Challenge: Monarchy-less UK by 1945

Thanos6

Banned
The PoD must take place after the Revolutionary War, preferably during the reign of Queen Victoria if possible.
 
The failure of Edward VIII to abdicate in 1936, subsequent marriage to Mrs. Simpson and his pro-Nazi inclinations might have been sufficient to discredit the monarchy and lead to its abolition by 1945. That's obviously not within your preferred timeframe, but seems the most likely course.
 
I'd recommend a look at EdT's Fight and be Right, which was a PoD in 1876 and the monarchy overthrown by 1938 - replaced by a federation of syndicalist states, no less.

Otherwise, there's an old favorite of mine which is only a little before the Victorian period: kill the future William IV in Flanders, British revolution Les Mis style by 1832.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Also check out the HoI 2 Mod Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg, where an Entente defeat in WW 2 causes Syndicalist Revolutions in France and Britain and the British Monarchy goes in exile in Canada.
 
During the later Victorian era, there was a period of anti-monarchism due to Victoria withdrawing herself from public life after the death of Prince Albert.
 
I think the most likely time would be at the end of Queen Anne's reign in 1714.

Instead of inviting the Hanoverian George to take the throne, the country becomes a Republic peacefully.

Scotland would remain seperate (no Act of Union), and may also become a republic.
 
I think the most likely time would be at the end of Queen Anne's reign in 1714.

Instead of inviting the Hanoverian George to take the throne, the country becomes a Republic peacefully.

Scotland would remain seperate (no Act of Union), and may also become a republic.

The Jacobites would have a field day with it.
 
The country had had a spell as a republic not long before, and had not enjoyed the experience one bit, gratefully welcoming the rightful King back following the death of the dictator Cromwell. I doubt that the experiment would have been repeated so soon. The death of Queen Anne is an at least vaguely plausible POD for a temporary or perhaps permanent split between England and Scotland, but both would have remained monarchies for the time being, I would think.

As they have ever since, as well as united. I think the greatest peril myself was in the immediate aftermath of WWI, or perhaps a few years later with the General Strike turning into outright revolution. Queen Victoria's very long reign inevitably contained periods of unpopularity for her personally, but only a very small minority were opposed to the Crown continuing. I haven't gone into it deeply, but offhand I don't think there's a realistic POD earlier than the ones I mentioned.
 
No Victoria. The reactionary Hanoverian Ernest Augustus ascends to the throne. Have him attempt to rule as he is accustomed to in Hanover and you'll have a revolution soon enough.
 
I think the most likely time would be at the end of Queen Anne's reign in 1714.

Instead of inviting the Hanoverian George to take the throne, the country becomes a Republic peacefully.

There were people alive who remembered the Commonwealth. A British republic was a real thing to the Whigs of 1714 and they didn't like it: it meant army rule and non-conformism.

Scotland would remain seperate (no Act of Union), and may also become a republic.

The Union was in 1707, and after the attempt against it in parliament in 1713 (prompted my a mixture of Tory high-handedness, Presbyterian worries, and, I am not making this up, the dread prospect of no cheap ale) it was fairly secure, though Scotland remained rife with riots and smuggling.
 
Last edited:
No Victoria. The reactionary Hanoverian Ernest Augustus ascends to the throne. Have him attempt to rule as he is accustomed to in Hanover and you'll have a revolution soon enough.

That's the idea with killing William IV: same man gets the top job (assuming the other princes still predecease him), but without any Catholic Emancipation or Great Reform Act to restrain his Charles X tendencies. There was a near-revolutionary situation at the turn of the 1820s: without William IV and Earl Gray in charge, things could go very wrong very fast.
 
The Union was in 1707, and after the attempt against it in parliament in 1713 (prompted my a mixture of Tory high-handedness, Presbyterian worries, and, I am not making this up, the dread prospect of no cheap ale) it was fairly secure, though Scotland remained rife withr iots and smuggling.
It did only fail in Parliament by four votes though, so is hardly asb.

I agree though that the republic is highly unlikely at this stage.
 
It did only fail in Parliament by four votes though, so is hardly asb.

I agree though that the republic is highly unlikely at this stage.
It failed in the House of Lords by four votes (those four votes including proxy votes) - it didn't even get to the Commons where it almost certainly would not have passed.
 
No Prince Albert, Victoria marries her Cousin George, with no Albert to push her she keeps being partisan in her dealings with Parliamen, more crisis' (like the bedchamber crisis) rock the Monarchy 1837-1858 till rioting and a general strike force Victoria out.
 
The Union splitting would be quite possible, I think, if you changed the end of the WSS a bit, perhaps changed when Queen Anne died - but his PoD was apparently in 1714, but he made it sound like the Union hadn't happened yet.

The Act of Union came about due to English Parliment wanting the Scots to pick the same sucessor to Anne as they did.

Given that the king/queen's role in British polotics was to advise and sign the Acts into law, it is possible that a failure to sign an important piece of legislation would cause a constitutional crisis, and an unpopular monarch could be removed this may be the way for a republic to be formed.
 
Top