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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
I could help you in collaboration with this if you'd like.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
*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.
