more of a dilemma, but in fact even nations like France and dynasties like their Bourbons allowed the predominant flow of "Louises" to be interrupted with the occasional Charles or Francois; the Danes and Swedes would mix it up a bit, even the Saxon royal house would mix up their George Augustuses with various permutations. The American thing to do would be to call a king a king, and just use their first name, whatever it happened to be.
Gilbert is a little weird to my ears but it definitely has a royal ring to it--especially if one's studies go back to the Dark Ages of course! I did not know until reading this thread that this was LaFayette's given name, I'd only ever seen him referred to as just "LaFayette" or even "Lafayette"--the former more correct version is flagged by my spell checker, the simplified run together version is not! I presume "La Fayette" would be most correct but my spell checker disapproves of that too, and apparently changing his allegiance from the King of France to become the American king would have the side effect of stripping him of claim to that French title he is known universally by OTL.
I agree that if Americans are going to give their new kings any distinctive unique new title, they will not borrow anyone's name (except insofar as Caesar or Augustus are actually names--the latter is particularly useless for being a common given name in various languages) but instead use titles borrowed from Latin or perhaps French, conceivably Greek though that would be quite dubious, possibly though quite unlikely Hebrew (those most likely to support it might also find it a bit sacrilegious, and also unwise in that IIRC the book of Chronicles has Samuel trying to dissuade the Israelites from adopting a king in the first place and warns them of calamities the new practice would bring on them--more political ammo for the republicans)! Probably not Anglo-Saxon because the vogue for finding roots of English speaking democracy in the pre-Conquest English tradition would not come for another century; maybe earlier in the Romantic period of literature, but it is still far too early for even that.
We'd just stick with "king," I think, with "royal" as an adjective, and leave it at that, maybe going for "emperor" from the get-go instead, or adding it later. No further weirdness is required and if a new king's given name is no good for a reign they will sparingly add a new one--probably not George, until either US relations with Britain are much better or the British royals have backed away from that name.
I don't see "Gilbert" becoming fashionable either though it could be the default name for someone named "Ichabod" or some such by their mother; by and large I think Americans would prefer to remember each king separately and distinctly with the drama of making up yet another new and exciting name for the heir becoming part of the tradition. Americans might pride themselves on never ever having to add a Roman numeral to any king's name, since each one is unique and distinct; assuming the former Marquise de La Fayette turns out to be a really good king, it might seem terribly presumptuous and asking for trouble to give any successor the same name by act of will. In fact Gilbert might become a common American name for everyone but the royal house.
Is it the plan at this point to not only have a monarchy, but a fixed dynastic succession as well? To some monarchists that is the whole point of having a monarchy, but others will point to the idea of an elective monarchy and hope each US king is chosen on merit--as Lafayette has been!
I don't know how the American's will do it Gilbert would pronounce his name "Jill-Bear" which does sound pretty cool.
Quite a few Americans would have some idea how to pronounce French words--by this I mean people in the more literate elite. The kind of people who formed the Continental Congresses and so on, and a substantial number of other townsmen and better off farmers, particularly plantation owners. They'd know more or less not to read it as we would an English name.
Reading it that way instead we get "Gill-burt" more or less, hard G, first syllable pronounced like the "gill" of a fish, every phoneme of the second syllable fully voiced and strongly, the two syllables having almost equal stress with a moderate relative emphasis on the first one--in French I would expect the stress is on the second syllable which is paradoxically also the most worn down in terms of dropped phonemes. "jill-BEAr." American reading of "Gilbert" would thus be GILL-burt. Some confusion as to French rules might lead to some saying JILL-burt, others might essay gill-BEAR or conceivably gil-BURT or jill-BERT.
This may well mean that American English diverges even further from British English as more french gets added too it
And we Brits will be able to kvetch when the damn Yankees can't pronounce Gilbert and Sullivan properly.