A Question: German noble house best suited to American monarchy?

Krall

Banned
What ho, everyone!

In the Map Thread I asked for map suggestions, since I lacked inspiration at the time, and Ynnead suggested the internal divisions of an America with a strong monarchy.

As with most of my questions I'm going to explain the situation in depth before actually getting round to asking the question, so skip to the end of the post if you don't want to read my ramblings.


I'm just working out how a strong American monarchy could come into place, and I've got most of it worked out. The Cajuns that migrated to Acadiana (southern Louisiana, around New Orleans) during the Seven Years War in the belief that the region would remain a French territory don't migrate there, or migrate to Quebec only to find that, after the Treaty of Paris, they are living in a region under British sovereignty. They later form a rebellion in protest, which spreads to parts of the non-French, colonial population who also have reasons to rebel. The rebellion is still relatively small and is put down, but unrest continues and politicians in Britain begin to get paranoid about foreign sympathisers in the American colonies.

A short age of suppression and small-scale violence occurs in the American colonies, or at least those that took significant part in the previous rebellion. This causes a greater proportion of the colonial population to harbour resentment towards British rule without representation, and sympathy towards the cause of an independent America spreads.

A Continental Congress is called and the delegates unanimously pass a motion calling for autonomy from the British King, but the general feeling is that all-out rebellion and independence would be going too far. King George III ignores the request, and British colonial governors suppress information of the request in the hopes that the population won't have another reason to rebel. The attempt ultimately fails and pamphlets advertising the King's disrespect towards the colonies are circulated. Full-blown revolution breaks out soon after, unpopular Governors are executed or taken prisoner along with significant portions of the loyalist population.

Britain sends troops to take care of the rebellion, but they fail due to the patriots' adoption of unconventional tactics, their lack of knowledge of the local area, and the lack of co-operation and failures in communication between British generals. France joins in the war against the British, and Britain begrudgingly admits defeat and permits the independence of certain American colonies (in addition to more minor terms demanded by France).

The Continental Congress ratifies a new constitution proclaiming their independence and confederation, though many of the provincial and state congresses do not ratify the constitution (they do not reject it either; they juts don't vote on it). The confederation is generally referred to as the Continental Union of America, or the United States of America (both terms are common). The President of the Continental Union is elected by the Continental Congress, and the first President is a controversial figure who was initially loyalist during the Revolutionary War before switching sides later on. He is misliked by some major politicians and large portions of the military.

The first President's rule is marked by the defiance of his actions and demands by others, and his own defiance of others' actions and demands. He is soon deposed by rebelling members of the military, who march into his Presidential residence in New York unopposed and take him captive. The Continental Congress is dismissed and then re-elected. The new members of the Congress are led by a small cadre of powerful men who favour a federation of states under an enlightened monarch, with various checks and balances between the various branches of government and between the state governments and the federal government.

A new, monarchical constitution is written and passed by the Continental Congress before being passed onto the various state and provincial congresses, some of whom are slow to ratify the new constitution, hoping that it might be further refined, but after several state congresses pass the constitution the possibility of minor adjustments disappears, and the remaining congresses ratify the constitution.

After the ratification of the constitution it is left up to the Continental Congress to find a monarch for the newly created Empire of American States (also referred to as the Continental Empire). A German noble proposes himself for the position, and Congress is impressed with his liberal attitude towards powerful elected bodies and anti-British sentiment, so they appoint him Emperor.


Ah, now comes the actual question. The Emperor is meant to be a German noble, but I'm lost as to which German noble family he could have reasonably have come from. It needs to be a family with good anti-British credentials (as this takes place within 20 years after the Seven Years War - in which every German state save for Prussia was at war with Britain and its allies - this shouldn't be too hard of a requirement to fill), but it also has to be a reasonably powerful noble house. The Habsburgs are the obvious candidates, but I think that's a bit too obvious, and a bit too similar to the Mexican Empire from OTL. I was thinking of maybe the House of Wittelsbach (Bavaria), or maybe the House of Wettin (Saxony)?

I was wondering what people more knowledgeable about German nobility in this time period (1770s and 1780s) would think?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Hohenzollern-Bayreuth!
After the seven years war, even Prussia turned anti-british :p

If it must absolutely be a house that fought against the british, either a younger Pfalz-something branch of the house of Wittelsbach or one of the Thuringian princes.
 
I imagine they should want Protestant, so Habsburg and Wittelsbach would be out of the question anyway. Wettin seems to be the usual providers of royal males for the non-Catholic realms (Belgium, the UK, and Bulgaria). The other main option would be Oldenburg.
 

Krall

Banned
Hohenzollern-Bayreuth!
After the seven years war, even Prussia turned anti-british :p

If it must absolutely be a house that fought against the british, either a younger Pfalz-something branch of the house of Wittelsbach or one of the Thuringian princes.

Interesting. I haven't read too much into the Seven Years' War and it's aftermath. Could you explain more about Prussia's reasons for its anti-British sentiment?

Now that I think about it, a Hohenzollern with the title "Emperor" would probably be a great insult against the Habsburgs, who held the title of Holy Roman Emperor. It would also establish the Hohenzollerns outside of Europe and outside of the authority of the HRE.
 
...The new members of the Congress are led by a small cadre of powerful men who favour a federation of states under an enlightened monarch...

Ok, why not just pick some American they generally admire? Why import someone from Europe?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Interesting. I haven't read too much into the Seven Years' War and it's aftermath. Could you explain more about Prussia's reasons for its anti-British sentiment?

Now that I think about it, a Hohenzollern with the title "Emperor" would probably be a great insult against the Habsburgs, who held the title of Holy Roman Emperor. It would also establish the Hohenzollerns outside of Europe and outside of the authority of the HRE.

Basically it was felt, after the 7YW, that the British were trying to establish a hegemony over world trade (they got massive concessions in terms of trade areas from both France and Spain in addition to the land they got hold of) and the tories tried to basically establish an isolationist Britain - added to the simple fact that, at a time where diplomatic immunity was now becoming standard practice, Britain was the last country in Europe not to take it into consideration (they had a Portuguese ambassador hung for a relatively petty crime for example - then again this is a country that hung admirals for losing battles; except amusingly the loser of Cartagena de Indias because the defeat was covered up by the court). But from a trade perspective, the 7YW caused a lot of resentment, mainly because the only country to make any significant gains in the winners was Britain.

By the time of the American Revolution, two blocs formed: the French-dominated one, which wanted to get back at Britain militarily and so declared war, and the Russian-Austrian-Prussian block, which wanted to hurt Britain economically and pretty much immediately recognized the independence of the US while embargoing british trade.

Also the Palatine branch of the Wittelsbach were Protestant (but I think extinct at this point), as were some saxon dukes, but not all (although the elector of Saxony was catholic, he voted with the protestant bloc).

What about Mecklemburg-Strelitz if you want a minor house? Oldenburg also somewhat works :p
 

Krall

Banned
Ok, why not just pick some American they generally admire? Why import someone from Europe?

They appointed the German noble as the Emperor because he put himself forward as a candidate and was generally admired by the members of the Congress for his intelligence and political ideology. As he was not an American he wasn't involved in the revolutionary war or the subsequent unrest, so he wouldn't have any political allegiances to specific people, groups or states, which were the main reasons that most American candidates were considered unsuitable.

Basically it was felt, after the 7YW, that the British were trying to establish a hegemony over world trade (they got massive concessions in terms of trade areas from both France and Spain in addition to the land they got hold of) and the tories tried to basically establish an isolationist Britain - added to the simple fact that, at a time where diplomatic immunity was now becoming standard practice, Britain was the last country in Europe not to take it into consideration (they had a Portuguese ambassador hung for a relatively petty crime for example - then again this is a country that hung admirals for losing battles; except amusingly the loser of Cartagena de Indias because the defeat was covered up by the court). But from a trade perspective, the 7YW caused a lot of resentment, mainly because the only country to make any significant gains in the winners was Britain.

By the time of the American Revolution, two blocs formed: the French-dominated one, which wanted to get back at Britain militarily and so declared war, and the Russian-Austrian-Prussian block, which wanted to hurt Britain economically and pretty much immediately recognized the independence of the US while embargoing british trade.

Also the Palatine branch of the Wittelsbach were Protestant (but I think extinct at this point), as were some saxon dukes, but not all (although the elector of Saxony was catholic, he voted with the protestant bloc).

What about Mecklemburg-Strelitz if you want a minor house? Oldenburg also somewhat works :p

Interesting! I'm learning a lot today.

I like your original suggestion of a Hohenzollern, as it presents some nice possibilities for future alliances, rivalries and other oddities. Were the Hohenzollerns protestant, or was there a suitable candidate for the American monarchy that was protestant at the time?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
They appointed the German noble as the Emperor because he put himself forward as a candidate and was generally admired by the members of the Congress for his intelligence and political ideology. As he was not an American he wasn't involved in the revolutionary war or the subsequent unrest, so he wouldn't have any political allegiances to specific people, groups or states, which were the main reasons that most American candidates were considered unsuitable.



Interesting! I'm learning a lot today.

I like your original suggestion of a Hohenzollern, as it presents some nice possibilities for future alliances, rivalries and other oddities. Were the Hohenzollerns protestant, or was there a suitable candidate for the American monarchy that was protestant at the time?

Prussian Hohenzollern, yes, the two franconian branches (Bayreuth and Ansback) yes, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (which IIRC was the elder branches of the house of Hohenzollern), however, were catholic.
 

Krall

Banned
Prussian Hohenzollern, yes, the two franconian branches (Bayreuth and Ansback) yes, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (which IIRC was the elder branches of the house of Hohenzollern), however, were catholic.

Hmm, I'm thinking Frederick Christian of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (the penultimate margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth) has a son ITTL who becomes Margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth after his death, who later puts himself forward as a candidate for the American monarchy and sells his Margravate to Prussia, as Charles Alexander did IOTL. Sound reasonable?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Hmm, I'm thinking Frederick Christian of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (the penultimate margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth) has a son ITTL who becomes Margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth after his death, who later puts himself forward as a candidate for the American monarchy and sells his Margravate to Prussia, as Charles Alexander did IOTL. Sound reasonable?

Let me see... Prussia gains Ansbach, the americans gain a Hohenzollern figurehead constitutional emperor (the only royal candidate considered besides Washington was a member of the house of Hohenzollern from what little I know, but not from one of the side branches, although a brother of the king of Prussia, considering a) his lack of children b) his proclivities and c) that a and b were seriously connected, would not have been realistic), I'd say Win-Win (although it probably annoys the french mildly (but they can probably live with it) and pisses off the british wildly).
 

Krall

Banned
Let me see... Prussia gains Ansbach, the americans gain a Hohenzollern figurehead constitutional emperor (the only royal candidate considered besides Washington was a member of the house of Hohenzollern from what little I know, but not from one of the side branches, although a brother of the king of Prussia, considering a) his lack of children b) his proclivities and c) that a and b were seriously connected, would not have been realistic), I'd say Win-Win (although it probably annoys the french mildly (but they can probably live with it) and pisses off the british wildly).

Alright then, ATL member of Hohenzollern-Bayreuth it is!

Whilst the British would be extraordinarily miffed, France may be too busy having a revolution which will ultimately reshape the map of Europe for centuries to come to be bothered too much. (Actually, the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars might cause a schism between the Hohenzollerns in America and those in Prussia, as those in Prussia will be working with Britain to fight France, whereas America may come to blows with Britain gain in a manner similar to OTL's 1812).
 
I'm afraid you have some problems to overcome, sorry....

The biggest is that democracy generally picks better leaders than first-sonny-boyhood. That might be unclear in an era where your New Labour and Lizzy are one of the rare exceptions, but it's true over 90% of the time. We've had only three presidencies out of 42, IMHO, who were as bad as your average king.

Getting to specifics, the first president's virtually always whatever general won the war. He had to've be chosen by the democratically elected Continental Congress. Also, back then we chose the pool of generals (AND officers) from which Congress chose by vote of their troops (don't I wish we still did! No Franks or Westmoreland!).

And, what Shevek23 and and Tobit said.

We hardly had good experience with German kings, did we? If we had gone constitutionally monarchic, as many of our Founders had wanted, we likely would've picked Washington. I'm glad we didn't, though, because it would sacrificed an important check and balance.

Thande's TL's one likely way. Good luck revising.
 

Krall

Banned
I'm afraid you have some problems to overcome, sorry....

The biggest is that democracy generally picks better leaders than first-sonny-boyhood. That might be unclear in an era where your New Labour and Lizzy are one of the rare exceptions, but it's true over 90% of the time. We've had only three presidencies out of 42, IMHO, who were as bad as your average king.

This is unlikely to be a factor in the decision at the time. Many people at the time believed that enlightened constitutional monarchy was the best form of government (some people still do), and there would be no real way to prove that democratically chosen leaders are better than hereditary leaders, as there were few - if any - states that were democratic to the degree of a modern liberal democracy.

Getting to specifics, the first president's virtually always whatever general won the war. He had to've be chosen by the democratically elected Continental Congress. Also, back then we chose the pool of generals (AND officers) from which Congress chose by vote of their troops (don't I wish we still did! No Franks or Westmoreland!).

In this timeline there is no one general that won the war; i.e. no Washington or anyone with the equivalent prestige of Washington. The first President, as I said, was a controversial figure who join the Patriots later into the war, and was liked by some, but not by all.

We hardly had good experience with German kings, did we? If we had gone constitutionally monarchic, as many of our Founders had wanted, we likely would've picked Washington. I'm glad we didn't, though, because it would sacrificed an important check and balance.

This isn't the same Revolutionary War as OTL, so there's no Washington or Washington equivalent to be the obvious candidate. Every powerful politician and "founding father" has powerful rivals and/or loyalties to their own state, or to previous President or to those who deposed him, making them less suitable for the position than an impartial onlooker.
 
I imagine they should want Protestant, so Habsburg and Wittelsbach would be out of the question anyway. Wettin seems to be the usual providers of royal males for the non-Catholic realms (Belgium, the UK, and Bulgaria). The other main option would be Oldenburg.

Can't be Hannover, Brunswick or Hesse for obvious reasons, and if we disregard Prussia due to recent alliances or what-have-you I would agree that we are looking at one of the Saxon duchies.

The period is a little before my time, unfortunately, so I don't really know what they were up to!

As Poland was Catholic, what religion was the main ruling Saxon line? If Protestant, then it would be the obvious contender as it had kings in its line.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Can't be Hannover, Brunswick or Hesse for obvious reasons, and if we disregard Prussia due to recent alliances or what-have-you I would agree that we are looking at one of the Saxon duchies.

The period is a little before my time, unfortunately, so I don't really know what they were up to!

As Poland was Catholic, what religion was the main ruling Saxon line? If Protestant, then it would be the obvious contender as it had kings in its line.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

It's split between Catholic and Protestant as far as I can tell, and the Saxon elector is in the weird position of being catholic as king of Poland but protestant as duke-elector of Saxony.

The other minor houses in Germany could be considered, I guess: that gives four branches of counts of Reuss, the princes of Leiningen, two branches of dukes of Mecklemburg, the counts of Bentheim, etc. Of course none have that significant ties that they make a good pick for political standing but obviously also come with the advantage of no entangling alliances. If entangling alliances are still acceptable: Oldenburg, Hohenzollern, younger Wettin.
 
...I am aware that this is not exactly Germany

...but how about somone Dutch or Danish?

Both are protestant, both a seafaring, mercantile nations and match the Americans better IMHO. Especially the Dutch have a certain historical connection (New Amsterdam) - maybe already too much for the British to accept.
 

Susano

Banned
What about the House of Hesse for the irony of it? :D

Hm. Absolutism was pretty pervasive in Germany at the time. A noble withr espect for the constitutional institutions? Always possible of coruse, but hardly a typical trait. And the only major country where absolutism hadnt taken hold, Mecklenburg, was so ridicously reactionary - they werent absoutist because they had pre-absolutist politics there!

Of course, that Bayreuth guy could work. Dont know too much about him, though. Seeing the way he basically didnt care for ruling as Margrave, though, he cant have been too much on about rule by the grace of god and all that, so why not...
 
Top