DBWI: King George III never sided with the American Colonists

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Dolan, Nov 8, 2019.

  1. Dolan Lookin fer Gooby

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    So yeah, the legacy of King George III was... mixed...

    To the people of British Islands, King George III was seen as Mad Tyrant whose actions started the gradual shift of power in the Empire from British proper to North America, but to the people of North America, he was seen as enlightened champion of the people as he supported the Colonial representatives being integrated into British Parliament.

    So... let's say that when the American colonists sent the petition of giving them representations in the Parliament, King George either rejected that or not even giving them the audience... What would happen then?

    Will London stay as the center of power in the British Empire instead of New York? Or could Britain retain its North American colonies in the first place without giving them representations?
     
  2. KingOnTheEdge Vive La Revolucion

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2019
    To say New York is the power of the empire is pretty ridiculous, and I say that as a citizen of the Dominion of Oregon. Is it one of the main economic zones and capital of the 16 Colonies, drawing in more immigrants from outside the empire than any other city? Yes. But London has the legislative power, defines the economic policy, and still has by far a greater population and economic output than NYC, because its second to NY for noncitizen immigration, and first for citizen immigration.

    NYC is touted as a titan because frankly, it is one of three cities that could challenge London-- nyc, Cairo, and Delhi. Factor in that it is how britain organizes a third of a continent and while you could make the case that it has leeched off london, it certainly isnt the base of the empire.

    But honestly, if George III hadn't given the colonists autonomy, what were the colonies to do? Rebel against the strongest nation in history with no army? Nonsense. Get Spain or France to help? Britain had just finished decking them in the 7 years war. If anything, they'd ship Ben Franklin, a Quaker and philosopher who was well respected at the Continental Congress and had connections to europe, to more personally explain the situation.
     
  3. ert44444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    NYC on its own might not directly be more powerful than London but British North America (BNA) certainly is compared to the Home Nations. God the Greater NYC area is more powerful than the Greater London area. The economic, political, cultural, and population power of BNA means that it basically runs the Empire the majority of MPs are from there for god sake and so are 4 of the last 6 PMs. NYC is the focal point of that power and influence.

    But back to the question. I think the provinces would have rebelled unsuccessfully like Ireland did in the 1910s. A small portion of the population probs based in a few hot spots like Boston. But eventually stopped due to lack of popular support and lack or resources. I don’t know what would happen to the rind leaders though. Sent to Australia? Hung?
     
  4. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    Realistically the American regions became the center of the Empire after the Great War, where American forces were the ones who pushed the Communist Germans out of occupied London. They kind of have to be the heartland; there's no way they'd accept American troops doing the lion's share of counterinsurgency in India and Africa otherwise.
     
    KaiserWilhelm, Dolan and kasumigenx like this.
  5. ert44444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    The American surge in London is overblown in my option the RN had already blocked the Channel after destroying the Combined fleet at the Battle of Heligoland. What few paratroopers landed in London wouldn’t have been able to hold it for long. I think the Oceanian and Irish forces did far more than the American ones.
     
    The Professor and kasumigenx like this.
  6. M79 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Lots of jingoism and revisionist history here today' apparently. So with the rise of Napoleon the UK felt Britain herself was threatened especially after French deployment of early Fulton steamschooners. The French raid on Portsmouth in 1809 only reinforced this and London began to set up its 'Reserve Offices' in Philadelphia the following year. After the Napoleonic threat stabilized with the Peace of St Petersburg and as the Erie Canal made New York City increasingly the capital of British American commerce, moving the Reserve Offices there in 1848 only made sense. Even the Royal Navy got in on the act with the establishment of her complex at Victoria on the Potomoc River. Without George III's aid to his colonial subjects, or especially his 1783 visit to Philadelphia, none of that would have been. You might get a few years of bloody internacine warfare with ever-escalating reprisals with no good ending.
     
  7. Dolan Lookin fer Gooby

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    Ireland is quite an oddball case, to be honest. What are they thinking to achieve with such hopeless rebellion from the start? First they are located in Home Islands, not some far flung colonies on the other side of the ocean like the American Provinces, or heck, on the other side of The World like Australia and New Zealand. Second, they are essentially one of the four original British Kingdoms, the rebellion only resulted in Irish Provincial Parliament being essentially disbanded and rearranged after the troublemakers that if not hang, transported to the other side of the World.

    It was amusing that currently there are more Irishmen in Yukon than in Ireland proper.
     
    ert44444 likes this.
  8. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    Well sure, it was more of a metaphor for the real dynamics. Far more significant was the fact that American industry didn't suffer firebombings where British industry did. After the war industry from the American territories rebuilt the Empire's economy. Plus without American manpower the Empire never could have pushed into Red Europe, or held Southern India (and retaken Northern India) from the Soviets. Sure, the Reds would have lost the war- I'm part of the school that says their fate was sealed by the Soviet invasion of the Qing Empire- but Britain probably wouldn't have emerged from the war as one of the two superpowers opposite the Qing without the economy of the American territories. So yeah, I'd say it's fair to say that after the Great War of the Revolutions America became the center of the British Empire.
     
  9. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    With the political shift in the american politics which parties will win snap election which has been called, in general how have british americans viewed the EU, they were the biggest support for leave. How was british american culture effected by the quebec terror campaign launched by the french radicals located in quebec.
     
  10. Josephsullivan12@icloud The Human Porch.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Location:
    Trapped Under a Carpet.
    There is nothing amusing about that, the Irish genocide of 1917 was horrific, even if nobody ever talks about it.
     
  11. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    The Spanish ceded the heavily Hindu island of Luzon in the early 19th century which led the British to open Japan..this might be the case ITTL.
     
  12. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    I also think there's a possibility of the abolition of the monarchy without America. After all, given what George did, and him overruling Parliament to do it, British America has consistently been the biggest supporter in the Empire of the royal prerogative, of the monarch taking an active role in politics and overruling Parliament when needed. Without the Georgian precedent and the power of America I certainly think we'd have a weaker monarchy.

    It's true that British Americans in general support a British withdrawal from the Continent. I don't think it'll happen; opposing Ottoman (and by proxy Chinese) influence in the Balkans and Central Europe is pretty crucial for Indian security, and the other EU member states can't stand up to the Eurasian Alliance alone.
     
    kasumigenx and Dolan like this.
  13. KingOnTheEdge Vive La Revolucion

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2019
    The irish rebellion was technically a success since they were fighting for home rule like the American colonies. They got less than other territories but that's beside the point and mostly in compromise with the protestants of Ulster. The idea they fought for independence was old Napoleonic propaganda because the catholic French despised that one of the last majority catholic nation that wasnt in their sphere was directly in the british empire.
     
  14. Historymaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2019
    The much opposed idea of George IV of a Crowning in Filadephia, followed by another one in Canada set a nice precedent. Queen Victoria year long tour of Crowns in 1837 was the event of the century.
     
  15. JustinianTheGrand Augustus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Location:
    Constantinople, Arkansas
    Both of these are to my understanding major misconceptions of the situation before the integration very much fueled by inaccurrate hindsight. Personally I blame it on the education system in the Imperial Federation making the rise of Britain seem inevitable. Britain was not at the time the strongest nation on earth and while it was extremely powerful it still had its rivals. While spain had indeed lost some prestige and power in the 7 years war they still had much of south america under their belt, colonies that wouldnt break away until the 1870s when british agents started aiding rebel groups there. And France was hungry enough for revenge that they definitely would have offered up at least some material if not military support to any uprising even with their economic woes (remember they had King Luois the Mad in charge). And while the forces of the colony were definitely far inferior to the British regulars there were enough militias and anger all across the colonies for the levying of taxes against them without representation could have led to an uprising, especially with veterans of the 7 years war like George Washington (who would later become The Right Honorable Sir George Washington for his role as first Prime Minister of North America) who was involved in the earlier movement. While it is incredibly unlikely for any sort of independence at that time if there was an uprising it could lead to further uprisings later on inspired by the first.

    But I must admit I am a little biased being a Half-Irish Bostonian and a member of the Children of Liberty so I have more of an inclination to be optimistic.
     
  16. JustinianTheGrand Augustus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Location:
    Constantinople, Arkansas
    Yeah, my own family barely escaped that mess. And it only got a paragraph in my history textbook in school. I've heard its not mentioned at all in british textbooks somehow.
     
  17. Josephsullivan12@icloud The Human Porch.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Location:
    Trapped Under a Carpet.
    Yep, nobody ever talks about it because Britain is one of the major world powers, Hauke himself, when planning the Polish genocide, asked "Who remembers the Irish?"
     
    WillWrambles likes this.
  18. M79 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Wow! Gutsy admission considering how the Governor and Viceroy feel about the CoL. I thought their stereotype of Appalachians was bad - and granted Pinewood needed a 'brand' for villians in Remington Steele, The Saint, and those spy movies - but the only positive thoughts they seem to have about the CoL are how to seduce their daughters to the side 'back to the side of 'right". Maybe as a side effect Fallburg and Pinewood would not be film capitals of the world?

    ***Yes I am aware that Fallburg is not only in Kentucky but was initially called 'Louisville' until renamed during the Troubles (with Napoleon). But comparing Fallburg to the rest of Kentucky is like comparing New York City to the upstate or St Augustine to the rest of Florida...
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  19. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    That's in the west, of course; in the Chinese bloc the Irish genocide is becoming more and more prominent (of course, there you'll get little mention of deportations of Russians from Siberia and Central Asia...)
     
    JustinianTheGrand likes this.
  20. JustinianTheGrand Augustus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Location:
    Constantinople, Arkansas
    Yeah we tend to be villainized a lot. Those spy movies are hilarious to anyone actually in the COL, especially the Daughters of Liberty. But back to movies. I don’t know about film locations but I feel that the global film industry would be a lot less international, with America and Britain sharing fewer movies.