AHC United Kingdom of America

Not sure if this has been done before however your challenge if you wish to except it is to turn the Thirteen Colonies into a kingdom, post-revolution.

Basic Requirements:
Have all of the former colonies united under one monarch
This kingdom to exist within 15 years of 1774
For any posts some detail would be appreciated
Any sources would be excepted

Anything else is virtually up too yourself. I'm planning for this to develop into a timeline so any further help with that timeline would also be appreciated, especially for graphics.

Best of luck
 

jahenders

Banned
The easiest approach is for Washington to support the proposal that he should be a monarch under the new constitution and encourage the idea. Assuming this idea is accepted ...

George Washington becomes King George I of the United American Kingdom. His role is highly constrained constitutionally and functions largely like that of the President (IOTL), with a few major exceptions:
1) The VP isn't the VP, but the Prime Minister
2) The office might be/become quasi-hereditary, though it might be something where a group of electors (electoral college) votes based on several likely candidates (kind of the like the Anglo-Saxon model).

Not sure if this has been done before however your challenge if you wish to except it is to turn the Thirteen Colonies into a kingdom, post-revolution.

Basic Requirements:
Have all of the former colonies united under one monarch
This kingdom to exist within 15 years of 1774
For any posts some detail would be appreciated
Any sources would be excepted

Anything else is virtually up too yourself. I'm planning for this to develop into a timeline so any further help with that timeline would also be appreciated, especially for graphics.

Best of luck
 
Does the POD have to be after the Revolution? 'Cause if not, butterflying away or reducing republican sentiment in 18th-century political philosophy in favour of more pro-enlightened despotism/constitutional monarchy ideas might do the trick. Throw in a right to rebellion if the monarch really steps out of line, and you could have an *American War of Independence occur much as in IOTL, except that the newly-independent colonists would naturally look for a new king rather than set up a republic.
 
I am happy with anything with 15 years of the given year.
However I really don't mind any small pod's before the give thirty year period providing it is mildly fictional yet plausible for the era.
This is basically to start the base of my research and hopeful timeline.
Thanks for the interest guys I really appreciate it.
 
If a prince of the royal house had bought the rights of the Proprietary Colonies?

THE PRINCE
Prince William Henry (Leicester House, Westminster, 25 November 1743 – Gloucester House, Upper Grosvenor Street, London, 25 August 1805), was a son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, and brother of the King George III.
Prince William Henry lived mostly at Kew, in Kew House (also known as the White House), where his father accumulated a menagerie of exotic animals and pursued a passion for botany which he shared with his wife. Frederick taught his family astronomy and encouraged a variety of entertainments including rowing, cricket, outings to fairs and play acting.
In 1751, Frederick caught pneumonia and died. Augusta made her peace with the King, who allowed her to continue bringing up her family at Kew. Prince William Henry and his brother Prince Henry Frederick (7 November 1745 – 18 September 1790) had a house on Kew Green which included a billiard room and a colonnade for fencing lessons. His studies included ancient and modern languages, history and geography. In 1765, he toured Kent and Cornwall and in 1766, Guernsey and Paris.
He had made a Knight of the Garter on 27 May 1762 (invested on 22 September) and was created Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh and Earl of Connaught on 19 November 1764.
Prince William Henry was made Ranger of Hampton Court Park, Ranger and Keeper of Cranborne Chase in Windsor Forest and Lord Warden and Keeper of the New Forest. He became Chancellor of the University of Dublin in 1771. He resided at Cranbourne Lodge.
He wanted to pursue an active military career, but neither his physical stamina nor his mental capacity were sufficient to carry a commander's position on active service. Nevertheless, he became Colonel of the 13th Regiment of Foot in 1766, and of the 3rd Regiment of Foot Guards in 1767. He was promoted lieutenant-general and became Colonel of the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards in 1770. During the War of Bavarian Succession (1777-1779), he longed to serve under Prince Frederick (Later King Frederick II) of Prussia, but his request was declined.

THE LOVERS
In 1764, Prince William Henry started courting Maria Walpole (St. James', Westminster, Middlesex,10 July 1736 – Oxford Lodge, Brompton, Middlesex, 22 August 1807), the Countess Dowager Waldegrave. Maria was the illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward Walpole (1706 – 12 January 1784) and his mistress Dorothy Clement (c. 1715 - c. 1739), and the widow of James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave (4 March 1715 – 13 April 1763). On 6 September 1766, they were married secretly, without witnesses, at the Duke’s house in Pall Mall by Maria’s chaplain, Dr Morton.
Lady Mary Koke wrote that while Lady Waldegrave was a lovely woman, she had little sense, even if blameless in character and conduct. But, she continued, there was no disguising the fact her mother had kept «some infamous house», and «from the top of a cinder cart», she had used her beauty to lure Sir Edward Walpole. The Reynolds portrait, painted in 1762, just before the earl's death, displays the attractions that led the Duke of Gloucester to begin his ardent pursuit of her in 1764. «As she is so young,» wrote Horace Walpole, «she might find as great a match and a younger lover». She did indeed. Maria was claimed to be the most handsome woman in Britain, says Kisler.
Over the subsequent few years, Maria Walpole claimed as many royal privileges as she could, accompanying Gloucester on social occasions and dressing her servants in approximations of royal livery.

King George III did not believe the rumours that William had actually married Maria and sent his brother abroad to visit other European royal families as a diplomatic envoy for the British monarchy in an attempt to extricate him from his entanglement with Maria, whom he felt was a bad influence on him.

THE RUPTURE
When Maria became pregnant, Prince William Henry wrote to the King to acknowledge his marriage. An enquiry into the validity of the marriage was held by the Privy Council on 23 May 1773, just days before the birth of a daughter, Sophia Matilda (29 May 1773, Mayfair, Middlesex, and not at Gloucester House or Lodge, Weymouth). The King was forced to admit the legality of the marriage and the child was given the title of Princess.

But the King was deeply hurt by his favourite brother’s deception. Whilst Prince William Henry had been ranting about the Duke of Cumberland’s shameful marriage to Lady Ann Horton the previous year, he had all the time been married to a commoner himself [The Duke's marriage to a commoner, the widow Anne Horton (1743–1808), on 2 October 1771 caused a rift with the King, and was the catalyst for the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which forbids any descendant of George II to marry without the monarch's permission]. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Edinburgh and their children were banned from the Court and William’s diplomatic missions came to an end. For the sake of economy and William’s health, they went to live on the continent [In early March 1775, Prince William Henry became seriously ill with smallpox. He was so much «shaken in health» that he decided to go abroad, thinking that a change of scenery would be beneficial].

The Gloucesters struggled to maintain the trappings of royal status and a growing family on his existing settlement of £29,000.
A financial crisis of a kind common to eighteenth-century royal dukes made the family flee to Quebec [in reality to Italy].

THE ACQUISITIONS
Meanwhile the Prince William Henry had purchased in May 1771 by Frederick Calvert, 6th Baron Baltimore (6 February 1731/1732 – 4 September 1771) the property of Maryland. This was done against the wishes of Calvert family, though Frederick did provide for cash payments to his sisters, specifically £20,000 to be divided between Louisa and Caroline.

In July 1771 Prince William Henry purchased by Penn family, the proprietors of Pennsylvania, their proprietary rights on the Colony and their property, Penn's private lands and manors. As compensation, the Penns were paid £130,000, a fraction of what the lands were worth, but a surprisingly large sum nonetheless. In additional Prince William Henry undertook to pay a sum in compensation for the loss of the right inherited the right of Pennsylvania and Delaware, which awarded them £4,000 per year in perpetuity.
Richard Penn, Jr. (27 May 1735 – 27 May 1811), the grandson of the William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, returned to Pennsylvania in the summer of 1772 and was appointed Lieutenant Governor. James Boswell (who was a friend of Penn's) records that in 1789 the influential Earl of Lonsdale urged the government to appoint Penn as American's first Ambassador to the Court of St. James's. Penn sold his Philadelphia city house to Prince William Henry in 1785, renamed Gloucester House. From 1790 to 1800, while Philadelphia was the temporary capital of the kingdom of United States, it served as the executive mansion for the King until the national capital moved to ... in November 1800.

In the 1776, at the death without iusse of Robert Carteret, 3rd Earl Granville, Bailiff of Jersey 1763-1776 (Born on 21 September 1721, bap. 17 Oct 1721 St Martin In The Fields, Westminster; died childless on 13 February 1776 at age 54), bought The lands of the Granville District [King George I appointed royal governors for North and South Carolina, converting the colony’s status to that of a royal colony. In 1729 seven of the Lords Proprietors sold their interests in Carolina to the Crown, and both North Carolina and South Carolina became royal colonies; the Crown has paid them about £22,500, approximately the amount they had spent on the colony. The eighth share was Sir George Carteret's, which had passed to his great-grandson John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville. He retained title to the lands and quitrents in the northern third of North Carolina, namely ownership of a sixty-mile-wide strip of land in North Carolina adjoining the Virginia boundary, which became known as the Granville District.

IN THE NEW WORLD
The Gloucesters lived in Quebec City, stepping into the centre of Lower Canadian society, and moving easily between circles of French Canadiens, English elites and American Loyalists alike, and they symbolized the Crown as the scaffolding in which modern Canada would emerge. Touring much of Lower Canada, Prince William Henry with his family resided in the heart of the ancient capital of New France (holidaying at nearby Montmorency Falls).

On 15 January 1776 in Charlesbourg, Quebec City, was born the only son of Prince William Henry and Maria Walpole, Prince William Frederick (15 January 1776 - 30 November 1834): he was the first prince of royal blood who was born on American soil.

At the Second Continental Congress, after that Henry Middleton declined the nomination, John Hancock was unanimously elected President on 24 May 1775. Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the thirteen colonies and emerged as a leading political figure in Boston just as tensions with Great Britain were increasing. Hancock's political success benefited from the support of Samuel Adams. The two men made an unlikely pair: Adams had a somber, Puritan outlook that stood in marked contrast to Hancock's taste for luxury and extravagance; the relationship between the two was symbiotic, with Adams as the mentor and Hancock the protégé.
Hancock's wealth and social standing inspired the confidence of moderate delegates, while his association with Boston radicals made him acceptable to other radicals. His position was somewhat ambiguous, because the role of the president was not fully defined, and like other presidents of Congress, Hancock's authority was mostly limited to that of a presiding officer. He also had to handle a great deal of official correspondence.
On June 1775 George Washington was nominated as commander-in-chief of the army then gathered around Boston: Hancock had shown great disappointment at not getting the command for himself.
Hancock served in Congress through some of the darkest days of the Revolutionary War. The Second Continental Congress was moving towards declaring independence from the British Empire in May 1776, but many delegates lacked the authority from their home governments to take such an action; the resolution of independence was delayed for several weeks as revolutionaries consolidated support for independence in their home governments.
The records of the Second Continental Congress confirm that the need for a declaration of independence was intimately linked with the demands of international relations. On 7 June 1776, Richard Henry Lee tabled a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent. He also urged Congress to resolve «to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances» and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly independent states. Lee argued that independence was the only way to ensure a foreign alliance, since no European monarchs would deal with America if they remained Britain's colonists, which prompted Hancock, with the support of the Committee of Five, to call to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Prince William Henry.

The Second Congress finally approved the resolution of independence on July 2, 1776 and designated and proclaimed Prince William Henry as Governor in Chief of the Dominion of New England (Province of New Hampshire, Province of Massachusetts Bay, Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Colony of Connecticut, Province of New York, Province of New Jersey and the Lower Counties on Delaware) and Lord Protector of the Continental Congress of the United Colonies of America. Congress next turned its attention to a formal explanation of this decision, the United States Declaration of Independence, which was approved on July 4 and published soon thereafter.

Prince William Henry was proclaimed Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of the United States of America on 15 November 1777 and then King of United States of America [as William the first] (proclaimed 4 March 1789, crowned at City Hall, New York City, on 30 April 1789).


King America.jpg

King America.jpg
 
Frankly, I think that the US is too big for a kingdom. Anyone who ruled over an area that big deserves to be called an Emperor.
 
Frankly, I think that the US is too big for a kingdom. Anyone who ruled over an area that big deserves to be called an Emperor.


But the use of the term/title "Emperor" was not so usual in the eighteenth century.
There were up to that time, in fact, only two emperors: the Holy Roman Emperor and the Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias.

I.
The Holy Roman Emperor he finds its reason for being as a continuation (or restoration) of the Roman Empire with the coronation of Charlemagne during the Christmas mass on December 25, 800, in St. Peter's Basilica by Pope Leo III, and Otto I of Saxony on 2 February 962 by Pope John XII in St. Peter's Basilica. The renewal of the idea of the Empire had influenced 1) the need, universally felt, of seeing ensured peace and justice from one end only and unique; 2) the desire of the popes to have a protector of the Roman Church and the Christian religion. The Christian world had again a temporal leader, the Emperor, and a spiritual leader, the Pope. It was in fact the traditional concept in the Middle Ages that the Empire was no more, no less, that the Church living, seen by his appearance secular, the Catholic society organized in political form; that Empire and Papacy were to proceed with concordant harmony and mutual coordination. Precisely because of this meaning the Empire is called "Holy".

Similarly, a century after the fall of Byzantium, the rulers of Russia, who first ruled with the title of Grand Prince, were honored with the title of Tsar (by Caesar), considering therefore the legitimate heirs of the Byzantine Empire. This was related to Russia's growing ambitions to become an Orthodox "Third Rome", after Constantinople had fallen. Meanwhile had happened the religious schism between the Latin Church and the Greek Church, and therefore the emperor had become the summit of temporal power as part of their church. For this reason it was unthinkable that there were other emperors in Europe. On 31 October 1721, Peter I was proclaimed Emperor by the Senate. The title used was Latin "Imperator", which is a westernizing form equivalent to the traditional Slavic title "Tsar". He based his claim partially upon a letter discovered in 1717 written in 1514 from Maximilian I to Vasili III, in which the Holy Roman Emperor used the term in referring to Vasili, father of Ivan IV, emphatically crowned himself Tsar of Russia on 16 January 1547.

II.
Only in the nineteenth century became more usual the use of the term "emperor".
A) as a result of the explorations of the modern age, the Europeans began to recognize the title of emperor to as sovereign of all religious area. So they called "Emperor" to the Ottoman Empire, as recognized by the Sunni caliph; the Persian, as the summit of the Shiites; the Grand Mogul (although it was Sunni) for India; the Chinese; the Negus for Christians Monophysites; the khan of the Mongols until it became a vassal of the Qing. A special case is that of Japan. But this idea that there was only one emperor for every "church" ended in the nineteenth century, with the rise of the Illuminism and Nationalism.
The term emperor returned to original meaning, linked to the "imperium": so the sovereigns of the states largest and most powerful took the title Emperor.

B) The ambiguous position of the imperial idea for Napoleon.
Napoleon Bonaparte, who was already First Consul of the French Republic (Premier Consul de la République française) for life, declared himself Emperor of the French (Empereur des Français) on 18 May 1804: Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French. He was, on the one hand, Emperor of the Republic (Empereur de la Republique), and, on the other hand, on 2 December 1804, in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris, he did celebrate the coronation ceremony: after that the imperial insignia were blessed by Pope Pius VII, Napoleon crowned first himself, and then his wife Joséphine de Beauharnais [The imperial coronation of Napoleon was cost 5,151,574 francs to the state administration, six times more than that of Louis XVI].
Napoleon Bonaparte often compared himself to Charlemagne and wanted to be seen as the heir of the Frankish kings and emperors. He went on a "pilgrimage" to Aachen shortly before becoming emperor, to pay homage to his role model and see his legendary crown and sword. When he became emperor, Napoleon long hesitated between the bee and the eagle for his coat of arms and symbol of his empire. The bee was the symbol of the Merovingian kings, and 300 golden bees were also found in the tomb of King Childeric I (Clovis's father) in Tournai. Napoleon was well aware of this. The eagle was the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire, to mark the continuity with Ancient Rome. Eventually, Napoleon opted for the eagle to represent his empire, but integrated golden bees on the imperial coat.

C) From the Napoleonic empire derived in various ways, the many empires that stand out in the history of the European and American nineteenth century.
Firstly, the new concept of "Empire" with the Empire of Austria.
The Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, in the face of aggressions by Napoleon, feared for the future. He wished to maintain his and his family's Imperial status in the event that the Holy Roman Empire should be dissolved. Therefore on 11 August 1804 he created the new title Emperor of Austria for himself and his successors as heads of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine: Francis now carried two imperial titles.
Despite being so depressed and deprived of all authority and influence, the Holy Roman Empire would certainly still long persisted, if the French Revolution had not overwhelmed with his wave of destruction and renewal. But, after the decisive French victory at the Battle of Austerlitz (2 December 1805) and the fourth Peace of Pressburg (26 December 1805, signed in the Primate's Palace, Hall of Mirrors, at Pressburg, today Bratislava, Slovakia), Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden and various other minor states broke away from the Holy Roman Empire and formed a league called "Confederation of the Rhine" under French protection (17 July 1806). A few days later, on 1st August, Napoleon did proclaim to he Imperial Diet (Reichstag), convened in Regensburg City Hall, who did not recognize the existence of the Holy Roman Empire.
As a result, the Emperor Francis II renounced suddenly, 6 August 1806, the millenary Crown of the Holy Roman Empire.

D) From history and from the concept of the Roman Empire, started in nineteenth-century historiography, the tendency to define "empires" all political-territorial organizations width, characterized by the domination of one sovereign on a plurality of peoples and communities of subjects between their heterogeneous ("empire" Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Persian, Alexandrian, the tartar empire, state structures in America pre-Columbian)

CONCLUSION
I think, therefore, that, at most, would have assumed the title of "Emperor of the United States" [title used from Joshua Abraham Norton (c. 1817 – 1880) in 1859] only around the 20's of the nineteenth century.





Napoleon at Charlemagnes Throne in Aachen by Henri-Paul Motte02.jpg
Napoleon at Charlemagnes Throne in Aachen by Henri-Paul Motte







Napoleon at Charlemagnes Throne in Aachen by Henri-Paul Motte02.jpg
 
Urbanus you have produced so much for this so thank you especially for the extensive input. You have certainly won this challenge, outstanding effort. Meshakhad if you had fully read i did specify a Kingdom and hence a King. Once again thank you to everyone for input and interest and i shall hope to have part 1 out possibly tonight if all goes to plan with three parts by the start of March. "A Revolution Fit For A King" will be linked to this thread as soon as possible.
 
But it fails the obvious WHY. After all, WHY wouldn't we be republican when we were rebelling against a king changing our rules just to oppress us? Even on top of the usual taxation without representation and other rules we enjoyed breaking?

Why would we change our mind ever, unlike OTL, with enough support to pass an amendment?

Urbanus VI, Why think ALL THIRTEEN owners would sell, and why think he could the money to buy? Why'd Georgie let him buy the colonies? Why'd it make any more difference atall than Britain's title did? And wouldn't stupid be just too much the same as the guy we revolted against? And we've still revolted against Kingly oppression?

On the Stuarts, why think a princeling from a family with a bad history wouldn't do even WORSE than the literally tons of deposed monarchs that have oddly failed to bring us ALL together in royalty love? Remember that - we have too much of a surplus of deposed monarchs, so it's not that.

You'd need an ATL like the great Two Georges, before to make Georgie reasonable. It's a Turtledove and Dreyfuss AH book. I recommend it strongly to any whom hasn't read it.

Remember to ask yourself these sorts of questions earlier.
 
Last edited:
But it fails the obvious WHY. After all, WHY wouldn't we be republican when we were rebelling against a king changing our rules just to oppress us?
Were they? I was under the impression that at least early on the arguments the revolutionaries used to justify their actions were structured specifically in such a way as to be rebelling against Parliament rather than the Crown.
 
"A Revolution Fit For A King" will be linked to this thread as soon as possible.



:):D:):DGood luck for your scenario!!!:):D:):D
Among the insipid discussions as "a son of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon" or "if Maria Theresa married Frederick of Prussia", your idea is very interesting.



As a European, I admit that I know little of the history of American independence, but i recognize the historical importance and profound innovation introduced by the Constitution of the United States. A long, in fact, lasted the gestation of this new constitution, the «Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union» of 1777 until the approval of the Constitution in 1787-89.
I admire the courage, by all ex-colonies, to come together in a level of continental confederation, a political form that seems to remember that the German Empire, but at a huge level: a continent! May appear, even, that the power of the President of the United States is greater than that of the Holy Roman Emperor!

1) I have proposed the purchase of the Proprietary Colonies (the rights of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the District Granville, and not of ALL THIRTEEN colonies!) by a prince of the English royal house to justify the presence of this prince on American soil before the visit of the Duke of Kent in 1790. The fact that a prince of the English royal house was owner of the rights of a few colonies, would have made him an important figure, and with a large weight in the history of American independence: he could not be ignored.

2) To this presence, I connect the citation of the thought of Richard Henry Lee: «to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances», namely that independence was the only way to ensure a foreign alliance, since no European monarchs would deal with America if they remained Britain's colonists. A prince of the English royal house at the head of the new confederation, created from the ex-colonies, would give a "greater legal aspect" to the new state to the eyes of European sovereigns [remember, for example, by the end of 1777 to March 1778, the presence at the Court of Versailles, to negotiate an alliance treaty for the war against England, of the three American plenipotentiaries: Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane and Arthur Lee].



But it fails the obvious WHY. After all, WHY wouldn't we be republican when we were rebelling against a king changing our rules just to oppress us? Even on top of the usual taxation without representation and other rules we enjoyed breaking?



3) I do not believe in much vaunted anti-monarchist sentiment of the leading figures of the American Revolution and of the majority of the inhabitants of the colonies. At the beginning of the riots following the promulgation of the 1765 Stamp Act, for example, John Hancock initially took a moderate position: as a loyal British subject, he thought that the colonists should submit to the act, even though he believed that Parliament was misguided. Within a few months, Hancock had changed his mind, although he continued to disapprove of violence and the intimidation of royal officials by mobs. The problem, it seems to me, was not with the king, but with the distant British Parliament: «No taxation without representation».

4) After the War of Independence, the thirteen states formed initially a very weak central government based on the «Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union». This government had not, for example, no power to impose taxes since he not had the necessary organization to enforce payments. This government could not even control the trade between the states; so, for this reason, coexisted a series of tax laws and rates in the conflict between the various states. Furthermore, the Articles required the unanimous consent of all the states before it could be implemented any changes. The States took into account the central government with such lightness that their representatives were often absent and the national legislature was frequently blocked, even on marginal issues, due to lack of a quorum. As a result of these and other problems (the period of economic depression that followed the War of Independence, riots, debtors who were trying to manipulate the system of popular government to renege on payments, the Continental Congress who not seemed able to repay war debts and establish a cooperative climate among States, that would encourage trade and economic development...), with the «Constitutional Convention» and the creation of a Constitution (1787-89) based on compromise between the States and political parties, it has come to strengthen the federal government. The new system of government conceded, then more power to the executive: the President, who has powers too similar to a constitutional monarch...

5) Also Wikipedia mentions the study of Richard Krauel [«Prince Henry of Prussia and the Regency of the United States, 1786», The American Historical Review, Vol. 17, No. 1 (October, 1911), pp. 44-51]: in 1786 either Nathaniel Gorham, then-President of the Continental Congress, or Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, the Prussian general who served in the Continental Army, suggested to Alexander Hamilton that Henry should become President or King of the United States, but the offer was revoked before the prince could make a reply.
«As far as I know the prince [Henry of Prussia] he would never think of crossing the ocean to be your master. I wrote to him a good while ago what kind of fellows you are; he would not have the patience to stay three days among you» (Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben).
In 1786, the years before the Constitutional Convention, Nathaniel Gorham, the president of the Congress, with the knowledge of Rufus King, may also have corresponded with Prince Henry about the possibility that he might serve in America, should it choose a system of government similar to that of England. However, it is true that Prince Henry's response was quite cautious, suggesting both that it was unlikely that Americans would abandon a republican form of government and that, should they do so, they might want to look for a prince among their French allies.
It also true that, although Alexandre Hamilton indicated in a speech of 18 June that the favored an executive who was chosen during good behavior, he did not propose a hereditary monarch (Max Ferrand, «The Records of the Federal Convention», 1937, New Haven, CT: Yale Unibersity Press), and delegates clearly considered the temperament of the American people to be "republican". Nonetheless, one of the relatively few negative press accounts to be published about the Constitutional Convention found its way into Connecticut's Fairfield Gazette on 25 July, when it published part of a letter purportedly written on 19 June by a loyalist in Philadelphia. It advanced the idea that the Bishop of Osnaburg [sic! Prince-Bishop of Osnabrück, Frederick Augustus (1763 – 1827) Duke of York and Albany, the second son of King George III] should be enthroned as King in America. It further asserted that the delegates at the Convetion agreed with this assessment and that «the means only of accomplishing so great an event, appears principally to occupy their counsels».
In what has been called «the only direct statement attributed to delegates in the period before the Convention was made public», the editor of the Pennsylvania Herald reported on 18 August that «we are well informed that many letters have been written... that it is intended to establish a monarchical government, to send for the Bishop of Osnaburgh... to which it has been uniformly answered, "tho" we cannot, affirmatively, tell you what we are doing; we can, negatively, tell you what we are not doing - we never once thought of a king».
This statement was widely reprinted, and appeared to calm public nerves, that the Convention might be considering abandoning republicanism for monarchy. Delegate Alexander Martin of North Carolina sent a letter to the state governor on 20 August 1787 repeating the substance of the Pennsylvania Herald denial. The popular fear of a European monarch and attempts to quiet it many explain, in part, the citizenship requirement for the presidency (John K. Alexander, «The Selling of the Constitutional Convencion: A History of News Coverage», 1990, Madison; Michael Nelson, «Constitutional Qualifications for the President», in Presidential Studies Quarterly, 17, 1987, pp 383-399; Carl Van Doren «The Great Rehearsal», The Viking Press, New Yorl, 1948, p.145).

But this has been the position in reality.
If this had been the figure of a prince of a royal house, favorable to independence and turned to the benefit the interests of the former colonies, the Americans would have gained a Republican spirit or would stay closer to the idea of the monarchy?



I am very interested to know more about the reality of the Proprietary Colonies, their form, their institutions, their importance within the group of colonies, etc ...: to the American readers, I ask if they can recommend me some interesting reading online on this argument.



declaration.jpg






declaration.jpg
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
You could have the union fall apart drastically after winning war due to some internal conflicts, and have either some ambitious local win during a civil war, or the King of England come and conquer the region, post-North Government, and establish a Kingdom of New England.

If George does it, there may be some recognition in Europe and beyond of the new Crown. However if it is done by a local, their crown is less likely to be recognized, even if they are the defacto King of New England, there would be no dejure recognition.
 
Urbanus VII,
Remember, both conciseness and careful reading are both important skills for life. For you're written the world, with the amount of time that takes, and still didn't answer my questions. Here they are:
Why'd it make any more difference atall than Britain's title did?
Why'd Georgie let him buy the colonies?
Why think ALL THIRTEEN owners would sell,
and why think he could get the money to buy?
And wouldn't stupid in a King be just too much the same as the guy we revolted agains
t? And we've still revolted against Kingly oppression?

My response is, if we weren't mostly republican, why did we elect a republican Constitutional Convention, that made a republican constitution? True, we had some monarchists, but it must have been a minority. If it'd been Britain, it would've been different, obcviously.
 
Why think ALL THIRTEEN owners would sell,

jkay, comprehensible writing is also a valuable life skill, m'kay.:cool:

Anyway, I can clear up the question quoted. All 13 colonies weren't Proprietary Colonies. VA was until 1624, NY was until 1685, NJ was until 1703, Georgia was until 1755, etc. etc. In the 1770s, only a couple of the colonies hadn't been bought out by the Crown. What His Holiness is proposing is that the surviving ones were bought out by a member of the royal family (not the Crown). The surviving Proprietary Colonies in the 1770s were: Maryland, under the Calverts and later Henry Harford, subject to an inheritance dispute; and Pennsylvania, under the Penns. Delaware was in a grey area but was basically part of the Penn dominions until the Revolution.
 
Top