AHC: A Neo-Absolutist British Monarchy

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Basileus_Komnenos, Jun 5, 2019.

  1. Basileus_Komnenos Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαιων Αὔγουστος

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    With a pod from the reign of King George III who was a very active monarch till around the 1890's British Empire how can the Crown retake power from Parliament and unofficially sideline the parliament into a rubber stamp like how the French Kings (Louis XIV) did it and Augustus sidelining the Roman Senate?

    Augustus's tenure as emperor was basically himself framing his rule as that of the restored Republic. His emperorship consisted of collecting the various important powers of the Roman state within himself that later became de-facto Imperial powers under later emperors. The Army was also totally loyal to the emperor rather than the Senate who they mostly viewed as a clique of snobby old plutocrats. Augustus symbolically gave Senate powers over "Senatorial Provinces" when in reality he still held enormous influence over how those regions were run. He also made Egypt into his own personal province which granted him a means of raising funds and wealth independent from the Senate that he could use to pay the army and fund building projects within the empire.

    Let's say the British monarchy has its own Napoleon level monarch who successfully carries out military actions which earn him the esteem of the military and the common people. He then capitalizes on this esteem and uses propaganda to further himself while subtly framing the Parliament as inept and archaic. The monarch then leads a silent coup with the army who storms an unruly session of Parliament to retake power. Could this absolutist British Monarch proclaim himself the Emperor of Britannia in opposition to Napoleon, and then add then make India his own personal province with most of its wealth flowing to to the monarch? Instead of otl British policy, the monarch leaves local administrations in place and seeks to integrate client kings into the British empire as loyal vassals much like how the Roman Emperors did forming something of a meritocratic empire out of political pragmatism that was found in the Roman Dominate. Would something like this be possible, and how would this affect geopolitics?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
    Sokol-1 and Count like this.
  2. Count Ar-Adûnakhôr

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2018
    Interesting. The Crown still had some influence over the military, though it was Parliament’s to control. Perhaps during a war Parliament is responsible for several embarrassing defeats and an absolutist faction begins to form among the officers. A more likely path is probably the Crown gaining authority over the colonies and plays all the legislatures against each other and then against Parliament and gradually exerting it’s powers.
     
    Basileus_Komnenos likes this.
  3. Fabius Maximus Unus qui nobis cunctando restituit rem

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I'm not sure that nineteenth-century British monarchs generally had enough control over the army to pull a Napoleon. Your best bet, IMHO, would be to have some sort of conflict over the royal prerogatives. Say, have Parliament pass a very controversial bill of some sort (disestablishing the Church of England?), and the monarch refuses to sign it. This causes a constitutional crisis, because no monarch had refused to sign a bill since Queen Anne. What results this ends up having depends on the course the crisis takes: you might have a full-blown civil war resulting in a British version of the Meiji Restoration, but even if there's just a lot of arguing before Parliament backs down, you'd still have created a precedent for the exercise of authority which will give the monarch an opportunity for playing a greater role in politics in the future.
     
  4. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    If you want to go with George III -- who had some real Tories backing him -- then you need a scenario where a lot of loud-mouth Whigs support the American revolutionaries, but the ARW ends in British victory. Afterwards, a British royal goes on a journey to the American colonies and is murdered by Patriots. This galvanises Britain against the American Patriots (and the Whigh "traitors" who were sympathetic to them), and ultimately the Tories make a big come-back. A Frenxh revolution is still attempted, but ends in rapid British intervention on behalf of the monarchy. We are looking at a scenario where all "radicals" (real or imagined) are executed throughout Europe (and its colonies).

    Absolute monarchy makes a come-back in a big way, all suspected radicals (and anyone even vagely sympathetic to such ideas) are completely cut off from political power, and any attempts at reform are dealt with at the point of a bayonet.
     
  5. Basileus_Komnenos Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαιων Αὔγουστος

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    Could the monarch perhaps be of Napoleon or Admiral Yi level caliber leading his men to victory, but the Parliament stirs up trouble fearing the King’s many victories? This would anger the army and the King allowing him to march on Parliament and sack it.

    There was a timeline called the Reign of Romulus Augustus where Romulus is defending Italy from the Ostrogothic led by Theoderic in his invasion of Italy. To fight he pulls a scorched Earth campaign in Northern Italy and this makes him unpopular with the Senate. The Senate then went behind his back and supported the Ostrogoths since the Western Roman Empire was nearly dead. Romulus is however able to make a deal with the Franks and he crushes the Ostrogoths. Enraged by the Senate’s betrayal he marched on Rome and forced many Senators to give up large quantities of the wealth to him practically beggaring him. The Emperor later exerts more control over the state and his uncle and some Senators viewing him as a tyrant try to arrest him and pull a coup to restore the status quo. This fails and Romulus is able to kill the conspirators but is superficially wounded. He then went publicly before the people of Rome and displayed his wounds to rile them up in anger. After this he called a meeting of the Senate but then locked the Senators inside and set fire to the building. He simply said that their was a rebellion and that the Senate would be suspended for this period of crisis. He however never restores it and has permanently shut down the ancient Roman Senate. The Senators loyal to Romulus were not invited and were later given privileges and titles, but the Senate would never be called again.

    What would be a realistic pod for the King to effectively permanently shut down Parliament while ruling through his privy council and levying taxes independently? Could it be during early part of the reign of Queen Victoria?


    Why would Parliament want to disestablish the Church is England though? What would be an alternate Royal power that Parliaments try to remove? Could this hypothetical alternate monarch be popular with the people and soldiery while the upper class in an effort to keep their power tries to pass a bill requiring that soldiers swear an oath of loyalty to Parliament or be branded a traitor? The King could theoretically inspire a revolt by the army and march on Parliament. Could a more absolutist leaning but very competent von Hanover pull this off?

    Before the Revolution King George III was quite sympathetic to the colonists. Perhaps conversely the King perhaps argues in favor of the colonies and the Revolution is a royalist revolution where they fight against a tyrannical and aristocratic Parliament. With Royal propagandists within the colonies there could be a mass or campaign presenting George III as an enlightened monarch trying to help the people. It basically expands the farmer George concept to the Colonies. But how would the army react to this? Though they were technically sworn to the Crown would they obey it or Parliament? Though if the Crown wins it puts the Colonies in a Personal Union with the Crown granting him a base of power and funds independent of Parliament.

    Louis XVI was not the bumbling buffoon that the victors portrayed him as. He was a huge fan of the Enlightenment and wanted to pass many reforms to help his people. Perhaps seeing the Royalist resurgence in England this inspires him to opposes the French Parlement. Perhaps early in his reign he refuses to reinstate it unlike otl after it was abolished under Louis XV. Perhaps in the style of other Enlightened rulers he codifies and creates a uniform set of French laws and reforms the French financial system. Perhaps if he’s adept enough he might try to take advantage of the instability in Britain and its colonies to provoke a Quebec uprising or perhaps even promise aid to George III in exchange for his old colonies. Perhaps the instability in England and the colonies allows for more raids by the Native Americans and the Spanish who try to retake Florida. Britain might release some lands to France to let them deal with it.
     
  6. Emperor Constantine 21st century Monarchist

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    I'm actually very interested in doing a TL around this idea! Honestly the Crown still had a remarkable level of power up to the Great Reform act in 1832, its just that the Crown was always very reluctant to use it. So in my opinion, you need a monarch whose intelligent, charismatic, ballsy and supports a semi-absolute monarchy as the best choice of government for Britain. Basically a British Gustav III (who famously transformed Sweden from a powerless ceremonial Crown back into a semi-absolute monarchy). Then you need to decide when you want this to happen: an alternate version of George III (whose as absolutist as the Whigs feared), something in response to Napoléon, or even an alternate monarch during the European restoration (the Crown's power increases as a way to suppress revolutionary activity?)? Choosing the when will help the how. For example, using Gustav III analogue, you could have multiple factions of the Whigs fail during the seven years war and when George III comes to the throne, he leads the frustrated army in a coup (supported by the growing Bourgeois class) that forces Parliament to hand over a great deal of power to the Crown, so that it can successfully lead the war. Would go better if the Crown is successful in the war.

    Or you go with a slower, more natural progression in restoring power that accumulates in a young dynamic sovereign. In that case you would first need to increase the Crown's power over Parliament; In my opinion the best bet would be a Crown Loyalist party. Have the Crown run their own candidates for the Commons (perhaps from the Royal Household) and buy up their own rotten rotten boroughs to ensure their power. This helps create a Commons following that can be deployed to ensure that a government subservient to the Crown stays in power. Second, increase the Crown's power over the army; As the Monarch controlled all patronage over the military and Princes often served as the professional head of the army (Commanders-in-Chief or Captain-General) it wouldn't be that hard to screen the upper officers for loyalty to the Crown. Third, increase the Crown's direct participation in Government; have the Monarch start to frequently preside over Cabinet meetings and act as their own head of government, reducing the First Minister to merely the finance minister. There are probably other steps that would be needed, but I think this would get you started.
     
  7. Basileus_Komnenos Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαιων Αὔγουστος

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    I could help you in collaboration with this if you'd like.

    Maybe this alternate British monarch would be Britain's Louis XIV. He sees and understands the growing impotence of monarchical rule in Britain and vows to change it. Perhaps this alternate George III is disgusted by how little control his father had in the affairs of the Kingdom. Maybe his father raises him in the model of a tradition Hanoverian divine right led monarchy. Though George III would know how Charles I and James II fared, and would resolve not to make their mistakes. Maybe he's influence by his father Prince Frederick and his absolutist tendencies, but also sees how he failed. Perhaps George III looks to the Roman model about how Augustus gained power over the Roman Senate and ruled as a monarch in all but name.

    This George III would from likely from early in his reign try to be more active in his government in both civil and military affairs. Maybe he capitalizes on his moniker Farmer George and presents himself as a champion to the lower class and emergent bourgeois. He tries to introduce reform but this get blocked by the Parliament fearing that he would lead a popular coup against them. Let's say this alternate King George decides to take command of Britain's war effort personally commanding troops in Britain's many theaters of war. Perhaps in his youth he dedicates himself to studying tactics of the classical generals and contemporary commanders like Napoleon did. This makes his troops adore and come to respect their King. Perhaps the Parliament seeing his many military victories during wars like the Seven Years War starts to get worried, and remembering the absolutism of Prince Frederick George's father tries to limit King George III. Maybe the Whigs bungle the whole thing up and this provokes a mass outcry against Parliament. He then leads an army of disgruntled soldiers and a mob of angry citizens and descends on Parliament. Perhaps he declares as state of emergency and keeps Parliament dissolved indefinitely. With the backing of the military he reconstitutes absolutist style rule and appoints MP slots with his own veteran soldiers and puppets. Maybe the American Revolutionary War is completely butterflied away because George III was sympathetic to the colonists, or if revolts do occur its swiftly crushed by the George. Maybe in response to Napoleon George III declares himself Emperor of Britannia like the other European monarchs did. I honestly think it will be cool for Emperor George III and Emperor Napoleon to duke it out the battlefield.

    This would go smoother for the British monarchy. Maybe George III could consolidate huge amounts of power over time with his many reforms like Augustus laying the groundwork for his sons and grandsons to restore the power of the monarchy similar to how the French Monarch centralized France. But this would likely be in a few Generations rather than the Centuries the French had because of the Industrial Revolution.

    Maybe the Crown Prince could be made the Prime minister. In Code Geass the Holy Britannian Empire has one of the Royal Princes and likely occupy the position. Maybe George III after grooming his son/grandsons the same way Augustus did with his children before they all dropped dead would be able to appoint them as head of the government. Maybe the army could be headed by commoners appointed to noble status or loyal nobles. George III in otl had 15 children so maybe with them he could marry them off to various nobles tying them firmly to the Crown. Perhaps George III could even do this with his lands of Hanover to further integrate them into Britannia as a province. Maybe he could promote a policy of religious toleration and reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics uniting them as British first and Catholics and Protestants second. Would it be possible for George III to re-empower native Irish and Scottish nobility and tie them to the Crown via marriage alliances? Maybe if he can pull off uniting the various ethnic groups of the British Isles behind Farmer George this will take the steam out of the Scottish and Irish separatism movements.

    So what do you guys think?
     
    Peppe, Count and RMcD94 like this.
  8. Fabius Maximus Unus qui nobis cunctando restituit rem

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Disestablishmentarianism was a strong force in nineteenth-century British politics, and many expected the Church of England to be disestablished quite soon (as the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871 and the Church of Wales in 1920). But it doesn't necessarily have to be disestablishmentarianism, just something controversial enough for the king or queen to have a large measure of popular support if he or she breaks with tradition and vetoes a bill relating to it.

    He might try and get Quebec back in return for aiding George III, although I don't think inciting a rebellion there would be on the cards -- Quebec was never a particularly big money-maker for the French crown, and it probably wouldn't be worth the hit to relations with the UK which would inevitably result from an attempt to stir up rebellion in Britain's colonies.
     
    Count and Basileus_Komnenos like this.
  9. Well Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    The idea of a 'British Napoleon' (or even a British Augustus) is a very different creature from the Hanoverian monarchy assuming (either gradually or by self-coup) a more autocratic character. AIUI in Napoleon's case, the assumption of an imperial title (and a popular one: Emperor of the French, not of France) was meant to suggest that his authority flowed from the people who had lately led the revolution against the ancient tyranny of the king, whose authority was by divine right. With that as our analogy, there would seem to be two routes to pursue:

    1) The 'British Napoleon': The Queen Caroline affair in 1820 goes worse somehow, perhaps with Caroline herself living longer, making George IV ever more unpopular. The teetering Liverpool government falls, as it came close to doing in 1820, and a liberal government is formed under Grey or Grenville. William Anthony Hay mentions in Lord Liverpool that the real threat of a 'British Revolution' in the 1820s wasn't a 'to the barricades!' style of revolution, but rather a liberal government beginning the process of reform and finding it hard to stop. From here, trace the events of post-1789 France onto 1820s Britain; I'm envisioning growing tensions between George IV, his liberal prime minister and parliamentary radicals. When things get too much, George IV dismisses Grey or Grenville and tries to roll back the clock a generation with a royally-backed Tory prime minister. Parliament refuses to go quietly, and ultimately the king is arrested and a republic proclaimed. From here, pick a suitable figure for a British Napoleon; I don't know nearly enough about the period, although Lord Cochrane is jumping into my head as a suitably reformist daredevil, although presumably a general would make more sense than an admiral. Cochrane's rise to power culminates in his assuming the title in the 1830s of 'Emperor of the Britons' or some such other nonsense.

    2) The 'British Ferdinand VII': An attempt to overthrow the British state by violence (a la the Cato Street Conspiracy) is launched, and is a fiasco. The senior Tory ministers are assassinated, but the Duke of Wellington survives to crush the rebellion and becomes a royally-backed prime minister thereafter. The government is highly authoritarian, with all the worst excesses of the Liverpool government and without its later liberalisation, and cracks down on both radical opinion in the country and the liberal opposition in Parliament. Meanwhile, assume Victoria is stillborn, so the throne falls to Ernest Augustus...
     
  10. Fabius Maximus Unus qui nobis cunctando restituit rem

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    You could probably combine the two scenarios -- George IV dismisses the PM, Parliament tries to arrest the King but he manages to escape, rally the troops, and march back on London. Parliament is unable to raise an army in time to offer meaningful resistance and most MPs end up either imprisoned or fled abroad. Even many of those who originally opposed George's ministerial shenanigans are shocked at what they see as an attempted Parliamentary coup, and consequently George is able to get away with ruling personally and not summoning a new Parliament.
     
  11. Emperor Constantine 21st century Monarchist

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    OK TOTALLY UNREALISTIC!! First off, legally the King can dismiss his ministers at any time and replace them wholesale; in fact George IV frequently threatened to do so during his regency and reign but ultimately never followed through with it. Why? Because his views more or less in accord with the Liverpool administration. The threats were more to represent that he could do so, not that he necessarily wanted to. Second, Parliament can't arrest the King. They could depose him for treason or some such but not for simply exercising his constitutional prerogative.

    If you use George IV, the best bet would be the Catholic emancipation bill. It was unpopular among a great deal of the English population but ultimately passed Parliament thanks to an alliance of the Canningite Tories, the Wellington Goverment and the Whigs. George himself was opposed to it and only reluctantly granted royal assent to the bill. So have George IV veto the bill and dismiss the Government, replacing it with Ultra Tories. It could start a scenario for the opposition to do something crazy, like try a conspiracy against the King.
     
    JorgeGG, Basileus_Komnenos and Count like this.
  12. VVD0D95 Lemmy is God.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Love this thread
     
    Alex Zetsu and Basileus_Komnenos like this.
  13. Alex Zetsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    The thread is interesting, but honestly I think the boat sailed once the Glorious Revolution happened since it set the precedent that Parliament could get rid of a king they didn't like. :teary:
     
  14. Basileus_Komnenos Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαιων Αὔγουστος

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    Well everyone thought that Bonapatism was dead until Louis-Napoleon became Napoleon III and proved everyone wrong. There almost was a third Bourbon restoration with Henri. And had he compromised over a flag then France would have had a more stable government than the unstable mess that was the Third Republic.

    Had the Hanoverians had a more competent and active set of monarchs that engaged with the lower class and rank and file soldiery then he could have theoretically mustered up the support to overthrow Parliament. Imagine an alternate George III leading British troops leading his troops to victory in continental Europe or in overseas campaigns. This would boost his popularity at home, and fearing this a more radical Parliament tries to move against him. But George III with the support of the army and people marched on Parliament and forcefully dissolved it appointing his own government. Once he’s setup his government, he can re-open Parliament, and stack it with his own men. Perhaps he can staff it with his own soldiers like how Napoleon’s Empire made the legislature a rubber stamp. Then the King would “officially” call Parliament to pass bills empowering him. Thus Britain technically remains a semi-constitutional monarchy but is absolute in Practice like the Principate Roman Empire.
     
    Count likes this.
  15. catalfalque Wandering Historian

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    The Duke of Cambridge was commander-in-chief of the army. Maybe in a world where Victoria dies of her childhood illness (I think she was 11) and Ernest becomes king and things start going to shit, then maybe Cambridge can depose him? Only Ernest's son (a young blind boy) and brother, Sussex (old, his marriage not recognise, and in pain) would stand between Cambridge and the crown. Maybe he can get parliament to acclaim him or invite him to take the throne to sort out the mess of Ernest's reign?
     
    Alexander the Average likes this.
  16. Basileus_Komnenos Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαιων Αὔγουστος

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    upload_2019-6-14_10-17-32.png
    So you mean this guy Prince George Duke of Cambridge.
    What do you mean by things start going to shit with Ernest Augustus? The Duke of Cambridge wasn’t a very good military leader. He tried to defeat or minimize many of the military reforms attempted during Victoria’s reign. Things like a General staff which made Britain’s army stagnant. He only relunctantly agreed to reform after Prussia’s stunning victory over France.

    Maybe Queen Victoria has an elder brother named Arthur who takes an early interest in military affairs. He is inspired the Prussian and French Armies and works to reform the British Army. Perhaps seeing how resistant to change and reform the Duke of Cambridge was, he sacks him and takes personal command over the army. With his reforms Britain would be readier for stuff like the Boer Wars. King Arthur then goes on to personally lead his troops to victory in the Boer Wars and overseas campaigns. Perhaps Parliament tries to block him and the army who would be loyal to him agrees to march on Parliament in a surprise session forcing it to be dissolved. And in the military takeover the king declares a coup was being suppressed by the King and the army. He then sets up his own Parliament full of his own puppets that “voluntarily” sign him ancient monarchical powers.

    Thus Parliament would be reduced to more of a rubber stamp. How would a Britain like this evolve though?
     
    Count likes this.
  17. Emperor Constantine 21st century Monarchist

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    OK you need to get away from a British Napoléon, British Augustus or British Yu. Its simply unrealistic. First off, the only monarchs that personally led an army in the eighteenth century were Friedrich the Great, George II and Peter I. And George did so in his capacity as Elector of Hanover, with decades of experience (he led Hanoverian troops in the Spanish succession war) and surrounded by professional officers. Napoléon started out as a general and became an Emperor, so the complete opposite.

    As for the Romulus Augustus TL, again uncessisary. The British Monarchy was an ancient institution, with centuries of law, customs and traditions backing it. The Crown simply had no reason to appeal to the commoners or look so far back in history for examples of absolutism, when instead they could simply look to France, Denmark (the only monarchy whose absolutism was enshrined by a Law and a constitution!) or Caroline Sweden. The Aristocracy and the Church were very necessary to the Crown to govern and throwing them away would simply be unfathomable to a Sovereign, enlightened autocrat or no.

    None really. Most of my ideas and suggestions would leave a Parliament roughly the equal of the Bourbon Restoration Parliament, rather weak and without much independence, but still retaining power of taxation. You need a much earlier POD to do away with Parliament entirely, like a stable Tudor absolutism (which is something else I'm interested in BTW), a victorious Charles I or a failed Glorious revolution. The Nineteenth century could make a Neo-Absolutist/semi-absolute monarchy, but not the British equivalent of Ancien Régime France or Tsarist Russia.

    They wouldn't. The Whigs disestablished the Church of Ireland as a way to appeal to the Catholic Irish that had to pay tithes and other taxes to support a minority Church that made up barely 1/8th of the population. The Anglican Church, on the other hand, was the dominant religion of England; heavily wealthy, with clergy in both Houses of Parliament and somewhat staffed by the Nobility. It wouldn't be in the interest of the elite to undercut a source of their own power.

    See this is the problem; the eighteenth century British monarchy was able to work closely and successfully with the Peerage and Gentry that controlled Parliament for most of the time. The few times the Monarch was truly opposed to something he could usually get his way without vetoing or otherwise bucking the norms (see George III using the Lords to defeat the Fox-North Coalition). You either need a more absolutist inclined monarch who can slowly build things up (like I suggested) or a national disaster that discredits the various Whig factions and allows the King to size power for the good of the nation (ie Gustavian absolutism).

    Actually he wasn't. That's a myth that developed from his opposition to the ministry of George Grenville (who had helped force out his Favourite the Earl of Bute). In fact, George II was very much in favor of the Colonists paying their fair share of the Imperial burden and was, though advisors, stressed for the Stamp act's passage in Parliament. It's repeal was more due to the fall of the Grenville Ministry, the need of the new Rockingham government to quiet down the disturbances and the economic damage caused by Colonial boycotts of British trade. Sense the King had dismissed Grenville and appointed Rockingham, the Colonies erroneously believed the King was against Parliamentary taxation of them. Hell the King was behind the Declaratory Act, wich accompanied the repeal of the Stamp Act and the changing and lessening of the Sugar Act. The declaration stated that the Parliament's authority was the same in America as in Britain and asserted Parliament's authority to pass laws that were binding on the American colonies. So no, he wasn't a friend of the Colonists.

    Maybe, but he was also a very indecisive monarch who feared to be hated and was unable to stick with unpopular decisions. For a better Louis XVI you would be better off using his older brother, the Duc de Bourgogne. Bourgogne was considered handsome, bright and outgoing, but sadly died at age nine from tuberculosis. A couple of very good TLs using this POD exist, so I'd check them out.

    Well, right now I'm working on a Renaissance TL but I do have notes on several Hanoverian TL ideas. If your interested PM me.

    That's actually fairly similar to young George III. Bute and his other unofficial tutors were heavily inspired by Idea of a Patriot King by Henry Saint John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke had argued for a monarch above party and ruling as the father of the people, appointing ministers for skill rather than faction. That really translated to "ministers should be loyal to and only answer to the Monarch, rather than Parliament" (unsurprising sense Bolingbroke was an old-school Tory and onetime supporter of the Jacobites). But you have to cox it differently. Absolutism was a dirty word, associated with the despotic French. No, better to say the King has risen above mere faction and party to be a father of the people, to rule them justly and without corruption.

    OK this is the parts that are simply out of touch with the Eighteenth century. Enlightened autocrats wanted to protect, promote and better the lives of their subjects, but not undercut their traditional supporters. So that's a no. As for the army idea, again no. As I said above, the time of a King leading his armies in person had long passed (even Louis XIV only accompanied his troops and was never in personal command). A sovereign had much more important things to do rather than gallivanting around with the army; he had to deal with not only the military, but also legislation, taxation, diplomacy, administration, organization and religious affairs. A Richard the Lionheart he could not be. Third, partial no to the colonies (see above for the no part). It would be better to crush the colonists and divide them into maybe three or so regional dominions. This promotes regionalism and weakens their unity and would increase their dependency on London.

    Finally, no to the Imperial title. To most monarchs, there was one Emperor; the Holy Roman Emperor. Napoléon's assumption of the Imperial title was yet another mark against him in they eyes of most legitimate sovereigns. Plus the only one to assume an Imperial title was Franz I, who was already Holy Roman Emperor and did so under the authority of that title.

    I think a semi-absolute monarchy, with the King controlling Parliament via a built-in majority in the Lords and his own party in the Commons would be the most realistic scenario, followed by a British Gustav III-style coup.

    Better to eliminate the position and let the King act as his own first Minister. As for the army, it was more or less made up of a combination of commoners, aristocrats and gentry. While you could buy a commission, the more incompetents weren't allowed to actually lead the troops or the fleet. Also, Hanover was part of the Holy Roman Empire and only held in personal union, so no annexation of Hanover by Britain (neither country would want it). MAYBE you could get a division of the territory, but the laws were against it and I don't think the King would want to lose his family estate. Third, religious toleration weakened the Established Church, of which the King was Head, so that would damage his authority. Plus George III and most of his contemporaries were opposed to repeal of the Penal laws and Test act, so again no gain and actually a loss. Finally, what native nobility? Most of them had British titles by that time, Scotland's independence streak died with the Jacobites and Ireland could never be placated fully without angering the the Anglicans and Presbyterians. Another lose, lose.

    A good deal of your ideas are sound, but quite a few simply (mainly the ones I've pointed out) ignore the actual situation in the British isles. So this has promise but needs work. I would be happy to help if you want.

    *Sigh*, again that is a caricature of British politics, not the realism. Parliament couldn't "get rid of" any King they didn't like. For one Parliament isn't a monolithic institution, but one made up of multiple parties and factions. Second, the only monarchs deposed by Parliament on their own initiative were Charles I (by radical Puritans and not a cited legal example by most) and James II (who fled the country; Parliament merely treated his abandonment of his subjects as a legal abdication). Both were highly specific examples and depended on the support of the political elite and the population. If a British monarch has popular support in their actions, then Parliament isn't going to risk losing control of the country to rather illegally depose a reigning sovereign.
     
  18. Basileus_Komnenos Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαιων Αὔγουστος

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    Couldn’t George call himself Emperor of Britannia like how Francis II called himself Emperor? Didn’t parliament offer him an imperial title as well?

    Since I feel like the window has closed on abolishing Parliament or simply permanently dissolving it, could the British Parliament be sidelined and reduced to a rubber stamp like how it was under the Tudors? What would be a good scenario for such a dramatic loss of power for Parliament in your mind? Why can’t the monarch directly level taxes?

    So what would this alternate George III need to do in order to cement his control over North America. Could the 13 colonies be mediatized into separate Viceroyalties with local autonomy? Would an amended Dominion of New England type of political re-arrangement work?

    What would be a good scenario for a King to successfully pull this off? How can this system last into the modern era without the monarch experiencing pushback from liberals calling for democratization? Would the elimination of the American Revolution be a good enough pod to stop the idea of a Republic from seen as viable like the short lived “Roman Republic” in 19th centuriy Italy

    How would colonial nobility work out? In otl George III has 15 children so could some of his children be made Dukes and Earls in North America?

    Do you have any links to these tl’s?

    So how would a King without a PM in his government operate? How much would the King be more directly involved as Head of State and Head of Government?
     
  19. RMcD94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Location:
    Dominion of Scotland, Imperial Commonwealth
    Are you sure about that? Pretty sure many more monarchs than that were on the field.

    Louis famously with his hundreds of wagons and then he got ill. The Savoy guy definitely with his army too.

    I'm sure many minor states had their monarchs following the army

    That's all you need. For them to say the order that they're told by their commanders.

    Also Russia is an empire. China was an empire. Literally called the ottoman empire. Pretty sure Europe knew about both these other Emperors. They also knew about byzantium where there was an emperor until a few hundred years ago.

    Does it really matter what other countries think when you're trying to encourage the army to support you? No one ever stopped trading with Russia because they call themselves Emperor
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2019
  20. AntoniousTheBro Authoritarian socialist monarchist

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2018
    i find this idea very interesting though i do not think you could get another France level of absolutism. This is a nation that has had a legal shackle on the monarchy for a lot longer. you could easily see a semi absolutist government develop with the right pods.
    while i agree with your comments about the army i have too wholly disagree with the view on the imperial title. them claiming an imperial title has several faults in it. first off the examples that you provide do not support the argument as well china has no relation too Europe with the imperial authority being derived on completely different basis which was for Europe at least on the other side of the planet, the ottomans also arn't good because they never declared themselves emperors in the western sense yes they ruled an empire but they did not call themselves emperor they called themselves sultan then caliph which has a completely different historical context to it. ffs they didn't even refer too themselves as an empire but in translation "the exalted ottoman state". now onto probably the most legitimate of the cases you provided and that is Russia however, Russia claimed itself as the heir of the Byzantines and emperors of the eastern roman empire not of the west something that does not clash with the western imperial title.

    NOW i should of probably started with this but i digress you do understand that the kings of the house of hannover during the 17th century are technically subservient to the emperor because they were also an electoral prince. him claiming to be an emperor would be the biggest fuck you to austria as it was paramount to claim the imperial throne a good reason for war. it is important that unless you are talking about post Napoleonic wars or before the ascension of the house of hannover which is still dubious anyways for a multitude of reasons. claiming the title of emperor is very risky and stupid. it is why Victoria side stepped it by declaring herself empress of India.

    another good pod for a more absolutist government is if George the III managed to stave off his crazy. just for the sake of simplicity of transition the more father son changes with little drama the better also have George the IV have a son maybe and possibly live a little longer that would assist with stability if a more absolutist government allowing it too stick better. though if history goes similar and Victoria ends up in power then well that also works 80 year successful reigns are generally quite beneficial for monarchies. basically less scandals plz
     
    RMcD94 and Count like this.