A more Monarchist Canada

Two things:

1. The original idea for the Senate was for exactly that, if I'm not mistaken. So continue to use that as a working basis for the Senate's composition (though I'd say don't forget about the university constituencies!)

2. This one is a early POD, but have the survivors of the Vendée Revolt immigrate en masse to Canada. Dathi used a similar idea as his POD for his Canada-wank TL; even if not for a Canada-wank, I could still see having Vendéeistes, including members of the clergy, settle down in Canada as one way to have a more monarchist Canada, as by now the Vendéeistes were kinda-sorta hard core about the whole monarchy thing.
 
actually canada is more monarchal than britian atm, so really best way is to have the royal family move there
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
2. This one is a early POD, but have the survivors of the Vendée Revolt immigrate en masse to Canada. Dathi used a similar idea as his POD for his Canada-wank TL; even if not for a Canada-wank, I could still see having Vendéeistes, including members of the clergy, settle down in Canada as one way to have a more monarchist Canada, as by now the Vendéeistes were kinda-sorta hard core about the whole monarchy thing.
Wouldn't the staunch Protestantism of the British Crown be a bit of a deal-breaker for the Vendéeistes? I mean, I suppose they would still be rigidly "monarchist," but the question is: which monarch?
 
Wouldn't the staunch Protestantism of the British Crown be a bit of a deal-breaker for the Vendéeistes?

Umm, I don't think so. The UK were allies of the Vendéeistes in OTL, and the UK's Protestantism was not a factor in that alliance.

I mean, I suppose they would still be rigidly "monarchist," but the question is: which monarch?

Well, if they cross the Atlantic, than the monarch of the UK.
 
Umm, I don't think so. The UK were allies of the Vendéeistes in OTL, and the UK's Protestantism was not a factor in that alliance.

The treaty of Paris only allowed for the recognition of nobility titles of those who had enjoyed them localy before the conquest (today the baron of longueuil is the only extant french-canadian nobility title) which mean their title would mean jack in north america.

Assuming they move after the act of Quebec, they could be part of whatever civil government the british authorities decide to give the colony at the time without having to give up their catholicism but due to the situation described above, their position would not realy be linked to anything and they probably be needed to be created "lord of somesuch" to take their place in the upper house.
 
Decades of Darkness pulled it off in a reasonably plausible(though somewhat farfetched, it seems )manner; from what I recall, Kingdom status was actually requested by the Dominion's government(though if that's inaccurate to any degree I will be glad to accept any correction.).
 
Decades of Darkness pulled it off in a reasonably plausible(though somewhat farfetched, it seems )manner; from what I recall, Kingdom status was actually requested by the Dominion's government(though if that's inaccurate to any degree I will be glad to accept any correction.).

From a legal standpoint within the commonwealth, there's no difference between "kingdom" and "dominion". Its all purely semantic.
 
Two things:

1. The original idea for the Senate was for exactly that, if I'm not mistaken. So continue to use that as a working basis for the Senate's composition (though I'd say don't forget about the university constituencies!)

I didn't know that. Do you have any sources that elaborate on that idea?
 
Between them George II and George III had 23 children, maybe they establish earldoms and duchies in British North America to provide titles for them, the result being the Duke of Halifax, Montreal, Quebec, Kingston, etc.
 
I've often wondered that about all of British North America.

Why were the colonies made the way they were instead of all property of the monarch and then handed out to loyal subjects?

Baronies, Dukedoms, whatever the land knights get is called, etc.
 
I've often wondered that about all of British North America.

Why were the colonies made the way they were instead of all property of the monarch and then handed out to loyal subjects?

Baronies, Dukedoms, whatever the land knights get is called, etc.

I don't know. All the 18th Century Georges had lots of children and more than a few bastards. It would have been a good way to firmly establish British rule in North America and it would have given the King a much more accurate picture of what was going on in the Thirteen Colonies, besides, I like the ring of Duke of Boston. :D
 
Decades of Darkness pulled it off in a reasonably plausible(though somewhat farfetched, it seems )manner; from what I recall, Kingdom status was actually requested by the Dominion's government(though if that's inaccurate to any degree I will be glad to accept any correction.).

I was going to mention DoD as well. I believe that granting Kingdom status to Canada was actually the British government's idea, though Canadians were indeed asking for a general way to create a unified government with a strong central executive. This was in a world where there was a very hostile United States south of the border, which was fast giving republicanism a bad name, causing them to turn to the monarchy option.

If the OP has never read DoD: the first Canadian king was the British king's younger brother. I'm not 100% sure if titles of nobility were ever created in the DoD Kingdom of Canada. Though it's likely that they were, since other parts of the story mention that other British colonies which also eventually became kingdoms did indeed create a noble class (ex: Australia).
 
I was going to mention DoD as well. I believe that granting Kingdom status to Canada was actually the British government's idea, though Canadians were indeed asking for a general way to create a unified government with a strong central executive. This was in a world where there was a very hostile United States south of the border, which was fast giving republicanism a bad name, causing them to turn to the monarchy option.

If the OP has never read DoD: the first Canadian king was the British king's younger brother. I'm not 100% sure if titles of nobility were ever created in the DoD Kingdom of Canada. Though it's likely that they were, since other parts of the story mention that other British colonies which also eventually became kingdoms did indeed create a noble class (ex: Australia).

As I said before, there is no difference between dominion and kingdom in law, both are ruled by a monarch know as a king/queen. Within the british empire and later the commonwealth, all the dominion and the UK simply happen to be ruled by the same monarch. So having canada (and the other parts of the empire) called "kingdoms" at the time of responsible government would not have changed anything.
 
I don't know. All the 18th Century Georges had lots of children and more than a few bastards. It would have been a good way to firmly establish British rule in North America and it would have given the King a much more accurate picture of what was going on in the Thirteen Colonies, besides, I like the ring of Duke of Boston. :D

Although it does sound very cool, and I may secretly start calling myself that, the Duke of Boston wouldn't happen. By the 18th century (or even 17th) Boston is about the last place of earth that would tolerate a Duke. New England Yankees didn't like fancy men coming over and trying to run the place (see: Edmond Andros, Thomas Hutchinson).



But I like your idea. In 18th century Canada or even 17th century Virginia, sure. Duke of Charleston, maybe? Marquess du Montreal? (it sounded cooler Frenchied up a bit)
 
I was going to mention DoD as well. I believe that granting Kingdom status to Canada was actually the British government's idea, though Canadians were indeed asking for a general way to create a unified government with a strong central executive. This was in a world where there was a very hostile United States south of the border, which was fast giving republicanism a bad name, causing them to turn to the monarchy option.

If the OP has never read DoD: the first Canadian king was the British king's younger brother. I'm not 100% sure if titles of nobility were ever created in the DoD Kingdom of Canada. Though it's likely that they were, since other parts of the story mention that other British colonies which also eventually became kingdoms did indeed create a noble class (ex: Australia).

Okay, thanks for the refresher. The only thing is, how many of the gentry would have survived the revolution? Truth is, the Americans were actually officially supporting the Royalists during this whole dilemma(remember the Blackshirts? Although there was an instance of somebody going against the tide and helping the Republicans), and given that many Canadians probably would've had a serious mistrust of the American government(the Republicans in particular), it's doubtful that the Royalists could pull off a recovery.....though perhaps a compromise of some sort could be considered. ;)
 
Last edited:
Although it does sound very cool, and I may secretly start calling myself that, the Duke of Boston wouldn't happen. By the 18th century (or even 17th) Boston is about the last place of earth that would tolerate a Duke. New England Yankees didn't like fancy men coming over and trying to run the place (see: Edmond Andros, Thomas Hutchinson).

In the latter case, that was because the designs that Andros had on the Dominion were kinda f**ked up anyway by having Boston bite off more than it could chew. (Though Kirke and Dudley were OK; anyone other than Andros could have been better suited.) The original idea of the Dominion, though, was not bad and could have been the basis instead of Canada in OTL for a federal parliamentary democracy, with a strong monarchist base. :D
 
I've often wondered that about all of British North America.

Why were the colonies made the way they were instead of all property of the monarch and then handed out to loyal subjects?

Baronies, Dukedoms, whatever the land knights get is called, etc.

Well the Crown did try and hand great swathes of land out to friendly nobles. The problem was every settler preferred to be a freeholder and own their land rather than be a tenant to some distant lord. As there was so much free land available there was nothing like the scarcity necessary for feudalism, nor was the traditional way of enforcing feudalism (burning out any farmer who didn't become you tenant) practical.
 
Top