An American Monarchy idea thread

i came up with the idea that the first son of King George the Second runs to America and is given the crown. Boom Kingdom of America. Its on Alt Hist Wiki called Frederick the Great

Wait... I looked on the wiki, and the TL is Thande's, and it's called Look to the West.
 
- George Washington dies of smallpox as a teenager
- The Seven Years War is not sparked by Washington’s action in the colonies but the war still happens almost like OTL
- But in TTL Heinrich von Preußen performs even better than OTL and people realize that he is a better military commander than his older brother Frederick.
- Relations between the brothers become even more strained than in OTL
- General Charles Lee is appointed commander of the rebel army during the ARW.
- Von Stuben and others encourage Heinrich von Preußen to come to America and help lead the rebel forces
- Hamilton and others let it be known that a crown can be won . . .
- Due to the worsened relations between the brothers in Europe, Heinrich (now called Henry) agrees.
- At first he hates America due to its lack of refinement, but he successfully leads forces and quickly replace Charles Lee in the number 1 spot.
- Henry wins the war
- America follows the British system and Henry becomes King Henry the First of America. He also retains his titles in Prussia.
- A pro Prussian, pro Age of Reason, strongly federal government forms in America.
- Henry overcomes his homosexual tendencies and produce an heir or two.​
- and so on

I might need to borrow this...
 
I might need to borrow this...

I would feel honored if you took the premise and ran with it.​

If you chose to develop the idea further I will first add a few points:​

George Washington’s older brother, Lawrence, had tuberculosis. When George was 19 they both traveled to Barbados in an attempt to ease Lawrence's condition and at that time George contracted smallpox. In OTL, of course, he made a full recovery.​

In OTL Heinrich von Preußen married Princess Wilhelmina of Hesse-Kassel in 1752. The marriage was a failed attempt to ease some of the restrictions Frederick had imposed on Henry. In ATL the brother’s relationship is more stressed so Henry may try the marriage tactic sooner, or he may realize it wouldn’t work and stay unmarried until the duties of his new crown required it. - your choice.​

Charles Lee was a colorful character who was, in many ways, the opposite of Henry. He was unkept, swore fluently, encouraged his dogs to eat off plates at the dinner table and generally behaved in ways that Henry would not approve. But it may be interesting to have Lee become Duke of Ohio (he was married to a Mohawk princess) or something fun like that. Both Charles Lee and Henry entered the military at the age of 14 so if they both become royal persons then this could become the expected practice of the new American upper class. Rich families would enter at least one of their sons into the military at 14. This, combined with Henry’s military skills and writings, and the influence of Prussian culture, could lead to a militarily expansionistic America.​

That said, The Age of Reason tendencies of King Henry may bode well for the American Indians - they are people too and should be treated as such. The King may be disposed to protect the Indians and he may have the authority to do so.
 
So the question is exen if Prince Henry was open to taking the throne, when and who would offer the crown to him?
 
So the question is exen if Prince Henry was open to taking the throne, when and who would offer the crown to him?
He refused it OTL.

---

A stumbling block for any American King is, of course, the anti-monarchy attitude of the time. Only someone with the immense prestige of Washington might be able to pull it off. Henry may be able to develop such a level of prestige but Charles Lee could not.

An American Monarch would probably have very limited powers (at least at first). They may be seen as a necessary evil in dealing with foreign governments and so on, but they would not be allowed to interfere with domestic issues very much. If the King was given power over the military or allowed to form a bank, then the power of the monarchy could be increased over time.

Another stumbling block for Prince Henry is that the Prussian form of war and the American form of war are almost opposite. In the Seven Years War the Prussians did a poor job of making and using irregular units, and these types of units are exactly what the American frontier war needs.

. . . but if Henry handled the disciplined regular portion of the army, and Lee handled the irregular portion, then it might be a recipe for success.

My uninformed guess is that Henry would have to forced to come to America in the first place. Maybe if he feared for his life from Fredrick for some reason.

Once in America he might like Boston or New York but would hate places like Philadelphia (Quaker Town). The areas he would more naturally like are also the areas with more loyalist - that could become another problem.

It could be interesting if Henry was still unmarried and Benjamin Franklin used this to some advantage when negotiating in France -- something like: America will have a king, a king needs a queen, are there any unmarried French ladies who want to be queen? (In other words: Are there any noble French families who want to sell off a daughter? Support our war - gain a crown.)
 
In general the 'anti-monarchical' mindset of the colonialist was set by Jefferson and others writing to convince the general public at large in the necessity of their rebellion. It is easier to blame the figure of the George III as representative of Parliament and British Government.
 
I really don't think that you'll be able to get any kind of plausible government from post-Revolutionary America where the man in charge has the actual title of "King". The whole point of the American Revolution (at least in the minds of the Revolutionaries) was to throw off the tyrannical monarchy and gain their full rights as Englishmen. At some point the full rights and being Englishmen became mutually exclusive, so they wanted their full rights as men, period. The Revolution was really the Americans revolting against a rather outrageously stupid Parliament (I would argue that the American Revolution was one most tragic episode in modern history, just imagine what Britain and America have both achieved separately, and then add it together, and presto, you have a [mostly] benevolent world empire).

So then I think that you could have the Constitutional Convention of '87 fall apart, a further spate of uprisings by farmers (think multiple Shays' Rebellions) and then when the next Constitutional Convention meets (say in '91) the specter of the further rebellions, combined with the increasing social unrest in France (which most of the American ruling class viewed as a bad thing) means that Madison's push for a more unitary state, along with Hamilton's vision of a more authoritarian republic (I think that is the right phrase for his views) would result in a life-time presidency for George Washington. So he'll die sometime before or at his OTL death, and after that, I think that you may have civil war. Hamilton will be much more active in crushing opposition and imposing his vision on America, Jefferson will probably be even more romantically attached to his vision of the yeoman farmer, and the anti-French feelings will stoked to the point of war. So perhaps Washington has a life-time appointment, followed by Hamilton or Hamilton's puppet, perhaps a civil war, more rule by Hamilton, then he dies and there is another constitutional convention, or another civil war or something.
 
Top