AHC: Prince of Canada

libbrit

Banned
Having 'Princes' means the King doesn't need to give up his Imperial or Royal titles.

Princes/Kings, same difference if the monarch at the centre has a bigger title "King-Emperor", was often used in imperial days. Make it official "King Emperor of the Britons and Indians"? The magic of monarchy is that a higher title can always be found at the back of the cupboard ;)
 
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?

The Princes would replace Governors-General.

The article in the Times saw the Viceroy of India as a more executive role that needed to be split (those aren't my views, but those of the book itself)- so the Viceroy could focus on ruling, while the Prince Regent reigned over the subcontinent.
 
The Princes would replace Governors-General.

The article in the Times saw the Viceroy of India as a more executive role that needed to be split (those aren't my views, but those of the book itself)- so the Viceroy could focus on ruling, while the Prince Regent reigned over the subcontinent.

Could you post this article, I'd like to read it, sounds interesting.
 
Could you post this article, I'd like to read it, sounds interesting.

It isn't online, (AFAIK). It was an article in a book called 'India at the Durbar' written in 1911- it was a compilation of Times articles written concerning the Delhi Durbar of 1911. I'll see if I can find it online, but I found it at the university's library here.
 
It isn't online, (AFAIK). It was an article in a book called 'India at the Durbar' written in 1911- it was a compilation of Times articles written concerning the Delhi Durbar of 1911. I'll see if I can find it online, but I found it at the university's library here.

Cheers.

I think India would be the most prestigious option, it would send a message about the power and prestiege of the Empire. Much like how Edward I wanted to send a message when he made his son Prince of Wales.
 
Cheers.

I think India would be the most prestigious option, it would send a message about the power and prestiege of the Empire. Much like how Edward I wanted to send a message when he made his son Prince of Wales.

FWIW I'd take it with a grain of salt. The article assumes the Viceroy would take a broader legislative role- contrary to what was already the proven scheme in the rest of the Dominions. So a Prince Regent might be more effective taking a more viceregal position.

You're right in that it sends a message. The Times speculated that this scheme would help tie the Princely States closer to the British Crown- it would also help destabilize the reform movement calling for Dominion status (however small it might be at the time). The problem with a Prince in India, is that it automatically politicizes the Prince- if it is the Crown Prince, then it would be a completely different experience to Britain, and might create Kings that chafe under Parliament's thumb. Hell it might destablise the hitherto stable relationship between the Crown and Parliament.
 
FWIW I'd take it with a grain of salt. The article assumes the Viceroy would take a broader legislative role- contrary to what was already the proven scheme in the rest of the Dominions. So a Prince Regent might be more effective taking a more viceregal position.

You're right in that it sends a message. The Times speculated that this scheme would help tie the Princely States closer to the British Crown- it would also help destabilize the reform movement calling for Dominion status (however small it might be at the time). The problem with a Prince in India, is that it automatically politicizes the Prince- if it is the Crown Prince, then it would be a completely different experience to Britain, and might create Kings that chafe under Parliament's thumb. Hell it might destablise the hitherto stable relationship between the Crown and Parliament.

Well realistically there was never any real chance of the heir apparent being sent abroad to learn the craft.

Victoria would never have agreed to it, so no go for Edward VII.

Edward VII was too old when he became King for his son George V to be sent abroad for an extended period.

Edward VIII did tour the Empire extensively but it seems no one in government thought he had the capacity (or desire) to undertake any formal role...as history proved.
 
Prime MInister's TL with Arthur as King of Canada comes to mind.

That sounds interesting.

Arthur was generally considered to be Victoria's most accomplished son.

It would have inevitably led to Australia, New Zealand and maybe even South Africa demanding equality but who would they get?

Assuming we are talking from around 1900, neither Victoria or Edward VII had any available sons/grandsons unless these countries were prepared to accept monarchs descended in the female line, then you open up the possibility of one of the sons of Princess Helena or Princess Beatrice becoming King.
 
OTL, when Canada was set up, it was seriously considered making it a Kingdom. Partly to avoid offending US sensibilities, that got changed to the vague status 'Dominion'.

I don't believe you'd get a Prince of Canada. A King? Certainly. A Prince? not unless Canada never forms.
 
That sounds interesting.

Arthur was generally considered to be Victoria's most accomplished son.

It would have inevitably led to Australia, New Zealand and maybe even South Africa demanding equality but who would they get?

Assuming we are talking from around 1900, neither Victoria or Edward VII had any available sons/grandsons unless these countries were prepared to accept monarchs descended in the female line, then you open up the possibility of one of the sons of Princess Helena or Princess Beatrice becoming King.

Well, Princess Helena's one son died in South Africa and was buried in Pretoria. At the funeral, the Afrikaners were unhappy about it, with one of the wives of an Afrikaner politico commenting: "Ja, die Britte het hierdie land nou oorgeneem met oorlog, en hulle het gewys hul gaan hier bly, want hulle het nou een van hul prinse hier begrawe" (Yes, the British have taken over the country by force, and now they plan on staying, since they've buried a prince in our soil).

So, South Africa'll be looking for any excuse to break away, and Canada getting preference could lead to some fun times at the Cape.
 
I've actually thought about this in modern times, in response to the apparent rise of republicanism in Australia: Give each of the three remaining 'white' Realms outside of the UK one of Queen Elizabeth's children as its own monarch, with a princely or even kingly title: Canada, as the oldest, largest & nearest, gets the Prince of Wales (and, when that prince accedes to the throne of the UK, the new Prince of Wales as a replacement...), Australia gets Prince Andrew, New Zealand gets Prince Edward...
Or maybe we keep the Prince of Wales here in the UK, and Princess Anne (as the next-oldest of Her Majesty's children, and [as it happens] with a Canadian daughter-in-law...) becomes Princess of Canada instead?
 
Well, Princess Helena's one son died in South Africa and was buried in Pretoria. At the funeral, the Afrikaners were unhappy about it, with one of the wives of an Afrikaner politico commenting: "Ja, die Britte het hierdie land nou oorgeneem met oorlog, en hulle het gewys hul gaan hier bly, want hulle het nou een van hul prinse hier begrawe" (Yes, the British have taken over the country by force, and now they plan on staying, since they've buried a prince in our soil).

So, South Africa'll be looking for any excuse to break away, and Canada getting preference could lead to some fun times at the Cape.

South Africa can't have it both ways, moaning about getting a native king and then complaining if Canada gets one.

Princess Helena had two sons who reached adulthood (plus two more who died at birth). Christian Victor died in 1900 in South Africa.

His younger brother Albert lived until 1931, so plenty of time to become a King of a distant land. He could have always become King of New Zealand, if South Africa was problematic.

Albert never married but did father an illegitimate child, a daughter Valerie, who was raised within a German Jewish family. Decades later, Albert's sisters Princesses Marie Louise and Victoria (by then treated as extended members of the British Royal Family) were required to verify to the Nazi authorities Valerie's true parentage to ensure her safety.

Another good almost British candidate, Louis of Battenberg, married to Victoria's grandaughter Victoria of Hesse. Great blood connections, say he becomes King of New Zealand in 1907, his niece is Queen of Spain, his wife is the sister of the Tsarina and niece of King Edward VII.
 
Last edited:
I've actually thought about this in modern times, in response to the apparent rise of republicanism in Australia: Give each of the three remaining 'white' Realms outside of the UK one of Queen Elizabeth's children as its own monarch, with a princely or even kingly title: Canada, as the oldest, largest & nearest, gets the Prince of Wales (and, when that prince accedes to the throne of the UK, the new Prince of Wales as a replacement...), Australia gets Prince Andrew, New Zealand gets Prince Edward...
Or maybe we keep the Prince of Wales here in the UK, and Princess Anne (as the next-oldest of Her Majesty's children, and [as it happens] with a Canadian daughter-in-law...) becomes Princess of Canada instead?

Sadly, I think the opportunity has long since passed.

You need the climate that existed in the 30s/40s/50s, a sense of being not quite British but still loyal to the British crown.

You needed someone with the foresight to see that feeling would not last. I imagine if the Queen had suggested publicly during her tour of Australia in 1954 that she would like her sister to become Queen of Australia, the ordinary Australian would have lost their shit and agreed wholeheartedly, same in Canada with the Gloucesters or the Kents in New Zealand, with her retaining some kind of senior role as Head Monarch of the Commonwealth or something along the lines.
 
OTL, when Canada was set up, it was seriously considered making it a Kingdom. Partly to avoid offending US sensibilities, that got changed to the vague status 'Dominion'.

I don't believe you'd get a Prince of Canada. A King? Certainly. A Prince? not unless Canada never forms.

That seems right to me.

The better solution for Britain - admittedly not terribly plausible, either - was the one Chamberlain was considering back in the 1890's: imperial federation. "Britain" suddenly becomes far larger, fusing with the white dominions/colonies more firmly. There's no clear evolution in the monarchy dictated, but as a practical matter, there would likely be an arrangement where a senior heir to the throne would always be resident in one of the three (later, perhaps, four) major dominion regions overseas...perhaps with some kind of royal palace established (a giant sheep station in Australia, perhaps)...

Of course, there wasn't much more interest among policy makers in London (or, some to that, certain dominion capitals) than there was in creating a Prince of Canada or Australia. A pity, since it could have ensured a surviving true great power status for Britain and the Dominions after decolonization, and kept it free of the interminable psychodrama of the EC/EU...
 
Top