DBWI: A American revolution instead of an British Revolution?

I've been wondering lately, considering when the British Republicans launched a coup upon King George III and Prime Minister Frederick North upon April 19th 1775 and the declaration of the United Republic of Great Britain - later, "and Ireland" - this set of the British Revolutionary War - also known as the War of American Loyalty. The result of this war would result in the permanent exile of the Royal Family to the American Colonies and the long standing rivalry/hatred between America and Britain, which has was only really resolved during the second half of the last century.

So, I'm wondering, what if, instead of the British revolting against the King, the Americans maybe declared their independence from Britain or anything else you can think of?
 
Well, it would have discredited the idea of European monarchs fleeing to their colonies when their homelands rise up against them. Considering that this has happened several times since the British Revolution, such as the Spanish in Peru, you would be looking at some serious butterflies.
 
Well, damn, you're right, without the Spanish Royals in Peru we'd be looking at a worse break up of the Spanish Colonial Empire, at least in the Americas. I mean Mexico's a lost cause by that point for them trying to retain anyway, but here they may just lose all of South America as well.

Though I'm wondering what effect this'd have on France, considering that they weathered the Age of Revolutions beaten, bruised but not broken. They even retained their Monarchy.
 
If the Royal Family had stayed in Britain, we probably wouldn't have had a prince visiting Moonbase Two last week.
 
If the Royal Family had stayed in Britain, we probably wouldn't have had a prince visiting Moonbase Two last week.

Heh, HMS was always a sci-fi fan in denial, hence why she was so strident in making sure that our space program retained a 2.5% GDP funding.

A really odd duck I can think of is Portugal, which peacefully split Brazil and the Mainland between their children as two crowns in the 19th century. Honestly, the fact they're so much alike to each other historically, right down to suffering and suppressing republican revolts in the same year is creepy.
 
A really odd duck I can think of is Portugal, which peacefully split Brazil and the Mainland between their children as two crowns in the 19th century. Honestly, the fact they're so much alike to each other historically, right down to suffering and suppressing republican revolts in the same year is creepy.

Wow, I never realised that, your right creepy. :eek:

Just as a thought, how do you guys think Franco-American relations'd go? Considering in OTL America and France came together to 'attempt'* to contain Republican Britain.

* The fact that Britain still managed to expand into India and Africa, as well as colonizing half of Terra Austrialis.
 
Wow, I never realised that, your right creepy. :eek:

Just as a thought, how do you guys think Franco-American relations'd go? Considering in OTL America and France came together to 'attempt'* to contain Republican Britain.

* The fact that Britain still managed to expand into India and Africa, as well as colonizing half of Terra Austrialis.

Depends on when and how we became independent methinks. France and Britain hated each other, so even if we revolted under a republic I'd think France would play nice just to spite the UR. Under dominion status like they would later do with realms like Australis and to some degree Bengal, we'd probably be cooler towards each other.

I'm just as curious on how the later nationalist movements would change with a royalist Britain, since the UR employed nationalism in their many feuds with France, and even tried to get the Languedoc regions to declare a republic because of it. It'd backfire for them eventually, but they were the ones to give birth to the modern Nationalism.
 
Well, it would still probably mean that America remained part of a monarchist Britain; George III really made an effort to include them. In any case, the Republican nightmare was finally ended, fortunately, when Queen Caroline, at the head of the Royal States, liberated Britain from the National Republicans. George's treating the colonists as equals with people in the Mother Country really made the people angry, though. The Revolution was born out of chauvinism towards the Americans; they were mad about the 7 years War because they didn't want to give their lives for the Americans, their FELLOW COUNTREYMEN. I am sick of the glorification of the revolutionaries. God save the Queen and God save America!
 
Well the Brits had a tendency to get rid of or at least cut their monarchs power (beginning with John Lackland and later the Cromwellian dictatorship). THE more important question is - could a "Colonial" insurrection succeed? at the time. considering the immense imbalance you probably would need Britain (loyal) to be at war with at least one maybe even two great powers of the time. Considering that only Spain and France had a significant presence in the Americas you would need at least one of both to support the potential colonist rebels. Givern the state of the French state finances after the 7 years war and the general ineptitude of the Spanish government - tehre is NO chance that any ccolonial insurrection in the 1770s/1780s could suceed.
 
Y'know, just as a thought, how would things go with Dutch South Africa. Considering all the problems the Republican British gave them when they colonized East-South Africa.
 
Hey guys don't hate on republicans too much. The British national republicans did some nasty things, and most other republics today are nasty dictatorships, but there are some examples of successful, prosperous, unopressive republics. The Russian and Iranian republics have been doing pretty well for themselves since their inception around a century ago.
 
Hey guys don't hate on republicans too much. The British national republicans did some nasty things, and most other republics today are nasty dictatorships, but there are some examples of successful, prosperous, unopressive republics. The Russian and Iranian republics have been doing pretty well for themselves since their inception around a century ago.

It still sickens me that those Iranian radicals ended thousands of years of stable monarchy for the sake of some misguided goal of plebeian empowerment. The Shāhanshāh was a great man whose guiding hand provided stability and reason to the whims of the masses, tempering their more foolish decisions with his intercession, like a father would stop his daughter from gambling away all their savings or going home with a sleazy boyfriend. Nowadays they allow anyone to sit in parliament and make proposals. Even radical redistributists have seats there!
 
It still sickens me that those Iranian radicals ended thousands of years of stable monarchy for the sake of some misguided goal of plebeian empowerment. The Shāhanshāh was a great man whose guiding hand provided stability and reason to the whims of the masses, tempering their more foolish decisions with his intercession, like a father would stop his daughter from gambling away all their savings or going home with a sleazy boyfriend. Nowadays they allow anyone to sit in parliament and make proposals. Even radical redistributists have seats there!

Considering I come from a constitutional monarchy, the idea of total democracy isn't totally dumb to me, though I do note that most tend to fall into dictatorships or a new monarchy. It's why having a monarch on as a figure head works.

Besides, Russia is probably the best example of why a pure democracy occasionally occurs, and is definitely what I would call a true blueprint of success. In that case they tried every opportunity to get the Czar to play ball with a constitution before they finally wrote him out of it. Probably for the better in their case, since they became the third strongest power because of it and have had a stable and prosperous realm ever since.
 
It still sickens me that those Iranian radicals ended thousands of years of stable monarchy for the sake of some misguided goal of plebeian empowerment. The Shāhanshāh was a great man whose guiding hand provided stability and reason to the whims of the masses, tempering their more foolish decisions with his intercession, like a father would stop his daughter from gambling away all their savings or going home with a sleazy boyfriend. Nowadays they allow anyone to sit in parliament and make proposals. Even radical redistributists have seats there!

You have clearly been listening to too much absolutist propaganda. Which repressive country are you from?

Iran has friendly relations with many monarchist nations, they merely overthrew their monarch when he refused to go down the path towards constitutional monarchy. Empowering the common people to make their own decisions does not automatically lead to "foolish decisions."
 
Y'know, given the way the American-Mexican war went in OTL, with the Americans annexed all the way down to Sinaloa, Durango, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas as well as annexing the Yucatan. And that was before turning the Mexican Empire into a protectorate. I'm wondering how Republican Americans would deal with such a war - if they would even have one. :confused:
 
You have clearly been listening to too much absolutist propaganda. Which repressive country are you from?

Iran has friendly relations with many monarchist nations, they merely overthrew their monarch when he refused to go down the path towards constitutional monarchy. Empowering the common people to make their own decisions does not automatically lead to "foolish decisions."

I definitely agree generally, as the people have a place in the running of any country. However, as long as they have total power the risk is still there that they'd elect someone like the National Republicans, and that is what the monarch is there for. Monarchs have a history of correcting the errors of the people, like for example Charlotte I pushing through her Emancipaition Proclamation despite the opposition of the slaver dominated Parliament. Sure, it led to the Republican Revolt, but ask any black person and they'll tell you that the will of the people could go fuck itself in that particular case.
 
I definitely agree generally, as the people have a place in the running of any country. However, as long as they have total power the risk is still there that they'd elect someone like the National Republicans, and that is what the monarch is there for. Monarchs have a history of correcting the errors of the people, like for example Charlotte I pushing through her Emancipaition Proclamation despite the opposition of the slaver dominated Parliament. Sure, it led to the Republican Revolt, but ask any black person and they'll tell you that the will of the people could go fuck itself in that particular case.
You actually have an extremely good point here. The single biggest problem with democracy, whatever the form it takes, is the ability of the majority to oppress the minority. Take the slavery debate, which you mentioned, as an example. Brazil's slaves would have been freed far sooner if the will of the majority had not continually interfered, even long after slavery had been internationally condemned and its economic drawbacks revealed.
 
Damn the consequences of this would be big. I mean everyone knows that following the Royal Family's exile from Britain to America. Portugal broke off its relation with Britain in favour of allying with the Kingdom of America and with the Empire of Brazil. We Portuguese have to thank America for preventing Republicanism from taking over here.
 
You actually have an extremely good point here. The single biggest problem with democracy, whatever the form it takes, is the ability of the majority to oppress the minority. Take the slavery debate, which you mentioned, as an example. Brazil's slaves would have been freed far sooner if the will of the majority had not continually interfered, even long after slavery had been internationally condemned and its economic drawbacks revealed.

Eh, in that case Duarte supported the motion on financial grounds. His son Joao was more insistent, progressive, and aware of changing sentiment. He was a major reason it finally died in the late nineteenth century, though the pronunciamento of 84 was an issue, much like Portugal's Redshirt Rebellion.
 
Top