DBWI George III does not abdicate in 1782

George III became the first British sovereign to abdicate, depending on how you count James II, when he handed the monarchy to his son in 1782 and retired to Hanover, rather than accept American independence and a ministry not to his liking. What would have happened if he had been persuaded to stay on?
 
I don't think too much would change. American independence was a fact by this point. It does delay the monarch leaving the day to day affairs of running the country to the government; George IV was notorious for his statement of: "let the government govern, so that I can enjoy my palace". I do think it gets rid of the precedent of the monarch abdicating in the face of a political situation/ministry not to his/her liking.
 
There were rumours that George III was having some sort of health problems, and just used his dislike for the government as an excuse to retire early rather than him, and by extension, Britain, being perceived by France and Prussia as being weak. Personally, I'd call his bluff on that, as he died at a very old age of 91 in 1830 during the reign of his great-grandson, George V.

Aside from future kings and queens abdicating or threatening to abdicate whenever they dislike their governments, there may also be effects from the very fact that George III decided to 'retire' in Hanover. The Prussians, who wanted to stop the revolution going on in France, was inexplicably denied transit through Hanover by George III, who was still sovereign of Hanover at that time (and for the next fifteen years after that). Would George III had the same audacity and fortitude to demand such a thing had he remained in London?

And when Director Bernadotte's forces tried to embark on a punitive expedition against the Danes 12 years later in 1805, they were also inexplicably denied transit by George (who by then had also abdicated the Hanoverian throne and was acting as Viceroy of Hanover for his son, George IV), citing that his 'flying baskets' can see and shoot at anything. What would have happened had Bernadotte made his way to Denmark? Imagine Denmark being ruled by a Bernadotte dynasty!
 
George III became the first British sovereign to abdicate, depending on how you count James II, when he handed the monarchy to his son in 1782 and retired to Hanover, rather than accept American independence and a ministry not to his liking. What would have happened if he had been persuaded to stay on?

One possible outcome is that our relations with Great Britain might not have been fixed as quickly as they were IOTL, TBH. By the 1820s, we'd largely gotten over our past misgivings with the former mother country, and not a small part of that was thanks to George IV's willingness to let bygones be bygones.....on the other hand, though, our relations with France might not have soured so badly after the Bourbon Restoration in 1818.[1]

I also wonder how this might have affected the Canadian Revolution? IOTL, we were a primary intermediary between the Canadian nationalists and the British during the talks at San Francisco, and President Fillmore[2] was quite well lauded in both other countries afterwards for his skillful diplomacy.

OOC:

[1]French Revolution still happened largely as IOTL, but Napoleon's role afterwards was more minor.

[2]Martin Fillmore, btw, not Millard. One of TTL's cofounders of this world's Republican Party and also a Free Soiler. Originally a Whig, and was Vice President under Daniel Webster from 1840-46.
 

It's

Banned
George III became the first British sovereign to abdicate, depending on how you count James II, when he handed the monarchy to his son in 1782 and retired to Hanover, rather than accept American independence and a ministry not to his liking. What would have happened if he had been persuaded to stay on?

Not a wit of difference. I think Americans have trouble distinguishing the British monarchy of this time (or perhaps any time!) from most other major European monarchies- Britain was not a renaissance / medieval absolute monarchy, but a constitutional one in an industrialising age. Parliament ran the nation (as now); they imposed the taxes on the 13 colonies, with which George III happened to agree. They shrugged their shoulders in 1783, perhaps gritting their teeth at this French/Spanish triumph, as did the very young George IV. But if George III wanted to stay, he would have had to accept parliament's decision or abdicate. Unlike other monarchies, he is not the state!
His tragic illness might have resulted in George IV coming to the throne early, but more probably as regent. At least Britain would not have had to bear so long a reign from this wastrel.
 
Not a wit of difference. I think Americans have trouble distinguishing the British monarchy of this time (or perhaps any time!) from most other major European monarchies- Britain was not a renaissance / medieval absolute monarchy, but a constitutional one in an industrialising age. Parliament ran the nation (as now); they imposed the taxes on the 13 colonies, with which George III happened to agree. They shrugged their shoulders in 1783, perhaps gritting their teeth at this French/Spanish triumph, as did the very young George IV. But if George III wanted to stay, he would have had to accept parliament's decision or abdicate. Unlike other monarchies, he is not the state!
His tragic illness might have resulted in George IV coming to the throne early, but more probably as regent. At least Britain would not have had to bear so long a reign from this wastrel.

George 4th had his good points he was a staunch anti slavery activist, expanded tried to expand voting rights to more people, and when the potato famine happened he begged parlament to do some thing, even getting on his knees at one point during his speech, when that failed he dipped into his personal funds and went into debt trying to save as many people as possible. It took him over a decade to dig himself out of that hole, mostly due to some really good investments.

Yeah for most of his life he was a pleasure loving hedonist but during the potato famine when it really counted he stood up and did his duty, even with parlament not helping him at all. Theres a reason why the republic of Ireland built statues of the man and considering their opinions of the modern UK thats saying some thing.
 
George 4th had his good points he was a staunch anti slavery activist, expanded tried to expand voting rights to more people, and when the potato famine happened he begged parlament to do some thing, even getting on his knees at one point during his speech, when that failed he dipped into his personal funds and went into debt trying to save as many people as possible. It took him over a decade to dig himself out of that hole, mostly due to some really good investments.

Yeah for most of his life he was a pleasure loving hedonist but during the potato famine when it really counted he stood up and did his duty, even with parlament not helping him at all. Theres a reason why the republic of Ireland built statues of the man and considering their opinions of the modern UK thats saying some thing.

OOC:

How does George III abdicating mean that his son (who is now just under more stress for longer in his life) a) becomes some sort of incredible humanitarian b) lives to 93 - 10 years after the state of the potato famine being 1855 or in other words 25 years after he died IOTL from a clearly unhealthy lifestyle?
 
OOC:

How does George III abdicating mean that his son (who is now just under more stress for longer in his life) a) becomes some sort of incredible humanitarian b) lives to 93 - 10 years after the state of the potato famine being 1855 or in other words 25 years after he died IOTL from a clearly unhealthy lifestyle?

OCC you could say I mistook him for his son OCC
 
George 4th had his good points he was a staunch anti slavery activist, expanded tried to expand voting rights to more people, and when the potato famine happened he begged parlament to do some thing, even getting on his knees at one point during his speech, when that failed he dipped into his personal funds and went into debt trying to save as many people as possible. It took him over a decade to dig himself out of that hole, mostly due to some really good investments.

Yeah for most of his life he was a pleasure loving hedonist but during the potato famine when it really counted he stood up and did his duty, even with parlament not helping him at all. Theres a reason why the republic of Ireland built statues of the man and considering their opinions of the modern UK thats saying some thing.

OOC:

How does George III abdicating mean that his son (who is now just under more stress for longer in his life) a) becomes some sort of incredible humanitarian b) lives to 93 - 10 years after the state of the potato famine being 1855 or in other words 25 years after he died IOTL from a clearly unhealthy lifestyle?

OOC:

And I already mentioned earlier that George V (a great-grandson of George III, though it's up to your imagination how) was already reigning by 1830 when the retired king George III died.
 
OOC: I guess that's what you get when someone only replies to the first post and not bother reading the subsequent ones.
 
Hmm - if George III is still reigning do you think George IV's marriage to Princess Frederica of Prussia would be butterflied somehow? Sources seem to suggest she was the one incapable of having a child (although maybe it was him, who knows) - and if he makes a different marriage we don't get the flood of royal dukes marrying in the 1790s and Frederick's son George eventually coming to the throne in 1830.
 
Top