A Victorian British Republic
- Thread starter Sulemain
- Start date
An immediate backlash by certain elements of the establishment who try and install her heirs as monarchs, if they fail I'd imagine a ceremonial Presidency/Lord Protectorate/other Generic Exceuitve fulfilling the role of the crown, possibly elected by the Lords rather than the popular vote.
I can't see Britain going to a directly elected president in that era, so what came out of it would be interesting. I quite like the idea of the House of Lords electing one of their number to be president after every general election. I suspect you'd end up with a de facto elected monarchy anyway, or the presidency would end up rotating between various peerages.
RyanF
Banned
A lot depends on just how the Republic comes about, but in the broadest of strokes if just abdicates on behalf of herself and her children and concerned parties are unable to tempt a new monarch from Hanover or elsewhere then we might see a ceremonial Lord Protector (a constitutional monarch in all but name) elected from the Lords as a stopgap measure between remaining a United Kingdom and passing over to the masses.
The question then becomes what the many people who don't agree with this will do - the UK (that will need to be changed for one thing) is in for a long period of uncertainty, most republics were looked down on by a Britain that now oddly finds themselves one of them, will this stir up nationalistic movements in the Celtic nations not to mention the Empire.
Unfortunately, I can't see Palmerston accepting the position of Lord Protector.
The question then becomes what the many people who don't agree with this will do - the UK (that will need to be changed for one thing) is in for a long period of uncertainty, most republics were looked down on by a Britain that now oddly finds themselves one of them, will this stir up nationalistic movements in the Celtic nations not to mention the Empire.
Unfortunately, I can't see Palmerston accepting the position of Lord Protector.
Hmm I'm not so sure about the name change, I think it's very likely we'd just stay the UK.
I think the first POTUK/LPOTUK would be some kind of elder statesman... John Russel is still alive at this point, although rather old and I don't know how respected he was by the establishment of the time. Most likely they pick someone we've never heard of...
RyanF
Banned
Initially yes I see it being kept the same, much as I see whatever elder statesman chosen as Lord Protector from the Lords being a constitutional monarch in all but name becoming the Three Kingdoms of the Empty Thrones.
However, the absence of the monarchy on the British national psyche, especially as far as radical politics goes, is entirely unprecedented in the industrial age. Who knows how much the country might change within even a decade of the abdication.
Yeah, I think youd have the PM being head of state from the House of Lords, with the "majority leader" (although I doubt they'd use that term) in the Commons being head of government.
You just find another monarch.
The prestige is huge, the money's good, the risks are small - somebody with a claim to the throne, however distant, will be found to step up.
The only way you get Britain to become a republic in the mid 19th century is successful revolution.
The prestige is huge, the money's good, the risks are small - somebody with a claim to the throne, however distant, will be found to step up.
The only way you get Britain to become a republic in the mid 19th century is successful revolution.
Unlikely. The Prime Minister is the chief minister of government as selected by the monarch.
If Protector is too tainted by Cromwell then you may end up with the more Scottish version Lord Guardian who then choses his chief minister
There'd probably also be Acts of Parliament that then define the roles of HoS and HoG and bit more.
Yes, the most likely possibility but in the absence of an agreeable monarch what would this halfhearted republic define as its Head of State?
Do we get some form of federation with limited Regional First Ministers headed by a National Prime Minister?
This is Britain, so most likely some kind of bastardised half-compromise based on precedent. I could envisage the Speaker of the House claiming the ability to open Parliament, for example, and thus becoming a ceremonial sort-of head of state; alternatively, what if the Lord Privy Seal claims the power to grant Royal Assent to new bills by use of the Seal, then assents to bills regularising that practice and allowing *him* to call Parliament?
Either of those, or something else based on the day-to-day business of government at the time growing and developing into something that serves the role seems much more likely than an entirely new creation.
Republicanism under Victoria probably reached its height in the aftermath of her complete withdrawal from public life following Albert's death - so through the 1860s.
It certainly was enough of a concern to the Government and her son and heir at the period. It waned following the Prince of Wales illness with Typhoid and Victoria's resumption of some public events following that.
Had it taken off - attracted support among some in Parliament for example - then I suspect the model chosen would have been one which allowed Parliament to remain the ultimate control.
With Parliament (by which i mean both the Commons and Lords) opting to elect from its own members a President as Head of State (or installing the Speaker in the role) rather than having direct elections and setting up a rival power base to the Government of the day.
Either way suspect the "President" would have a very limited public role over time of course there would be pressure for reform of whatever haphazard solution they came up with.
Interestingly you have a declining Peerage with no new ones being created (because it would be odd to have a system where the President inherits the monarch's write to bestow honours and titles) so the Lords are going to start shrinking - without the ability to pack the Lords it might actually be harder to get legislation through where there is a clash between the elected Commons and the Peers on issues such as widening the franchise, social reform and taxation - so pressure to abolish the House of Lords might start to intensify even earlier.
In reality the level of support was such that a more likely result would be a forced abdication and installing the Prince of Wales as King (or more likely Regent) - which might have forced Victoria out of her inertia anyway.
Despite his more obvious failings the main issue with Bertie was that he was bored rigid because his mother refused point blank to let him do anything and then when he filled his time with pursuits she disapproved of she used that as further evidence that he should not be allowed access to power.
Several PM's did try and persuade her to allow the Prince of Wales to take a more active role in supporting her they usually failed - the reality was that Victoria hated sharing the limelight even when she didn't particularly want to be in the limelight herself and she absolutely hated being outshone by her children.
It certainly was enough of a concern to the Government and her son and heir at the period. It waned following the Prince of Wales illness with Typhoid and Victoria's resumption of some public events following that.
Had it taken off - attracted support among some in Parliament for example - then I suspect the model chosen would have been one which allowed Parliament to remain the ultimate control.
With Parliament (by which i mean both the Commons and Lords) opting to elect from its own members a President as Head of State (or installing the Speaker in the role) rather than having direct elections and setting up a rival power base to the Government of the day.
Either way suspect the "President" would have a very limited public role over time of course there would be pressure for reform of whatever haphazard solution they came up with.
Interestingly you have a declining Peerage with no new ones being created (because it would be odd to have a system where the President inherits the monarch's write to bestow honours and titles) so the Lords are going to start shrinking - without the ability to pack the Lords it might actually be harder to get legislation through where there is a clash between the elected Commons and the Peers on issues such as widening the franchise, social reform and taxation - so pressure to abolish the House of Lords might start to intensify even earlier.
In reality the level of support was such that a more likely result would be a forced abdication and installing the Prince of Wales as King (or more likely Regent) - which might have forced Victoria out of her inertia anyway.
Despite his more obvious failings the main issue with Bertie was that he was bored rigid because his mother refused point blank to let him do anything and then when he filled his time with pursuits she disapproved of she used that as further evidence that he should not be allowed access to power.
Several PM's did try and persuade her to allow the Prince of Wales to take a more active role in supporting her they usually failed - the reality was that Victoria hated sharing the limelight even when she didn't particularly want to be in the limelight herself and she absolutely hated being outshone by her children.
The United Kingdom would never become something as vulgar as republic. It would instead be a much more refined commonwealth, an altogether different beast!
It would come up. But we got over it eventually.
I like the idea of the Lord President taking over, at least as a 'cool' idea. Actually one of our Swedish members brought up an interesting nugget of his nation's history that could solve the issue of a 'noble republic' in Britain. During particularly heated arguments between the Swedish parliament and King in the 18th century, in which the monarch basically went on strike, refusing to sign laws, the politicians intepreted the law about Royal Assent and the Royal Seal and decided the power of them did not extend from the individual on the throne but from the nation in general. It was legal enough that the King eventually relented.
Now in a UK without a monarch there is no active royal executive to oppose such tinkering with constitutional law. Simply decide the Privy Council and Seal represent the majesty of the nation and give them executive power, even if of a mostly ceremonial kind. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this state was still called the UK a generation later though