AHC: Prince of Canada

With a POD after the creation of the Dominion of Canada in OTL give Canada an own royal who is a member of the british royal family (either Hannover or Sachse-Coburg-Gotha) and who is head of state of Canada and bears the title of a Prince of Canada.
 
With a POD after the creation of the Dominion of Canada in OTL give Canada an own royal who is a member of the british royal family (either Hannover or Sachse-Coburg-Gotha) and who is head of state of Canada and bears the title of a Prince of Canada.

Have Wales become an independent republic?

Then the Crown Prince will need a new title? Prince of Canada might fit. (Though an independent welsh republic may not be the simplest of creations)

Or Drastically increase the importance of Canada to the Royal Family? Perhaps some disaster causes the Royals to flee to Canada, and as a show of thanks the title is created, perhaps for the heirs heir?
 
Have Wales become an independent republic?

Then the Crown Prince will need a new title? Prince of Canada might fit. (Though an independent welsh republic may not be the simplest of creations)

Or Drastically increase the importance of Canada to the Royal Family? Perhaps some disaster causes the Royals to flee to Canada, and as a show of thanks the title is created, perhaps for the heirs heir?

The Prince should have the same position in Canada as the King has in Great Britain while he is still nominal vassal to the King like Canada today.
 

libbrit

Banned
Simple, either have the British monarch possess two titles, one being Prince of Canada (making Canada a Principality, not a Kingdom), or have an entirely seperate line of the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha.

Of course, it makes the whole issue of the empire rather complicated, as with option two, you are essentially setting the Canadian Monarchy and by extension Canada off on a totally different direction to Britain, so can it still really be called part of the British empire?

Of course you can solve that problem by having the British monarch permanently abandon their regal title and permanently adopt an imperial title, thus making themselves superior to the Canadian Prince, and making the Prince of Canada his vassal, and by extension keeping Canada part of the British empire.

So the British monarch becomes Emperor, a step above being Prince or King. If you go too far with that however, you eventually turn the British empire into something like the Holy Roman empire, with kings and princes for the various colonies, presided over by a central `Emperor of all the Britons`
 
With a POD after the creation of the Dominion of Canada in OTL give Canada an own royal who is a member of the british royal family (either Hannover or Sachse-Coburg-Gotha) and who is head of state of Canada and bears the title of a Prince of Canada.

It was mooted in the 1880s. There was a suggesstion that Victoria's two younger sons could have been Princes of Australia and Canada.

There was never any realistic chance of it happening at that time when the Empire was at its peak and the bond to the Mother Country was so strong.

Your best bet is to fast forward to say the 1930s, when there was a greater sense of actually being not quite British and a growing sense of being Canadian, Australian etc.

Perhaps to coincide with the Statute of Westminster 1931, it is decided that the three younger sons of King George V should become Kings of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with the British monarch being Emperor of the whole British Empire.

Countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand are perfectly suited for the constitutional monarchial system.
 
The Prince should have the same position in Canada as the King has in Great Britain while he is still nominal vassal to the King like Canada today.

Well that's doable. The Crown Prince can 'learn the family trade' in Canada before becoming King of Great Britain. Whilst in Canada he is head of state etc but is still next in line to the throne. So when the old monarch dies the former PoCs heir becomes PoC. Might lead to a much closer relationship between the Uk and Canada. Also might allow some insulation from truly awful rulers for the whole empire, or at least give such rulers a chance to improve.
 
Well that's doable. The Crown Prince can 'learn the family trade' in Canada before becoming King of Great Britain. Whilst in Canada he is head of state etc but is still next in line to the throne. So when the old monarch dies the former PoCs heir becomes PoC. Might lead to a much closer relationship between the Uk and Canada. Also might allow some insulation from truly awful rulers for the whole empire, or at least give such rulers a chance to improve.

Well that is what the Governor-General for.

A number of royals acted as Governor-General of both Australia and Canada over the years.

You can't have a Prince of Canada, without having one for Australia, New Zealand otherwise that is just going to inspire dissent in the Empire.
 
It was mooted in the 1880s. There was a suggesstion that Victoria's two younger sons could have been Princes of Australia and Canada.

There was never any realistic chance of it happening at that time when the Empire was at its peak and the bond to the Mother Country was so strong.

If the bond between the colony and mother country is so strong, how would that bea a bad thing? Wouldn't that technically be the best time to institute a monarch into another country.
 
If the bond between the colony and mother country is so strong, how would that bea a bad thing? Wouldn't that technically be the best time to institute a monarch into another country.

No, the bond was so strong that there really was neither the need or any political advantage in doing so.

1931 would have been the best possible time, there was sufficient desire to be separate from the UK but also to still retain links to the British Crown.
 
Well that is what the Governor-General for.

A number of royals acted as Governor-General of both Australia and Canada over the years.

You can't have a Prince of Canada, without having one for Australia, New Zealand otherwise that is just going to inspire dissent in the Empire.

Well I never said you couldn't have the other two, but as the oldest dominion Canada gets the Crown Prince? It was the largest of the three as well as most populous (I believe). So whatever way you want to justify it Canada can get preference.

And as the position was basically already there, then no great hardship in renaming it.
 
Well I never said you couldn't have the other two, but as the oldest dominion Canada gets the Crown Prince? It was the largest of the three as well as most populous (I believe). So whatever way you want to justify it Canada can get preference.

And as the position was basically already there, then no great hardship in renaming it.

Just seems unlikely to me but each to their own.

Not sure why the original post picked Canada or why it is being treated as if it were so amazingly special and unique within the Empire to warrant having the heir apparent moving there.

Its worth noting that no immediate heirs to the throne ever acted as Governor-General. The Duke of Connaught acted as GG in Canada in the 1910s but by that time his succession rights were academic. The Duke of Gloucester was GG of Australia in the 40s, at the time he was third in line of succession to the throne behind his nieces Elizabeth and Margaret.

I mean if we are doing it based on size and prestiege, forget small fry countries like Canada and Australia...why not Prince of India?
 

libbrit

Banned
Just seems unlikely to me but each to their own.

Not sure why the original post picked Canada or why it is being treated as if it were so amazingly special and unique within the Empire to warrant having the heir apparent moving there.

Its worth noting that no immediate heirs to the throne ever acted as Governor-General. The Duke of Connaught acted as GG in Canada in the 1910s but by that time his succession rights were academic. The Duke of Gloucester was GG of Australia in the 40s, at the time he was third in line of succession to the throne behind his nieces Elizabeth and Margaret.

I mean if we are doing it based on size and prestiege, forget small fry countries like Canada and Australia...why not Prince of India?

Because India gave the monarchy something much better, its title of Emperor
 
Just seems unlikely to me but each to their own.

Not sure why the original post picked Canada or why it is being treated as if it were so amazingly special and unique within the Empire to warrant having the heir apparent moving there.

Its worth noting that no immediate heirs to the throne ever acted as Governor-General. The Duke of Connaught acted as GG in Canada in the 1910s but by that time his succession rights were academic. The Duke of Gloucester was GG of Australia in the 40s, at the time he was third in line of succession to the throne behind his nieces Elizabeth and Margaret.

I mean if we are doing it based on size and prestiege, forget small fry countries like Canada and Australia...why not Prince of India?

Prince of India... Would be like Augustus allowing his heir control of Egypt. You want them to gain experience not a) to ruin the most profitable part of your empire or b) decide to rebel. (Not that that is hugely likely in this case)

I agree it isn't too plausible, and in OPs defence he wanted the PoC to just be head of state. I suggested the heir going to Canada (it seemed the best way to get Canada a prince to me)
 
As an aside, the idea of having a Prince of India (or rather, Prince Regent) was actually looked at; it was to separate the power of the Viceroy, allowing the latter to take on a more prime ministerial role, while the former would take the more ceremonial role.

This was looked at in the Times, though, not by official policy-makers. (source- India at the Durbar (1911))

Now, the Dominions having separate princes isn't so bad. There wasn't a set template for the Dominions, and since the idea of Canada actually becoming a separate kingdom actually came up, maintaining a prince there might leave it more tied with the Empire; the possibility is there.

Arthur could be Prince of Canada; someone else in Australia, South Africa etc.

Having one in India was to maintain a personal royal presence in that entity, but maybe a separate post is created; after all in official terms India was not considered a colony (de facto it was, but d jure it was the Indian Empire, a wholly new entity).

These 'Princes' needn't be hereditary- they could be appointed, so if the Duke of York is Prince of Canada, it isn't automatic his son would become Prince of Canada, but rather, the second son of the ruling monarch would.
 

libbrit

Banned
What's your point?

What would be the point of a Prince of India, when you already have an Emperor of India. If anything, the Indian Imperial title was the British monarchies best justification for using the word `Emperor` in their title-there is a reason they never created an imperial title for Britain itself, it would have just looked odd. With India, they were taking on an extant title.

How about the British monarch soley refers to himself as `Emperor of the Britons and the Indians`, and that way he can create Regal or Princely titles without sacrificing the unity of the empire. "King of Canada", "King of Australia", "King of New Zealand", "King of the Africans" (covering all African colonies), "King of the Indies" (covering Asia outside India).
 
Prince of India... Would be like Augustus allowing his heir control of Egypt. You want them to gain experience not a) to ruin the most profitable part of your empire or b) decide to rebel. (Not that that is hugely likely in this case)

I agree it isn't too plausible, and in OPs defence he wanted the PoC to just be head of state. I suggested the heir going to Canada (it seemed the best way to get Canada a prince to me)

By the time we are talking about, the role of the monarchy had already become radically limited. Even an insane heir apparent isn't going to destroy India.

One idea involving India, in the 1870s Edward, Prince of Wales was sent there on a grand tour. He had been involved in a lot of scandals. It was a way of strengthening the Empire and getting him out of London. Amazingly even then he got dragged into a scandal back home when one of his mistresses tried to involve the Prince and Princess Alexandra in the breakdown of her marriage. This meant Edward had to come home early.

Perhaps for some unknown reason, he remains in India for longer, perhaps he falls sick and needs time to recuperate.

Of course Victoria refused to allow Edward any independance or involvement in state affairs, she would have prevented him (or any of his brothers) having any official role which in any way threatened her supremacy but perhaps he could exist there in a semi official capacity.

By that time he and his wife had 5 children, they could afford to be separated.
 
What would be the point of a Prince of India, when you already have an emperor of India. If anything, the Indian Imperial title was the British monarchies best justification for using the word Emperor in their title.

Are we just playing a game of titles?

India was the most populous and prestigious part of the Empire.

Sending the heir apparent to Canada or Australia in the 19th century to learn about government on a grand scale would be a rather short tutorial.
 
What would be the point of a Prince of India, when you already have an Emperor of India. If anything, the Indian Imperial title was the British monarchies best justification for using the word `Emperor` in their title-there is a reason they never created an imperial title for Britain itself, it would have just looked odd. With India, they were taking on an extant title.

How about the British monarch soley refers to himself as `Emperor of the Britons and the Indians`, and that way he can create Regal or Princely titles without sacrificing the unity of the empire. "King of Canada", "King of Australia", "King of New Zealand", "King of the Africans" (covering all African colonies), "King of the Indies" (covering Asia outside India).

Having 'Princes' means the King doesn't need to give up his Imperial or Royal titles.
 
As an aside, the idea of having a Prince of India (or rather, Prince Regent) was actually looked at; it was to separate the power of the Viceroy, allowing the latter to take on a more prime ministerial role, while the former would take the more ceremonial role.

This was looked at in the Times, though, not by official policy-makers. (source- India at the Durbar (1911))

Now, the Dominions having separate princes isn't so bad. There wasn't a set template for the Dominions, and since the idea of Canada actually becoming a separate kingdom actually came up, maintaining a prince there might leave it more tied with the Empire; the possibility is there.

Arthur could be Prince of Canada; someone else in Australia, South Africa etc.

Having one in India was to maintain a personal royal presence in that entity, but maybe a separate post is created; after all in official terms India was not considered a colony (de facto it was, but d jure it was the Indian Empire, a wholly new entity).

These 'Princes' needn't be hereditary- they could be appointed, so if the Duke of York is Prince of Canada, it isn't automatic his son would become Prince of Canada, but rather, the second son of the ruling monarch would.

But I don't see what role these princes are supposed to have? The Governor-General/Viceroy's roles are quite well defined and they are the de-facto constitutional monarch.

Royals and royal relations routinely undertook GG roles.

Are you suggessting splitting the roles and if so how?

Otherwise whats the point?
 
Top