Morty Vicar
Banned
The Magna Carta goes horribly wrong, the feudal barons kill King John and establish the forerunner to the English Parliament.
Challenge: Create a British Republic
- Thread starter Wat Tyler
- Start date
Did it? Victoria had two surviving uncles with their own children, as well as several aunts who could have been married off at an earlier age if the secession looked under threat.
Plus they were all born and raised in Britain, so it wouldn't be like somebody's second cousin coming over from Germany again.
On 20 June, 1837, Ernest Augustus succeeds his brother, William, as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover and Duke of Brunswick.
This is a good one. This guy was so unpopular he was accused of raping and fathering a child with his younger sister. It's probably not true, but it shows how utterly hated Ernest Augustus was by the British public. His brother George IV allegedly did tell his sisters not to leave themselves alone with him. He was also closely connected with two different suicides, to the point where the public often speculated that he had murdered one or both of them. Again, also probably not true. Although the second man undeniably killed himself after discovering an affair between his wife and Ernest Augustus, who Ernest Augustus also allegedly assaulted. Doesn't look good, to say the least.
And if Victoria had died, he would have been King in 1837.
I Blame Communism
Banned
'People power', that's one way to put it. Radical non-conformists were pretty much all Whigs, but not all Whigs were radical non-conformists, and the grandees were constantly trying to escape Roundhead associations (after all, they got the nickname in reference to the events of the civil war).
And the Tories were by no means all Jacobite in the 1688-9 events. The Whigs had tried to have an uprising by themselves, in '85. It hadn't worked.
If 1688 shows anything, it's how determined the English leadership were to avoid the spectre of the civil war and the republic: not even James could make them do in the monarchy.
Last edited:
I had an idea for an extended Protector/Regency type thing.
Basically Elizabeth is born male and ends up marrying Mary Q of Scots.
This *Edward dies shortly after siring a son *Henry making Mary part of an English Regency Council.
When Henry IX comes of age Mary abdicates Scotland.
Henry has a long reign and by the time his son Henry X/II becomes King of E&S Henry X/II has been predeceased by his own sons and brothers with his only heir being the illegitimate Bishop William of Somewhere.
There's a rough attempt at a revolution ending with Bishop William as "Regent & Lord Protector of the 3 Kingdoms".
He successfully hands off the Regency to another and begins the slow transfer of powers to a Steward&DeputyStewardsoftheEnglish/Scottish/IrishRealm)...
Basically Elizabeth is born male and ends up marrying Mary Q of Scots.
This *Edward dies shortly after siring a son *Henry making Mary part of an English Regency Council.
When Henry IX comes of age Mary abdicates Scotland.
Henry has a long reign and by the time his son Henry X/II becomes King of E&S Henry X/II has been predeceased by his own sons and brothers with his only heir being the illegitimate Bishop William of Somewhere.
There's a rough attempt at a revolution ending with Bishop William as "Regent & Lord Protector of the 3 Kingdoms".
He successfully hands off the Regency to another and begins the slow transfer of powers to a Steward&DeputyStewardsoftheEnglish/Scottish/IrishRealm)...
I think the most likely way is to start with the Civil Wars; they're already messy enough that they could have ended a million different ways.
EdT says it much better than I could; go and check out his "A Bloody Man" thread to see a different Civil War, which he keeps hinting will end in the "British Revolution".
EdT says it much better than I could; go and check out his "A Bloody Man" thread to see a different Civil War, which he keeps hinting will end in the "British Revolution".
The succession was under threat in 1817, when Princess Charlotte died, there wasn't a single legitimate grandchild of George III alive. It might have stayed that way (Victoria and four others born after her have to be butterflied). It was already too late for George III's daughters -- born in the 1770s -- to help. Some of them did get married after 1817 but the only pregnancy resulted in a stillbirth.
Otherwise, Ernest Augustus was next in line for the throne and you can see from the article on him what sort of king he would have been.
Morty Vicar
Banned
I hate this sort of answer, you completely reject my post but don't provide any reason as to why. Well anyway trhere are numerous problems, but lets assume you are referring to the biggest one (imo) that is the inevitable rise of claimants to the throne. Well if the Barons can deal with the King in power, they can deal with his would-be successors. Furthermore they killed off any real potential threat at the same time as the King himself. The next question is how do they maintain rule without descending into civil war? Well the best answer is an external threat that they can unite against, say for example France seeing an opportunity to defeat a Kingless England. In terms of the early parliament yes its entirely possible, they take their influence either from the Roman Senate (established some centuries beforehand and ruled over Britain via the Roman Republic) or if thats somehow not feasible to you then the Althing.
'People power', that's one way to put it. Radical conformists were pretty much all Whigs, but not all Whigs were radical conformists, and the grandees were constantly trying to escape Roundhead associations (after all, they got the nickname in reference to the events of the civil war).
And the Tories were by no means all Jacobite in the 1688-9 events. The Whigs had tried to have an uprising by themselves, in '85. It hadn't worked.
If 1688 shows anything, it's how determined the English leadership were to avoid the spectre of the civil war and the republic: not even James could make them do in the monarchy.
The early Covenanters might be the best bet perhaps, it would be a very theocratic conservative religiously intolerant Republic, but a Republic nonetheless.. Or later William Pitt, which would be helped somewhat by a weakened Tory opposition..
Or one could do it with Mary to avoid the Catholic/Protestant mismatch.
I'm not sure there was much of a Romanist tradition in Medieval England, except perhaps amongst the clergy and and this would be one group quite eager to see a new King in place in order to protect the privileges of the Church. I can't honestly see any group in England going for a Republic. The political tradition is by-and-large unknown and most barons are going to want a monarch in order that the country doesn't descend into civil war - the civil war between Stephen and Matilda is still just within living memory and certainly within cultural memory.
But none of these people were remotely republican. Even radical Covenanters were horrified by the execution of Charles I and they rushed to proclaim his son King (albeit on their own terms, but virtually no-one with power wanted a republic). And while Pitt was not necessarily a friend to the two Georges, like the vast majority of men from his class and probably amongst the general public as well I think he would have seen a republic as an abomination. Cromwell was a dirty word in 18th century England after all.
I think the best chance for a British Republic lies in the 19th century, and even there it's hardly simple. Monarchies rarely fall upon a gust of wind unless their political and popular support is already significantly weakened. You'd at least need a significant military defeat in which the monarch was implicated to some degree.
The simple PoD of Victoria never being born in 1819, and William IV passing away - frankly George IV living a few years longer could have made 1832 a very bloody year but Ernst Augustus is the nuclear option - have him load the Lords and appoint Wellington (*shudder*) as PM and you'll either end up with a republic or a second civil war and some very dark days ahead.
Interesting to consider how radical it would actually be though?
Interesting to consider how radical it would actually be though?
Whilst I think the Oliver Cromwell option more likely this is a terrifying thought.
Given the feelings of the masses (not to mention their number) this could be very bloody indeed.
I can see radical MP's whipping up anti Lords feeling, and prehaps even the upper house being invaded and the lords taken forceably to be strung up in Parliment Square.
Undoubtably our American cousins and the French would get involved (with an eye on Canada / India respectivily) to support the uprising which would quickly move into open civil war.
George IV was so unpopular that he would be useless at trying to re-unite the country, but I feel he would be exiled rather than killed (presumably he would return to Hanover).
John Stuart Mill for the first president of the British republic?
libbrit
Banned
The best POD i can think of is that Albert dies, Victoria goes into mourning as in OTL, but she DOESNT respond to the growing republican sentiment which in OTL crept up when she stayed in mouring and hiding from the public for years and years.
Perhaps she stubbornly stays in isolation, and there is an economic crisis or something that causes a republic.
Also, Charles Dickens was at his height then, and was a noted republican.......President Dickens?
Perhaps she stubbornly stays in isolation, and there is an economic crisis or something that causes a republic.
Also, Charles Dickens was at his height then, and was a noted republican.......President Dickens?
Pitt the Elder was a direhard monarchist from all accounts, unusually so. Which was ironic because George III hated him, but that didn't affect what Pitt thought.
I think a possible POD could come before Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Before that, few Americans considered the possibility of outright independence, but republican ideals and a willingness to fight for their 'British liberties' were there. There were more than a few Britons equally willing to fight for those same rights. If Paine wrote a document that is published on both sides of the pond exhorting revolution but not independence then you could see the Americans rebel at the same time as severe public anger in Britain motivated by anti-Catholic sympathies, something that also contributed to American hostility OTL. Then you could have a 'United States of Greater Britain' established encompassing the British Isles, the Thirteen Colonies, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. The British Revolution of 1776 would be remembered today as the time when the Empire of Liberty was born and the Age of Revolutions began.
Eat that one.
Eat that one.
I Blame Communism
Banned
The Covenanters had 'democratic' forms in that they mobilised large numbers of people politically and used the insurgent and egalitarian rhetoric available to Calvinism, but they did not have democratic goals, and certainly not republican ones. The accusation of republicanism was one thrown at them by opponents during the Bishops' Wars.
In fact, they saw royal power as an essential guarantor of their Godly nation. How else can one explain their futile attempts to convert Charles, or their prompt recognition of his son as king of England? (The English leadership probably expected us to accept the Stuarts back in the guise of Stewarts and revert to the relationship between 1560 and 1603: to think that they could execute the king of Scotland for English judicial reasons and expect us to swallow it was rather chauvinistic of them, of course, but they'd have been glad to be shot of us and it was us who unambiguously began the third civil war.)
I'm not sure about 'theocracy', mind. I'm beginning to wonder whether they've every really existed outside prince-bishophrics: religious organisations and state ones have held eachother up for most of European history but only in some cases does this attract comment. And Scotland's village-judiciary was a lot of bigoted curtain-twitchers even when the state was Episcopalian: if you look at the day-to-day business it didn't change all that much.
There was some pretty serious anti-government sentiment in Great Britain in the 1760s through early 1770s, with deadly riots and things, which was mostly Whig vs Tory stuff. The Prime Minister, Lord North, was almost beaten to death by an angry mob once. But I'm not sure there was enough behind it to cause a full-blown revolt, unlike on the other side of the ocean. At any rate you would need to have anything that happens, happen before the ARW, not during or after.
1649, when the Commonwealth was proclaimed. The failure was that a new Parliament was not called for, settling the continuity of the government, understandable as the ruling faction feared defeat. A clever way around that would have been to restrict the voting to a picked constituency and call it fair and just. Adjustments would come later. Was this path taken because the generals distrusted one another or was it the result of the habit of chain of command?
A merchants and landowners republic along the lines of maritime trading powers of Venice and the United Provinces might well have thrived. Instead the Army hands power to a single leader. Regrettable.
A merchants and landowners republic along the lines of maritime trading powers of Venice and the United Provinces might well have thrived. Instead the Army hands power to a single leader. Regrettable.