very good timeline, i suspect that when WWI and WWII happend, The US will enter Boath Wars much sooner,due to it´s close relation with the DSA. i´m subscribing.
Point of order: the POD was back in the 18th century. That means that it's highly unlikely that the monarchy will decline in the same way that it did OTL. Yes, it may end up as a figurehead, and it will probably still lose power rather than gain it, but there is still plenty of chance for the monarchy to set in stone its position as having considerably more power than it does in this age and day. Everyone assuming that the monarchs are destined to decline and just be there to sign on the dotted line in the future are acting presumptively to say the least.
very good timeline, i suspect that when WWI and WWII happend, The US will enter Boath Wars much sooner,due to it´s close relation with the DSA. i´m subscribing.
Falastur
I think it's pretty certain that a decline in monarchical power will occur and a fairly substantial one unless something goes badly wrong. Also if you did get some autocratic system in Britain that would likely lead to deep unrest there and in the colonies.
We are almost certainly not seeing the end of powerful monarchy but it will take really bad times and the serious discrediting of democracy for the pendulum to start swinging back. Possibly in a century or three and which countries that occurs in is anyone's guess. [Could argue for something like this occurring in N Korea but don't think anyone expects that to last long, at least with that dynasty].
Steve
These guys sound an awful lot like the Royal Northwest Mounted Police of OTL.
very good timeline, i suspect that when WWI and WWII happend, The US will enter Boath Wars much sooner,due to it´s close relation with the DSA. i´m subscribing.
Steve. I'm not advocating autocracy here - my point is that too many users on this forum see monarchy as a black-and-white "either they are a dictator or a powerless figurehead" choice, where actually it is a series of sliding scales. The King doesn't have to have either all the political power or none, he doesn't have to have full economic control or none, he doesn't have to either rule with an iron fist or step back from the civil side of things entirely. The monarchy could, for instance, retain use of the right to veto contentious General Election results or unpopular Prime Ministers, which they formerly did and which they technically still have the ability to do yet now are incapable of asserting except in the most extreme positions - the monarchy would be lynched if it tried it today OTL. Also, the King could keep the right to issue Royal Decrees in certain legal areas, which some European monarchies still have the right to do IRL. They could keep the right to elect High Court judges instead of waiving that right for Parliament. There are many other things I could mention here. None of these things would imply an autocratic government, and all are compatible with a strong Parliament, and yet all would produce a visible monarchy whom Canadians (read: Southrons) would be unable to forget about unless they quite deliberately had their heads forced into the sand. It's these kind of things that the monarchy could feasibly keep the power to do ITTL.
I won't deny that it could go the other way, too, of course. The monarchy could feasibly be abolished. I was just trying to make a statement here that it's not a case of having a sentence in this story which reads "and then by the year 19xx the monarchy was inevitably so weak that it became a figurehead" because that ain't the way things work.
The best tea is the freshest, this is what drove the Clipper Races to get the first shipment of the new harvest home, to capture the highest price.Vague non-sequitor - what this timeline needs is more tea!
I could see many subjects of the Queen/Monarch being slightly hazy as to what the status of the Queen is, in relation to their country. Most people do not need to worry about the difference between Head of Government (PM), the Head of State (the Queen) and the Governor General.
I think in NZ's case the Governor General deems himself to be the Personal Representative of the Head of State. Interestingly, in New Zealand's case the Queen has been known since 1974 (Royal Titles Act 1974) as the Queen of New Zealand and since 1986 (Constitution Act 1986) has been deemed to be a separate legal entity in relation to her NZ duties, to her position in say the UK or Canada.
Point of order: the POD was back in the 18th century. That means that it's highly unlikely that the monarchy will decline in the same way that it did OTL. Yes, it may end up as a figurehead, and it will probably still lose power rather than gain it, but there is still plenty of chance for the monarchy to set in stone its position as having considerably more power than it does in this age and day. Everyone assuming that the monarchs are destined to decline and just be there to sign on the dotted line in the future are acting presumptively to say the least.
Falastur
I think it's pretty certain that a decline in monarchical power will occur and a fairly substantial one unless something goes badly wrong. Also if you did get some autocratic system in Britain that would likely lead to deep unrest there and in the colonies.
We are almost certainly not seeing the end of powerful monarchy but it will take really bad times and the serious discrediting of democracy for the pendulum to start swinging back. Possibly in a century or three and which countries that occurs in is anyone's guess. [Could argue for something like this occurring in N Korea but don't think anyone expects that to last long, at least with that dynasty].
Steve
Steve. I'm not advocating autocracy here - my point is that too many users on this forum see monarchy as a black-and-white "either they are a dictator or a powerless figurehead" choice, where actually it is a series of sliding scales. The King doesn't have to have either all the political power or none, he doesn't have to have full economic control or none, he doesn't have to either rule with an iron fist or step back from the civil side of things entirely.
The monarchy could, for instance, retain use of the right to veto contentious General Election results or unpopular Prime Ministers, which they formerly did and which they technically still have the ability to do yet now are incapable of asserting except in the most extreme positions - the monarchy would be lynched if it tried it today OTL.
Also, the King could keep the right to issue Royal Decrees in certain legal areas, which some European monarchies still have the right to do IRL.
They could keep the right to elect High Court judges instead of waiving that right for Parliament.
There are many other things I could mention here. None of these things would imply an autocratic government, and all are compatible with a strong Parliament, and yet all would produce a visible monarchy whom Canadians (read: Southrons) would be unable to forget about unless they quite deliberately had their heads forced into the sand. It's these kind of things that the monarchy could feasibly keep the power to do ITTL.
I won't deny that it could go the other way, too, of course. The monarchy could feasibly be abolished. I was just trying to make a statement here that it's not a case of having a sentence in this story which reads "and then by the year 19xx the monarchy was inevitably so weak that it became a figurehead" because that ain't the way things work.
Falastur
OK, thanks for clarifying what you meant.
Steve
The best tea is the freshest, this is what drove the Clipper Races to get the first shipment of the new harvest home, to capture the highest price.
.In the 1850's the British tea companies bought worn out land [cheap] in the Carolinian and imported Ceylonese Workers to establish Tea Plantations.
These went under during the ACW, and over time, the workers blended into the other Black Groups
ITTL I see the same factors [distance, speed, growing seasons, etc] working to cause the same drive to establish Tea Plantations in the DSA.
[?wonder what Chicory flavored Tea is like?]
?I also wonder if there may not be a attempt or two to establish Coffee or Cocoa Plantations in the mountains of Hispaniola/Porto Rico?
With Tea Plantations so close by, perhaps Tea drinking becomes more common in the USA.
I wonder just how different the two flavours will be. I mean yes, obviously there will be differences and some will be major, but both states are going to have the same essential elements: the same terrain in places, the same native Americans on the land who may cause trouble (admittedly the level of tension and warfare with these is likely to be one of the defining features). But I don't wonder if, in the early days at least, the idea of Sheriffs, posses, bandit gangs and shootouts won't be fairly similar both sides of the border - not to mention that there's not that much about being an actual cowboy that can change with which side of the border you live on, so when cowboys become idolised and mythified when the frontier becomes "safe" (whenever that is for both states) presumably both countries will have the same phenomenon of important or affluent persons travelling to spend a year as a cowboy and experience the life. If we think about the spaghetti western films, it could be that a Magnificent Seven type film wouldn't really be produced any differently by Southern or Northern Americans.
Of course, I am open to correction, and I'd be very interested to hear just what factors there are which will be different.
That's like saying Wine Drinking became so common in the UK with France so nearby...
South Carolina/North Georgia --- http://www.charlestonteaplantation.com/Where is the best places in the DSA to grow tea?
That's like saying Wine Drinking became so common in the UK with France so nearby...