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?
In theory yes, but in practice no. First off, why would he? What does an Imperial title gain for George III that he doesn't already have? At best he looks like he's abandoning his traditional title for an ego boost and at worst copying the parvenu, revolutionary and murderous Corsican ape. There's no positive way for this to go down among the British public.
As for Franz II, he was a special case. It was accepted that the Holy Roman Emperor could create new titles and elevate existing ones to higher ranks (see the elevations of the Duchies of Bohemia and Prussia to Kingdoms and the proposed Imperial Kingdom for Charles the Bold of Burgundy, not to mention the dozens of Imperial Baronies and Counties elevated to Duchies and Principalities over the centuries). Therefore it was technically within Franz's power to elevate Austria from Archduchy to Empire. And in any event no European state ever questioned it, probably due in large part to the fact that the Habsburgs had been Emperors for nearly four centuries.
Finally, the Parliamentary offer, yes and no. Making George III Emperor of the British Isles was suggested by someone in Parliament during the debates surrounding the 1800 Act of Union, but never went anywhere sense the King himself had no interest in the title. While Parliament did occasionally use the terms Empire and Imperial (especially under Henry VIII), the meaning was to assert that the Monarchy was equally sovereign and independent within their dominions, as any emperor is in his empire.
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?
Yes and no. Do I think Parliament could be reduced to a rubber stamp? No, that ship sailed with the Glorious Revolution and the failure of the Jacobites. But do I think that the Crown could gain the dominant position in their partnership with the nobility and gentry? Definitely. Now I don't have a established POD but there are many steps that could allow the pendulum to swing to the Crown.
First off, finances. George III's Civil list was a major departure from that which existed under his grandfather and great-grandfather; previously the Civil list came from revenues voted by Parliament (mainly customs and excise) and was supposed to equal £800,000. If the revenue fell short Parliament would vote extra duties, however, if the revenues
exceeded what was voted, the Crown was allowed to keep the extra money. The logic was that as the nation grew more wealthy so to would the Crown. This is what happened in the last years of George II's reign, when his revenues were worth £876,988. If the previous deal had continued then George III's income would have been more than £1,000,000 in 1777 and would have amounted to £1,812,308 in 1798. Instead the King, advised by Bute and working off of the idea developed by his father and the Country party in the 1740s, surrendered these revenues to Parliament permanently in exchange for a set, guaranteed income of £800,000. The logic was that a set income would keep the Monarch from a shortfall, going into debt and having to be bailed out by Parliament. Essentially a short-term popularity grab. It didn't work and instead the Crown fell deeper into debt without the extra money. George III had to periodically apply for grants and income increases from Parliament, which in tern meant that Parliament claimed the right to the Royal ledgers, to see how the money
they gave the Crown was being spend. So in my opinion the best bet would be for George III to listen to his financial advisors rather than his political ones and take the original deal. This means as trade increased, so to did the wealth of the Crown. Which gives the Crown more than double the money it originally had and can use it to further increase their power, investing in major companies and the stock market, buying up estates and urban lands and redeveloping things like farmland towards cash crops. This also leads to my second point. BTW there's also the Crown estate but I'll address that in a separate post because it'll likely be long.
Second, control of Parliament. In the eighteenth century the Lords, made up of Hereditary Peers and 26 Anglican Bishops, were typically counted upon to support the Crown, be they Whigs or Tories (both old school and the Neo-Tories of Lord North and Pitt). Instead the major focus should be the Commons. The Crown should use its now considerable financial resources to buy up rotten and pocket boroughs from some of the more cash-strapped peers and install their own loyalist candidates in the Commons. This would likely be controversial and a bit difficult (as these boroughs were hugely valuable) but many of these boroughs were sold throughout the era, so the main issue would be the Crown being the buyer. But sense tons of Peers went into heavy debt in the second half of the eighteenth century (thanks to gambling, a decline in estate revenue and increases in other expenses), they might not care. The Crown can also use their extensive powers of Patronage to build up a further following in the Commons via the Royal Household. This was actually done quite successfully under the Stuarts (when James II was still Duke of York, nine MPs were directly dependent on him financially; a further number of clients and Household servants were also elected to the Commons thanks to his patronage) and could easily be replicated in an era where Members of Parliament had no salary. Just have the Crown sponsor men from families dependent on the Court for their livelihood, basically lower gentry, good but fiscally stretched families and maybe well-educated men with little connection to the aristocracy. Combining these two methods should give the Crown a relatively small but loyal base in the Commons, one that could be used to make or break a government. I would compare this faction to the Squadrone Volante of 17th century Papal politics and oddly the Crown Loyalist Party from the Honor Harrington Series.
As to why a Monarch can't directly tax, its because its illegal and Charles I lost his head over it. No one is going to risk that kind of repeat.
Come to think of it, a good but hand-wavy POD would be to have a different George III conceived (ie different sperm impregnates Augusta of Saxe-Gotha). It would let you create a genius level monarch if you wished, but might be a bit like a self-insert, so walk that rope tightly.
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?
In my opinion the autonomy was the problem, not the solution. It gave the colonists too much freedom and allowed for the development of the independence movement. I would say a version of the Dominion of New England should work well. Leave the individual colonies more or less intact (with obvious purges of patriots) and instead create a new administrative division between the colonies and London. These Dominions (I'm seeing three, based on the traditional divisions of New England, Middle and Southern) would be ruled by a Governor-General/Viceroy, advised by a council (could be a colonial cabinet or a version of Privy council). The the various governors would be responsible to the Viceroy in administrative matters but still answer directly to the Lords of Trade (like how the Spanish colonial judicial-administrative audiencias were responsible to the Viceroy of New Spain but still answered to the Council of the Indies in Madrid). You could also add an appointed Legislative Council like existed in many British colonies later on or perhaps a semi-elected legislature, in which the various colonial assemblies elect delegates from among themselves to act as the Dominion parliament (like the Continental congresses only smaller). Actually doing both, one as an upper House and one as the lower house, works the best. Later down the road, you could add an act that gives the dominions some kind of representation in Westminster (like say a delegation each) which further ties the Colonies to the Homeland.
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
Personally I think a British victory in the Saratoga campaign would be the best bet POD wise. Its after the rebellion has became widespread and before France enters the War, so its still localized. That way the British can punish the colonies radically but not have to fight a major continental coalition. It also helps to associate any kind of of republicanism with rebellion, a huge plus.
Now as to how long the system can last, hard to tell. I'm honestly not sure if its better to have the French Revolution fail/never happen or to use a more stable and interventionist Congress of Vienna system as the jumping off point.
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?
I don't understand the question. Are you meaning elevating members of the Colonial loyalists/elite to the Peerage? Or George III creating peerages for his sons out of territories in the Colonies? Because the former could be very interesting. It would help bind the Colonial ruling class closer to the motherland and give the Colonists a form of representation in Parliament, which could lead to representation in the Commons. But the later wouldn't do much, other than throw a sop to the Colonists. I'm not saying its not possible (after all, in OTL the Hanoverians gave their sons Double Dukedoms from England and Scotland, ie Duke of York (England) and Albany (Scotland) as well as occasional Irish Earldoms, ie Earl of Ulster (Ireland), but aside from propaganda value, I don't see that doing much.
Do you have any links to these tl’s?
Sure. There's JonasResende's A Different Louis XVI (
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tl-a-different-louis-xvi.378629) and Endymion's Bourbon TL (
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/my-revised-bourbon-tl.108833).
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?
Well instead of reporting to the PM, the various Ministers instead directly report to the King. The Monarch would directly preside over, and direct, cabinet sessions. The Crown would also work with individual ministers to formulate policy in regards to that particular ministry or department. I'd take a look at other 18th century governments that lacked a First minister, such as the mid-reign of Louis XV, most of the reign of Friedrich the Great and several other of the enlightened autocrats, to get a general idea of how that would function. Oh, Napoléon's cabinets could also be a good source.
