A truly Canadian Royal Family

Why not give it to... Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours? He married Queen Victoria's first cousin in 1840.

Perhaps, I'll have to do more research on the guy.

yes, but in those days, canada was not an idea totally beyond a vague geographical area - it's why when the political idea of a nation called Canada came to be, our ancestors where kinda forced to call themselves French-canadians from Big C Canadiens.
The anglo-canadians thought of themselves as *britishes*. Canadians or Canucks is a new calling kinda. Canadiens is an old term who existed in New France texts.

Oh come on, dude. We weren't even remotely forced or pressured. Of course other anglophones considered themselves British; Upper Canada became mostly anglophone because of the influx of United Empire Loyalists, who were (obviously) loyal to Britain. They identified themselves as English/British, because they essentially were. The French/"Canadiens" were fine with that until the War of 1812 which helped unify British North America to a certain extent, helping to create the concept of being "Canadian"; this was essentially honouring, acknowledging and accepting the French part of Canada, but of course Quebec's historical revisionism has decided to turn this into "Anglos forced us to start calling ourselves French-Canadians".

Or, so my grandfather (a born-and-bred "good Quebecois boy" who was proud to be a Canadian and a Quebecer, served in WWII where he learned English, then went on to become a journalist with the CBC, left and came to hate his home province because of what was going on with the "hijacking" of the Quiet Revolution by separatists) would say.

Well, France's anti-monarchist feeling actually survived, and returned in due time, so... As much as a noble would try so, the people may say 'keep yer nobles, Britain,...

Wait, could you perhaps rephrase this? I'm not exactly sure of what you're trying to say here. :confused:

When Victoria's father Prince Edward (Yes, the one after whom the island is named...) was Governor there, back before he returned home and married to produce a legitimate heir (just in case none of his elder brothers succeeded in this), he had a long-term Canadienne mistress who was generally accepted in local society as his consort. IOTL that relationship was childless, but...

Hmm, definitely an idea for the backburner...

I think a Canadian monarchy is a really different idea. My concern with this is how the new monarchy would relate to the British Crown. Would having a subservient monarchy concrete the British monarchy as an emperorship, not just of India but as its first identity not its second. Or would Canada's new monarch be King in Canada rather than King of Canada like Prussia was for a while.

I'm not sure what the difference would be. I had intended for the crown to be separate and for Britain to help foster Canada's growth in the Americas, slowly transferring control of British territories and colonies in the Americas to Canada, which Canada would be required to administer and/or expand upon as a way of enlarging the British Empire on the whole, even though the Canadian Crown would be separate in order to contravene the Monroe Doctrine.
 
Oh come on, dude. We weren't even remotely forced or pressured. Of course other anglophones considered themselves British; Upper Canada became mostly anglophone because of the influx of United Empire Loyalists, who were (obviously) loyal to Britain. They identified themselves as English/British, because they essentially were. The French/"Canadiens" were fine with that until the War of 1812 which helped unify British North America to a certain extent, helping to create the concept of being "Canadian"; this was essentially honouring, acknowledging and accepting the French part of Canada, but of course Quebec's historical revisionism has decided to turn this into "Anglos forced us to start calling ourselves French-Canadians".

Or, so my grandfather (a born-and-bred "good Quebecois boy" who was proud to be a Canadian and a Quebecer, served in WWII where he learned English, then went on to become a journalist with the CBC, left and came to hate his home province because of what was going on with the "hijacking" of the Quiet Revolution by separatists) would say.



Wait, could you perhaps rephrase this? I'm not exactly sure of what you're trying to say here. :confused:



Hmm, definitely an idea for the backburner...



I'm not sure what the difference would be. I had intended for the crown to be separate and for Britain to help foster Canada's growth in the Americas, slowly transferring control of British territories and colonies in the Americas to Canada, which Canada would be required to administer and/or expand upon as a way of enlarging the British Empire on the whole, even though the Canadian Crown would be separate in order to contravene the Monroe Doctrine.

Indirectly, well, they too the name for the whole - it's the reality. Who manipulate history? Maybe the aglo-canadians side too, and you bite for it maybe. Do you think that we are unable to see things as they are? Do you think canadian nationalism isn't a factor too?

The Quiet Revolution by example was painted as 'heinous nationalism' - but the facts are by example, if some anglos fled, it was maybe by a certain spirit of unable of accepting the fact we wanted to have a say in our ruling. We wanted to be egal citizens, our language, ideas, customs etc a bit respected, and so on.

I don't 'hate anglos' or so on. We do not. We want egality and respect, and control of our stuff.
 
Last edited:
Indirectly, well, they too the name for the whole - it's the reality.

You make it sound like it's a problem and/or a bad thing.

Who manipulate history? Maybe the aglo-canadians side too, and you bite for it maybe. Do you think that we are unable to see things as they are? Do you think canadian nationalism isn't a factor too?

Considering that Quebecois nationalism has more to lose by being fair and honest in such a situation, I find that claim to be somewhat of a stretch. Having looked at my history books, Quebecois history books, and having conversed with friends and family on both sides, the anglo education is far more fair and seeks to help explain why Quebecers feel the way they do, misguided it may be in the modern Canada. The Quebecois schoolbooks only ever paint anglos as borderline-evil conquerors of some "Utopia that could have been".

The Quiet Revolution by example was painted as 'heinous nationalism' - but the facts are by example, if some anglos fled, it was maybe by a certain spirit of unable of accepting the fact we wanted to have a say in our ruling. We wanted to be egal citizens, our language, ideas, customs etc a bit respected, and so on.

Painted as heinous nationalism by who? No one, and I mean no one, had a problem with the original aims fo the Quiet Revolution; modernizing Quebec and breaker the power of the overbearing Catholic Church. It's when it was hijacked by separatists that people came to look upon the Quiet Revolution with disdain, good as it was initially.

Also, it wasn't just anglos who fled; my grandfather is proof of that.

Quebec has always had a say in how its affairs are run. For pete's sake, it was even one of the stated "Intolerable Acts" that was one of the causes of the American Revolution. Quebecers were (and still are) equal citizens under the law, and your language, customs and institutions have been protected since the colonization of North America (something nigh unheard of in those times).

I don't 'hate anglos' or so on. We do not. We want egality and respect, and control of our stuff.

I don't hate francos either, but I find a lot of you to be incredibly frustrating when it comes to this issue because many of you feel "wronged", "slighted" and "marginalized", when it couldn't be further from the truth.

You have equality (if not more, according to some Canadians), you have respect, and you control your own stuff, within reason, just like all the other provinces.
 
Victoria's half-siblings

You do know she was an only child?

No, she wasn't. Edward of Kent was the second husband of her mother, Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, who had two children by her first husband, Charles, Prince of Leiningen:

Prince Carl Friedrich of Leiningen (1804-1856)

Princess Anna Feodora (1807-1872)

They of course had no claim whatever to any British titles; but they are an interesting footnote. In 1852, Napoleon III proposed to marry Carl Friedrich's 16-year-old daughter Adelheid; a tacit attempt to link the House of Bonaparte to the British crown. This was met by unspoken but very clear disapproval from Aunt Victoria and Uncle Albert, and nothing came of it.
 
An interesting idea. The Fathers of Confederation wanted Canada to be called the Kingdom of Canada, albeit still under the British Crown. However, if I am not mistaken, the British government was worried about upsetting the Americans so they decided on Dominion of Canada (which I think sounds cooler anyway).

You probably need to find a way to get it done before the American Civil War. After the war, the Americans are too powerful so Britain is going to be more wary of upsetting them.

The idea of an Canadian monarchy hasn't gone away. Today, Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada. Plus there have still been suggestions about bringing over a royal such as Prince Harry to be King in Canada.
 
An interesting idea. The Fathers of Confederation wanted Canada to be called the Kingdom of Canada, albeit still under the British Crown. However, if I am not mistaken, the British government was worried about upsetting the Americans so they decided on Dominion of Canada (which I think sounds cooler anyway).

You probably need to find a way to get it done before the American Civil War. After the war, the Americans are too powerful so Britain is going to be more wary of upsetting them.

The idea of an Canadian monarchy hasn't gone away. Today, Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada. Plus there have still been suggestions about bringing over a royal such as Prince Harry to be King in Canada.

IndefatigableRN

Interesting. I knew Dominion was chosen as an alternative for kingdom to avoid upsetting the US but didn't realise that the Canadian leaders wanted to be declared a kingdom.

The obvious solution, to me anyway, is that Anglo-American relations are worse, say from a longer and more bitter 1812, an Oregon war or even a Trent based conflict. Hence Britain basically doesn't care what Washington is 'whining' about and goes with kingdom, because its traditional, its what the locals want and because London doesn't particularly care what the Americans say on the issue as its 'none of their damned business'.;)

Note that prolonged tension from an earlier conflict is likely to lead to a more developed and richer Canada in itself as, ignoring any border changes, it will mean:
a) More British investment in the military creating a larger market in Canada and also possibly in transport and facilities that have economic as well as military bonuses.

b) Diverting British settlement and investment from the US to Canada and most of all reducing the drain of settlers southwards to the richer economy of the US.

I would say that making Canada a kingdom would have no real impact on the Monroe Doctrine. As IndefatigableRN says its more likely to upset the US than doing otherwise. Also the MD was an internal US policy that had no real bearing on anything outside the US. It was only because Britain decided that relations with the US were best handled by good relations and concessions to US ideas that it had an impact on British policy. If Britain, at least before circa 1880ish wants to do anything with Canada, presuming the support of the inhabitants, then the US has neither the military power nor the political will to do anything to intervene.

Steve
 
Since the stated purpose is to free britain from the strictures of the monroe doctrine, this is pretty much a nonstarter.

While otls monroe doctrine was a us announcement, the enforcement was more british than us. Especially in early days, there is NOTHING the us could do to prevent the brits from doing whatever they wanted.

What free hand do the brits want, anyway? Are they invading cuba? Why?
 
An interesting idea. The Fathers of Confederation wanted Canada to be called the Kingdom of Canada, albeit still under the British Crown. However, if I am not mistaken, the British government was worried about upsetting the Americans so they decided on Dominion of Canada (which I think sounds cooler anyway).

You are correct, and that's partly what inspired this TL that has been in the works for quite some time. I essentially had the POD be right after the War of 1812 when a British commander stated that if the US invaded Canada again, they would lose Canada. The idea is that several Canadians and several British aristocrats agree that it is highly important to cease the trend of losing their largest white settler colonies. This leads to more focus on Canada and improving its infrastructure, while boosting its population.

This in turn is met with some worry by the US, and several debates/close calls happen as per OTL with regards to the Monroe Doctrine, prompting some to openly wonder "what if we helped make Canada more powerful to help keep a check on the US?" This, combined with some misfortune on behalf of the States, results in a larger and stronger Canada that becomes a Kingdom in the 1850's (in part to spite the US), marking to beginning of some major divergences from OTL.

IndefatigableRN

Interesting. I knew Dominion was chosen as an alternative for kingdom to avoid upsetting the US but didn't realise that the Canadian leaders wanted to be declared a kingdom.

The obvious solution, to me anyway, is that Anglo-American relations are worse, say from a longer and more bitter 1812, an Oregon war or even a Trent based conflict. Hence Britain basically doesn't care what Washington is 'whining' about and goes with kingdom, because its traditional, its what the locals want and because London doesn't particularly care what the Americans say on the issue as its 'none of their damned business'.;)

That's sort of what I had planned in a sense. When Britain, Venezuela, and America almost came to blows over Guyana in the 1840's, that's when the British begin to wonder "what if we had a stronger Canada to give America pause in some instances?" allowing for Britain to bolster Canada in several ways. This would (of course) irritate the Americans, and help stir and increase the sentiment of "54'40 or fight!" which would also be right around the time of the Mexican-American War. I would make it so that the British Empire would enter on the side of Mexico, and acquire the entire Oregon country out of the deal in the ensuing war against America. Out of that war would emerge an even stronger Canadian identity of sorts, just like what happened in the War of 1812, setting the stage for a Kingdom of Canada.

Note that prolonged tension from an earlier conflict is likely to lead to a more developed and richer Canada in itself as, ignoring any border changes, it will mean:
a) More British investment in the military creating a larger market in Canada and also possibly in transport and facilities that have economic as well as military bonuses.

b) Diverting British settlement and investment from the US to Canada and most of all reducing the drain of settlers southwards to the richer economy of the US.

Hmm, that is another possibility...

I would say that making Canada a kingdom would have no real impact on the Monroe Doctrine. As IndefatigableRN says its more likely to upset the US than doing otherwise. Also the MD was an internal US policy that had no real bearing on anything outside the US. It was only because Britain decided that relations with the US were best handled by good relations and concessions to US ideas that it had an impact on British policy. If Britain, at least before circa 1880ish wants to do anything with Canada, presuming the support of the inhabitants, then the US has neither the military power nor the political will to do anything to intervene.

Steve

True, but that's because OTL didn't have some of the POD's of this TL. To be fair, this whole TL is proving tricky to write and lay out, since I have to pay attention to a lot of what happened IOTL, but taking into consideration new attitudes and events because of the butterflies and POD's.

Since the stated purpose is to free britain from the strictures of the monroe doctrine, this is pretty much a nonstarter.

While otls monroe doctrine was a us announcement, the enforcement was more british than us. Especially in early days, there is NOTHING the us could do to prevent the brits from doing whatever they wanted.

To be fair though, the US and Britain almost came to blows several times over issues concerning the Monroe Doctrine.

What free hand do the brits want, anyway? Are they invading cuba? Why?

It's basically a POD that sees Britain pay more attention to Canada, one thing leads to another, British North America (Canada) ends up going to war with the Americans on the side of the Mexicans, and tensions between America and Britain/Canada are more sour than OTL. Again, I haven't fully fleshed this TL out yet, but I wanted it to be a Canadawank within a Britwank that is still different from OTL.
 
I had intended for the crown to be separate and for Britain to help foster Canada's growth in the Americas, slowly transferring control of British territories and colonies in the Americas to Canada, which Canada would be required to administer and/or expand upon as a way of enlarging the British Empire on the whole, even though the Canadian Crown would be separate in order to contravene the Monroe Doctrine.

Why would the British worry about contravening a doctrine they uphold and Canada is already exempted from?
 
Top