AHC: Look to the Uttermost West

So, for all the vast empires the European kingdoms carved out during the early modern period, none of its royals ever seemed to have left the continent, let alone visited their colonies for any extended period of time. I know there are a lot of reasons for this, but I've always found it a bit strange.

The challenge: get a prince from Europe, however minor, to settle in the colonies.

Bonus points:
-they marry into a prominent family in the colony
-they marry a native
-the prince settles in a region that isn't predominantly 'white'
-their descendant leads a rebellion against the mother country
 
The Stuarts flee to North America? A Stuart scion leads an alt-revolution against the British colonies and becomes monarch of an alt-USA?
As silly as this sounds, it also sounds incredibly entertaining to read.
 
LTTW, of course!

That was one of the things that prompted me to post this. That, and living in a country named after a Spanish prince whose descendants never came here at all. Also, that one family in Bhopal, India which claims descent from the Bourbons.

The Stuarts flee to North America? A Stuart scion leads an alt-revolution against the British colonies and becomes monarch of an alt-USA?
As silly as this sounds, it also sounds incredibly entertaining to read.

That also sounds fun. I also remember a TL on this board that was like that.

But anyway, I was thinking a bit farther south. Like, is there any way for a Trastamara or Habsburg, Braganza or Avis, Valois or Bourbon, or Orange-Nassau, to come down to these East Indies? Or, hell, have one of the royal families of Scandinavia settle in Vinland for one reason or another. :p
 
@Timaeus as far as the "European prince" thing...

Can a resident of the colony conquer the motherland? :p
I am thinking something like Leif Eriksson overthrowing Olaf of Norway...
Is that within the bounds of this AHC?
 
Cesare survived the Navarre incident and uses the remaining Papal money to go on a ship to Hispaniola.

Did I win?

Literally all of those bonus points could be done with him too.
 
Last edited:
Can a resident of the colony conquer the motherland? :p
I am thinking something like Leif Eriksson overthrowing Olaf of Norway...
Is that within the bounds of this AHC?

Hm. An interesting possibility. :p

Cesare survived the Navarre incident and uses the remaining Papal money to go on a ship to Hispaniola.

Did I win?

I'm not sure if the sons of Popes count, but that sounds interesting too.

If you can get me a Habsburg, Tudor, or Valois on a boat to East Asia, then you win~ :p
 
Hm. An interesting possibility. :p



I'm not sure if the sons of Popes count, but that sounds interesting too.

If you can get me a Habsburg, Tudor, or Valois on a boat to East Asia, then you win~ :p

Errm, Philip II of Spain abdicates to the colonies? No clue tbh

I was just here for Cesare Borgia :closedeyesmile:
 
The English Civil War could result in Charles II fleeing to the New World and establishing himself as King of England from English North America.

The colonies had a very low population at this time and could be subject to attack by the Commonwealth ruled by Cromwell, but it could be a footnote in history as the last vestige of the English monarchy.
 
So, for all the vast empires the European kingdoms carved out during the early modern period, none of its royals ever seemed to have left the continent, let alone visited their colonies for any extended period of time. I know there are a lot of reasons for this, but I've always found it a bit strange.

The challenge: get a prince from Europe, however minor, to settle in the colonies.
Does it matter what colonies? Because a relative of the Dutch Nassau family basicly ruled the Dutch Brasil colony and was one of the more competent rulers. They still have statues of him in Brasil. You need some relatively big changes to keep that part of Brasil Dutch, but I could see it happen and him and his family more or less becoming basicly the stadholder of the colony. Or something like that.
 
Wait- just remembered this is OTL.

Maximilian I of Mexico...

I think that should do it

Oh, right. Hm.

I mean, I was hoping for something a bit earlier and more dramatic and somewhat straddling the border into ASB without actually being ASB, with a Habsburg cadet or something going to the Americas and marrying a descendant of the last of the Sapa Inca. But okay.

Does it matter what colonies? Because a relative of the Dutch Nassau family basicly ruled the Dutch Brasil colony and was one of the more competent rulers. They still have statues of him in Brasil. You need some relatively big changes to keep that part of Brasil Dutch, but I could see it happen and him and his family more or less becoming basicly the stadholder of the colony. Or something like that.

This also sort-of works. Along with the OTL Portuguese Pedro of Brazil. Hm.
 
I had this TL idea of France retaining its Indian colonies (and expanding a bit in India) during the Seven Years War. However, wars with Mysore and the Maratha Empire serve to bankrupt the French treasury (to the point it can't support the American revolutionaries) and a revolution still occurs. However, the Bourbons flee to their Indian holdings along with a giant chunk of the aristocracy, and they set up a France-in-exile, with its capital in Pondicherry.
 
Does it count if the colony is in Europe? You could get some English nobleman to head off to Nova Anglia after William the Conquerer takes over.
 

longsword14

Banned
I had this TL idea of France retaining its Indian colonies (and expanding a bit in India) during the Seven Years War. However, wars with Mysore and the Maratha Empire serve to bankrupt the French treasury (to the point it can't support the American revolutionaries) and a revolution still occurs. However, the Bourbons flee to their Indian holdings along with a giant chunk of the aristocracy, and they set up a France-in-exile, with its capital in Pondicherry.
Fighting the Marathas was not that hard. Money made from the colonies could be easily used to raise native troops, plus campaigns were short and decisive (any real fight ended in the natives getting spanked).
 
Fighting the Marathas was not that hard. Money made from the colonies could be easily used to raise native troops, plus campaigns were short and decisive (any real fight ended in the natives getting spanked).

The British were fighting the Marathas at a time when they were in decline, and even then it took three wars to conquer them. The French on the other hand, would be fighting the Marathas at their peak in this scenario.
 

longsword14

Banned
The British were fighting the Marathas at a time when they were in decline, and even then it took three wars to conquer them. The French on the other hand, would be fighting the Marathas at their peak in this scenario.
Peak or not, Maratha military capabilities are not up to facing determined soldiers trained in the western way. What the Maratha confederacy showed is that it was full of corruption, unstable and could easily be split by a clever external agent.
 
Peak or not, Maratha military capabilities are not up to facing determined soldiers trained in the western way. What the Maratha confederacy showed is that it was full of corruption, unstable and could easily be split by a clever external agent.

In the long term, it could be defeated due to those problems. But in the short term, defeating the Marathas would be difficult, as it was strong, with its leaders holding hegemony over most of India.

And short-term is really what I'm talking about here.

You're right that France probably could have conquered, say, the Deccan from the Marathas by 1789. But I don't think they could conquer much more.
 
Top