AHC: Have the Americas be mostly monarchical
- Thread starter Peppe
- Start date
I have few ideas (I’m going to use them later for a timeline, and yes, most of these are ASB) about monarchies in America
1. Empires such as the Inca and Aztecs survive (I know they’re before colonization, just throwing out there)
2. Scottish Colonization of Panama succeeds, yet years later, becomes a hotbed for Jacobitism, and later declares independence from Britain, and invites Bonnie Prince Charlie (after his defeat in 1745) to become, King of Caledonia
3. Benedict Arnold captures Quebec, and the USA gives it back to France (after Britain partitions Lower Canada and Upper Canada), but most French Canadians didn’t like this, but then the French Revolution happens, and with help from Royalists, Louis XVI and his family escapes to Quebec, and concede to their demands, pleasing the French Canadians enough to offer him to be their monarch.
4. Instead of Francisco Solano Lopez pulling a Napoleon by trying to defeat all his neighbors, he pulls Napoleon by declaring himself “Emperor of Paraguay”
5. Brazil remains an Empire (not much to say about this one)
1. Empires such as the Inca and Aztecs survive (I know they’re before colonization, just throwing out there)
2. Scottish Colonization of Panama succeeds, yet years later, becomes a hotbed for Jacobitism, and later declares independence from Britain, and invites Bonnie Prince Charlie (after his defeat in 1745) to become, King of Caledonia
3. Benedict Arnold captures Quebec, and the USA gives it back to France (after Britain partitions Lower Canada and Upper Canada), but most French Canadians didn’t like this, but then the French Revolution happens, and with help from Royalists, Louis XVI and his family escapes to Quebec, and concede to their demands, pleasing the French Canadians enough to offer him to be their monarch.
4. Instead of Francisco Solano Lopez pulling a Napoleon by trying to defeat all his neighbors, he pulls Napoleon by declaring himself “Emperor of Paraguay”
5. Brazil remains an Empire (not much to say about this one)
Mmh this reminds me of this timeline:
where the Staurts end up taking over Virginia and some other colonies after failing to retake the English crown.
If I'm not mistaken they later end up joined in America by the Hanoverians and the French Bourbons when the Commonwealth still happens and spreads the revolution to France. Oh, and there also was an elective Grand Duchy of Rhode Island.
So let's turn this up to eleven: have the Tupac Ameru rebbelion succeed and recreate the Inca empire, have an analogue of the Empire of Brazil in Mexico, have the Czars flee to Alaska, have the house of Orange flee to the new Netherlands, Napoleon ends up exiled to French Guyana instead of Elba, any remaining republics have their first presidents pulling a Napoleon III and proclaiming themselves monarch.
James II: King of America
Just a little something ... Having been deposed in 1688, James II and VII landed in Ireland with French support in an attempt to reclaim his crown. This failed. James fled back to France in 1690. But he wouldn't remain there for long - with further French backing and a conviction that if he...
www.alternatehistory.com
If I'm not mistaken they later end up joined in America by the Hanoverians and the French Bourbons when the Commonwealth still happens and spreads the revolution to France. Oh, and there also was an elective Grand Duchy of Rhode Island.
So let's turn this up to eleven: have the Tupac Ameru rebbelion succeed and recreate the Inca empire, have an analogue of the Empire of Brazil in Mexico, have the Czars flee to Alaska, have the house of Orange flee to the new Netherlands, Napoleon ends up exiled to French Guyana instead of Elba, any remaining republics have their first presidents pulling a Napoleon III and proclaiming themselves monarch.
Thomas1195
Banned
The quickest way to achieve this is to have Commonwealth of England survive, and then the Stuarts going to Virginia, but in such a TL at least everything north of Pennsylvania would side with the Commonweath over James. You know, New fucking Englanders repatriated to fight for Parliamentarians during the Civil War.
House of Orange would be better going to Suriname, because New Netherlands, and the whole Great Lakes plus OTL Maritimes, would soon be overrun by New Englanders (who outnumbered everyone in North America during the 17th century), especially with a surviving Commonwealth.
The thirteen states go their separate ways after independence. Though each remains a republic, this diminishes the appeal of building large republics post-independence. With, or separately from this, Louis-Philippe, who was in Louisiana at the time, declares independence after the Third Treaty of San Idelfonso as the Duke of (New) Orleans and King of Louisiana. The British get on board with this, and Louisiana independence is recognized in the Treaty of Amiens. Liberal monarchist Louisiana and not the United States thus becomes te model for state organization post-Independence in Latin America.
Isn't the POD post independence? All the PODs proposed seem to be from the 16th and 17th centuries.
The leadership of every country in the Americas, including the United States, considered making their country a monarchy, under a cadet branch of some European house. The POD is really to have these proposals get more traction. Actually the hardest thing to do is to get an independent monarchical Canada that is not in personal union with the British crown, especially as Canada did not become independent until 1931.
IOTL, Brazil did institute a monarchy, that lasted until 1889, so the POD there is simplest, just don't have the 1889 coup happens. Mexico also got short-lived monarchies going. For Latin America, you just need more success for the conservatives.
For a single POD, have the American patriots adopt a monarchy along with American independence from Great Britain. Once this happens, there are no successful republics in the New World (Haiti won't be seen as successful) to emulate, and any new countries in Latin America will be monarchical as a matter of course. So after a ton of handwaving, the settlement between Westminster and the colonials involve spinning off the American colonies as a dominion under a relative of the British King. This still requires a pre-independence POD and was not considered, seriously or otherwise, by anyone. If the Patriots decide to get their own king, it would have to be a Protestant, which would effectively limit them to German princes.
The leadership of every country in the Americas, including the United States, considered making their country a monarchy, under a cadet branch of some European house. The POD is really to have these proposals get more traction. Actually the hardest thing to do is to get an independent monarchical Canada that is not in personal union with the British crown, especially as Canada did not become independent until 1931.
IOTL, Brazil did institute a monarchy, that lasted until 1889, so the POD there is simplest, just don't have the 1889 coup happens. Mexico also got short-lived monarchies going. For Latin America, you just need more success for the conservatives.
For a single POD, have the American patriots adopt a monarchy along with American independence from Great Britain. Once this happens, there are no successful republics in the New World (Haiti won't be seen as successful) to emulate, and any new countries in Latin America will be monarchical as a matter of course. So after a ton of handwaving, the settlement between Westminster and the colonials involve spinning off the American colonies as a dominion under a relative of the British King. This still requires a pre-independence POD and was not considered, seriously or otherwise, by anyone. If the Patriots decide to get their own king, it would have to be a Protestant, which would effectively limit them to German princes.
The POD is any you want, the question was having most independent countries in the Americas be monarchies (My writting may have been a bit vague)
this is kinda how it is in my ASB ATL. some of the longest-running ideas, which i'm planning to stick with, are that the geopolitical makeup of the Americas includes a larger United States, (i admit that this is author provincialism 
) a monarchist Aztec state in place of Mexico which also controls the rest of Central America, a set of Spanish Viceroyalties across most of South America but also including some parts of the Caribbean and functioning as dominions of a monarchist Spain, (which, ironically, is ruled by the descendants of Moctezuma II in TTL's present-day) a Brazil which may or may not be monarchist as well, and a few *British overseas territories which are also implicitly monarchist. aside from the US, probably the only non-monarchist states in the Americas would be a few isolated Caribbean/Antillean states, possibly including formerly monarchist Haiti, and anything that belongs to TTL's Republican France
) a monarchist Aztec state in place of Mexico which also controls the rest of Central America, a set of Spanish Viceroyalties across most of South America but also including some parts of the Caribbean and functioning as dominions of a monarchist Spain, (which, ironically, is ruled by the descendants of Moctezuma II in TTL's present-day) a Brazil which may or may not be monarchist as well, and a few *British overseas territories which are also implicitly monarchist. aside from the US, probably the only non-monarchist states in the Americas would be a few isolated Caribbean/Antillean states, possibly including formerly monarchist Haiti, and anything that belongs to TTL's Republican FranceMy second scenario is post-U.S. independence. My first is during/right afterward.
Marc
Donor
I think the largest problem has to do with the political culture. Not what the masses think, they never really counted until the 20th century (if then), but the attitudes of the power elites - and they were almost exclusively oligarchical by nature. A monarchy might be permitted, for the pomp and circumstance, but only as figureheads.
Wasn't San Mrtin a monarchist (or in favour of a monarchy) while Bolivar was a republican. Anyhow, let the Aranda plan be successful, and Carlos III's boys get "appanages" as viceroy of Peru or Mexico. Things get tense with the mother country (not unlike how it did otl) and the generation of Carlos III's grandsons throw off the Spanish yoke.
Considering that the prince of Salerno (younger son of Fernando IV of Naples) was en route to the New World (with a similar idea to Carlota Joaquina's plans in Brasil for Rio de la Plata - that Carlos IV had been deposed and Salerno planned to set up a decent government) when the Brits stopped him at Gibraltar (IIRC); or that Carlos IV's daughter Carlota Joaquina and nephew, Pedro Carlos de Borbon y Bragança were already in situ in Brasil, it's not ENTIRELY crazy.
Hell, Chateaubriand was proposing this AFTER the Congress od Vienna; there was talk of granting the kingdom of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador to Isabel II's uterine half-brother. And then Louis Philippe came along and wrecked it by insisting that Luisa Fernanda of Spain and the duc de Montpensier RATHER rule it. Which of course, pissed off the Peruvian/Bolivians who despised the idea of being ruled by a Frenchman and the idea went to dust.
Peru (all of it, including Bolivia) achieves independence as a second Inca Empire. The POD for this could either be that the rebellions of Juan Santos Atahualpa (1740s) or Túpac Amaru II (1780) are successful and kick the Spanish out of the Andes.
Then, Mexico achieves its independence as an empire and stays that way, and Brazil does the same thing.
Finally, Haiti gets a king or an emperor who can establish a lasting monarchy.
These are the more plausible options, I think.
Then, Mexico achieves its independence as an empire and stays that way, and Brazil does the same thing.
Finally, Haiti gets a king or an emperor who can establish a lasting monarchy.
These are the more plausible options, I think.