Good King George - A Republican Britain and a Monarchist America

Would you like to see

  • More of the United Commonwealth

    Votes: 12 8.5%
  • United Provinces of America

    Votes: 84 59.6%
  • Patagonia

    Votes: 15 10.6%
  • European Affairs

    Votes: 30 21.3%

  • Total voters
    141
Is the Penn family still prominent in Pennsylvania? I can see them having some kind of title - e.g. Dukes of Pennsylvania - if they don't have hereditary governorship/proprietorship.
Pennsylvania having a Penn serving as Palatine would be cool to see.

Other thoughts:
  1. Are any of the royal dukedoms that were created for George III’s children still in existence?
  2. Did OTL’s Pedro II of Brazil still succeed his father as King of the United Kingdom?
  3. Who became the first King of Czechia?
 
Can there be a poll on the German Imperial Elections like the others?

Sure! I'll put one up with the next one!

Is the Penn family still prominent in Pennsylvania? I can see them having some kind of title - e.g. Dukes of Pennsylvania - if they don't have hereditary governorship/proprietorship.

Do any provincial legislatures have some hereditary peers in their legislatures by right, or are they allowed to stand for election as a regular candidate?

The Penns remain very prominent, and members have been appointed Governor 9 times since independence and been elected First Minister on five occasions. In addition, they hold several titles. Including the Duke of Pennsylvania, though that was only adopted during the bicentennial of the Province after a request from the Provincial Government.

I should mention that most of the proprietors were bought out by the Government over the first few decades of the union, continuing the policy already in place. The Government slowly removed these people, granting them a peerage and a small sum of money in exchange for them giving up their proprietary. Since it was briefly thought that Philadelphia would be the capital, the Penn family were bought first and made Viscounts.

Though Maryland never budged since it was all one guy.

Virginia, South Carolina and Maryland all have a house of peers. However, outside those provinces, they are allowed to stand for election as a regular candidate in provincial legislatures, a right they lack for the House of Commons unless they give up their title.

Pennsylvania having a Penn serving as Palatine would be cool to see.

Other thoughts:
  1. Are any of the royal dukedoms that were created for George III’s children still in existence?
  2. Did OTL’s Pedro II of Brazil still succeed his father as King of the United Kingdom?
  3. Who became the first King of Czechia?

I'd have liked it, but I decided against it after reading into British Government efforts to end the Palatines up to the revolution.

1 - I'll have a full family tree soon that covers that, but a few linger on into the modern era and have transitioned into regular political families at this point

2 - He did, though not under that name. More on that soon!

3 - The Current King is the first independent Monarch. Otto was Archduke and King, with the title splitting between his Sons on his death.
 
The Second Civil War - Part I
The Second Civil War
"I am the King of the United Provinces of America, clothed in immense power; you will procure me these votes...."
Edward VII, during the effort to pass the Slavery Abolition Act



Wars.png
The Second British Civil War (20 March 1863 – 26 February 1866), or as it's known in British sources, the American Civil War, was a civil war in the United Provinces. It was fought between the Union ("the North") and the Confederacy ("the South"), the latter of which was formed by Provinces that seceded. The main cause of the war was the dispute over whether Slavery should expand into the western territories and if the Union should seek to expand further into the Caribbean to attain territory more suited for slave plantations.

Yet, the direct trigger remains a cause of some debate. "The King Caused this Crisis, and while I remain loyal to him, he remains at fault", wrote General Robert E. Lee, later Viscount Lee, to an associate of his in Maryland a week after South Carolina seceded from the Union. And while the claim was near treasonous at the time, there remains some truth to Lee's words. There are primarily two camps. One that focuses on the reaction to the election of Lincoln and his party and those that emphasize the King's role, though both sides agree that Lincoln and the King were working together on the eve of the conflict to end Slavery by peaceful means.

The road to the civil war is complicated, filled with compromises and chaos. Various agreements had allowed Slavery to persist in the South and even expand, with a final deal after the Mexican-American war enabling it to spread into any territory if the population wanted it, under the doctrine of popular sovereignty. While there was a strong desire to retain a balance of the free-slave Province appointed peers in the House of Lords, many in the South didn't feel this was a significant issue. Much of the peerage was strongly invested in the institution, and before the civil war, 6 of 10 peers either held land in the South or had financial links the Slavery. The Lords, as John C. Calhoun noted, was a Southern Institution. And so long as that remained the case, Slavery would be secured, even as changing demographics placed further command of the Commons into the North's hands. However, with the only truly national party being the largely pro-status quo Democrats, the South seemed to control the Parliament for the moment.

However, with the merger of the remnants of the Federalist Party, Loyalist-Whigs, Free Soil Party and several other minor political groups, the anti-slavery faction was finally united under a single banner after a generation of chaos in the opposition. The shock election of this new anti-slavery Conservative Party under Abraham Lincoln changed matters considerably. However, with the party having attained only a substantial plurality, the South felt confident that with their numbers in the Lords, they could resist any real prospect of abolition. And then, something curious began. Something that at first went largely unnoticed. The King started to create new peers, a large number of them. It's often claimed that future Confederate President Jefferson Davis was the first to realize what was happening while reading the government gazette. King Edward VII would, over 12 months, create 89 new peers, 69 of them Barons. Each of them was opposed to Slavery and, at the very least, supported gradual compensated emancipation. This massive influx of Barons would later result in their losing the right to sit in the House of Lords under the 1998 reforms.

The King's views on Slavery had long been an unknown factor. While the royal family had divested from the practice under King Frederick, Edward's personal views were a total mystery, no longer. On October 12th, 1862, the King appeared in the Lords and proclaimed his support for compensated emancipation, to be completed by 1870 to allow the South to "Detach itself from this most immoral institution" In emulating his Grandfather, Edward VII had lit the powder keg. After that, well, it was a matter of time. South Carolina would be the first to break with the Union. Declaring its secession on December 1st 1863. Nine slave Provinces: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, the Bahamas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hanover and Texas would form the Confederate States of America on January 2nd1863, adopting a republican form of government under President Jefferson Davis, their aim was clear, preserve the slave system. While efforts were made to heal this rift, they soon proved fruitless, and on February 12th King Edward VII declared the South in "Rebbelion toward the crown" after the fitting on Fort Sumter. Lincoln would begin calling up a response shortly after that.

After the war began in March, four slave Provinces of the Upper South—Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina—joined the Confederacy. One other Province, Virginia, proved to be a point of contention. While the Provinces elected lower house supported secession, the hereditary upper house bitterly opposed it, owing to their familial connections to the North, loyalty to the King, and significant financial concerns. As a result, Virginia split, with the Province forming opposing governments. One in the capital, Jamestown, which joined the Confederacy, and the other in Richmond, which stayed loyal to the Union. For the first year of the war, Virginia would be the battleground of the conflict, with the defence of the North of the Province given to the somewhat reluctant Robert E. Lee. Who would, in time, ascend to command the Army of Virginia, though concerns about his loyalty to the Union would keep him from ever being named Commander-in-Chief of the Forces.

The war proved to be a bitter and brutal affair. With the South's adoption of a defensive rather than offensive strategic plan after Lee took back Jamestown in late 1864, the Union was forced to launch a costly push into the deep South, eventually commanded by Ulysses S. Grant, who had impressed both Lincoln and the future King Edward VIII, Commanding General of the Army of the Ohio, after his victories in the west. The fighting would end with James Longstreet's surrender after the battle of Charlestown and the capture of much of the Confederate government. Several key members, including Jefferson David, would flee into the disputed Califonia territory and help pave the way for the second Mexican-American War. However, there would be one last significant loss. Three weeks after Longstreet's surrender, Prime Minister Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in Georgetown by John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer. For the crime, an enraged Edward VII ordered the man hung, drawn and quartered following his trial. And while the act was carried out, it was banned as a method of execution a year after King's death.
 
Last edited:
I have some questions regarding the material:

-The basic premise, assuming I've not been misreading, is that George III's 'absolutist' tendencies are here used in defence of the American cause and thus antagonise British elites. How exactly does this come about? While George's constitutional actions have long been a source of quite fierce historiographical debate, the fact is that George himself believed his strident stance during the ARW OTL was him defending the principle of constitutional parliamentarianism and the Whig constitutional order (which after all was of great importance for his family coming to the throne in the first place). As a result I am quite confused as to how George comes to this position ITTL.
-George famously never travelled further than southern England throughout his life, so him ending up in America is quite funny I must admit.
-If we can assume George III had an ideology it was clearly a defence of the Anglican aristocratic constitutional order (J.C.D. Clark's ancien regime perhaps) with support for the executive powers of the monarch being exercise. What I am curious about is how this is forgiven by the Americans where (for lack of a better term) libertarian ideals were influential and disestablishment was something advocated by a great many Patriot statesmen (to get into a discussion on the differences between say Jefferson and Patrick & Samuel Adams would take up a lot of time and space). I recall that one of the reasons for Patriot panic was a fear that Anglican bishoprics would be imposed upon them in a nation where I think Episcopalians made up at most a small plurality of the population. How does establishment occur here without provoking outrage?
-You are correct in noting that Burke was in no way a republican and that he had a fraught relationship with the crown (see for example his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents), but the fact that the push for what is clearly the most radical shift in constitutional politics since the civil war is advocated by Burke and the Rockinghamites is something that does confuse me. The Rockinghamites were generally an aristocratic-conservative outfit who had poor relations with more populist elements (such as Wilkes at his ilk, or the Chathamites) with little popular support among the electorate (who performed poorly at the 1774 general election). I guess my question here is in two parts. What motivates them to this action when they were vaguely sympathetic to the American cause OTL? Secondly, how do they manage to overcome the factionalism within the Whig world (which they largely caused and abetted) to pull a revolution off?
-Why a direct republican revolution and not a repeat of the Glorious Revolution of passing over the monarch in favour of the next most agreeable heir?
-Finally, what of the political situation in Great Britain prior to 1774? Does the political situation follow OTL here or does the King's pro-American views see him support pro-American politicians? The more pro-American politicians were those typically least sympathetic to a strong monarchy and vice-a-versa. The conditions that led to the emergence of the Liberal and Conservative parties were very much due to events such as the French Revolution, emancipation, and royal prerogative powers - how do the parties emerge here out of curiosity?

This is not meant as an attack though several elements of this TL have confused me and I'd just like a bit of context explained to me in that regard.
 
I have some questions regarding the material:

Right around the time, I got to 2,000 words in my answer and realized I was nowhere near close to finished. So I decided to cut my losses and say this in an insulting brief

One big thing I should mention.

Revolution is a word many ITTL would only really apply to the later period of the war. It starts as an effort to remove the King, and morphs into something else over the course of the fighting.

I believe I've said that before.

Think of it like this

Civil War - 1775-1784

Revolttion - 1780-1795

There's a thread I'm working on over in the pre-1900s. In that, all of this will be slowly answered. Of course, we'll never fully agree when it comes to alternate history. But the story I plan to tell happens gradually over decades, and there is no one trigger persay. George acts in what he believes are his duties, in line with his slight absolutist tendencies; he believes they've overstepped and acted. He asks for changes here, stops certain appointments, and just starts to get a little to involved with matters. While keeping company many worry are influencing him too much. I think I can create a convincing case for this event that I've already slightly begun to outline.

I'd also mention that our POD is in the 1750s. So direct comment on the OTL 1774 election is pointless, for lack of a better word. And I'll be laying out the changes in the Parliament and the broader politics of the time that were happening during the lead-up, again, in the other thread. The long and the short of it, things are going to be different, some players will be here, others won't.

I'd also mention, certain Patriots are just never going to become relevant forces at all. They exit the picture with the changes that are happening here. Also, I'd mention that the changes I'm making will, of course, change the dynamics of American politics greatly.

I want you to know this is; I would never view any questioning as an attack! I welcome it. And as I do answer these questions, I want to hear any replies!

I do want to say! Thank you for reminding me of the ancien regime. My sister bought me a copy of that book a year ago, and I meant to read it.

Though, to mention a few things!

. I recall that one of the reasons for Patriot panic was a fear that Anglican bishoprics would be imposed upon them in a nation where I think Episcopalians made up at most a small plurality of the population. How does establishment occur here without provoking outrage?

I have read up on this quite a bit! Truthfully it was something I've forgotten about since I last read it a decade ago! Thomas Bradbury Chandler was the man figure in all this, if my memory serves me right. As a result, I have been tempted to drop the Church of America, so I'll keep you posted. Things will change though, due to an influx of English Exiles. So, we'll see! Though just because something provokes outrage, doesn't mean it won't happen!

Why a direct republican revolution and not a repeat of the Glorious Revolution of passing over the monarch in favour of the next most agreeable heir?

As for the heir matter. In short. It was more a forced reality than anything else. There was an attempt to find a suitable King, and it failed. In part due to the significant splits in the whigs you mentioned. The forces that drive the war will be rather complex, and it's something I'm putting together in a flow chat of all things to help explain later. Thanks teaching skills!
 
Last edited:
A question and an observation.

The observation - I'm not convinced that there would be a "Democratic" Party in Monarchist America. The OTL party split from the Democratic-Republicans, which certainly wouldn't exist here*. I would suggest calling it something like the Tory Party, the Southern Whigs, or even the Patriotic Party.

The question - how politically involved is the American monarch by the present? Are they a very much hands-off ceremonial type monarchy, or do they get actively involved in politics?


*IMO, given how things worked in British politics at the time, the Federalists would probably be called the Hamiltonites, and the Anti-Federalists be called the Jeffersonites at the time. Well, at first, at least - the more modern terms would probably be retroactively applied.
Looking back at the UP provincial borders, what is the tiny panhandle South Carolina has?
South Carolina had a (much longer) panhandle IOTL, extending to the Mississippi, due to various issues around historical colonial boundaries and surveying.
 
I wonder if, with Edward's sympathies, he would appoint a new Prime Minister who would properly enforce Reconstruction. It would be nice to see freed slaves get forty acres and a mule ittl.

I'll cover this in full soon, but Reconstruction was handled much much better! In part thanks to Edward, as well as who was leading the nation and the occupation zones. Though there were still issues. North Carolina for one will have more than a few.

The observation - I'm not convinced that there would be a "Democratic" Party in Monarchist America. The OTL party split from the Democratic-Republicans, which certainly wouldn't exist here*. I would suggest calling it something like the Tory Party, the Southern Whigs, or even the Patriotic Party.

Honestly, there is a broader reason why it's named that, and it's largely related to the way I've been constructing American politics behind the scenes. ITTL it had a number of names in its existence, the same as the earlier Democratic-Agrarian Party, and Democratic was its last name before dissolution, as it was calling for a greater voter franchise in the form of Universal white male suffrage. Imagine it as the name Historians chose to simplify things!

Though I've been thinking of renaming it, to something like the Patriotic Party, or the National Party.

I'm tempted to keep Democratic, but I'll sleep on it!

*IMO, given how things worked in British politics at the time, the Federalists would probably be called the Hamiltonites, and the Anti-Federalists be called the Jeffersonites at the time. Well, at first, at least - the more modern terms would probably be retroactively applied.

This is very much how it works! There was a sort of broad proto-party that backed the King, that turned into the Hamiltonites and Jeffersonites, and then into other parties slowly down the line.

The question - how politically involved is the American monarch by the present? Are they a very much hands-off ceremonial type monarchy, or do they get actively involved in politics?

Mostly hands-off, though they at times do get involved. It would be unheard of for the Monarch to reject a PM outright, though they tend to influence some cabinet appointments. And plays a rather sizeable behind-the-scenes role, particularly in foreign policy.

South Carolina had a (much longer) panhandle IOTL, extending to the Mississippi, due to various issues around historical colonial boundaries and surveying.

This is correct! Sorry I didn't see the question!
 
The Lord Protector
The Reluctant Lord Protector
"Burke the traitor, Burke the monarchist, Burke the last loyal man in England, truly... I can't even claim to know the man."
James Charles Fox on Edmund Burke in Writings on the Revolution


The Lord Protector.png

Edmund Burke (12 January 1729 – 9 July 1797) was a British statesman, economist, and philosopher, who served as the first Lord Protector of the United Commonwealth of Great Britain and Ireland, a nation he helped form in the aftermath of the First British Civil War. He remains the most controversial figure in the English-speaking world for his actions in the Civil War and his role in the formation of the post-war Government.

The Matter of the Change - Burke, Rockingham and Fox in brief.
The Basics


"The Trouble started when he began to associate with Franklin," wrote Burke. "And after that, he started to involve himself in matters he should have left be" Burke had always had a fraught relationship with the Crown, and while he was deeply sympathetic to the cause of the Colonies, and their rights as Englishmen, that support was entirely superseded by his absolute loyalty to Parliament, and disgust for absolute monarchy, which he feared might be George's long term objective.

1768 would prove to be a critical turning point; the so-called ministerialists were significantly reduced in power, and had it not been for the divisions within the Whig Party, it would have been possible for the Whigs to form a government and stop the coming crisis. These divisions were largely between supports of the more aristocratic Rockingham and a divided more radical opposition. Overall though, it would lead to an increase in the membership of radical MPs who sought to weaken the monarchy. And others were willing to go further if needed, though few would have openly mentioned support for removing the King.

While North remained Prime Minister over the divided Parliament, the influx of Whigs shaped things to come. Across England, concern had shifted from the Policy toward the Colonies to the King's interference, even those that sought to further the colonies' rights were troubled by how the King was going about it, arguing it was in total opposition to British law. "I fear indeed the future struggles of the people in defence of their Constitutional Rights will grow weaker and weaker. It is much too probable that the power and influence of the Crown will increase rapidly." Rockingham wrote to Burke in 1771, fearing that the King was using the matter of the Colonies to increase the Crown's authority. He now believed that the Parliament would need to assert itself as the supreme body, at home and in the colonies, and move to reduce the King once they were in the position to do so, leading to, at times, actively support North's efforts to tax and dictate to the Colonies, causing him to become reviled among the colonists. Burke, while a monarchist, had to been growing concerned by the King's action. Neither came close to the radicalism of Charles James Fox and his growing base of supporters, who were drifting further and further toward Republicanism. Why? Beyond just the American colonies, the King seemingly interfered in any business he saw fit, from local taxation to government regulation. The Whigs were, by 1773, fully convinced King George aimed to become an absolute Monarch, it at the very least, planned to strengthen the Crown at the expense of Parliament. A view outright rejected by the Colonies. Both sides would soon come into direct conflict over the last attempt by the Tories to deal with Colonial resistance.

The Massachusetts Government Act, among other intolerable acts passed at the time, had been intended to end growing opposition to British Policy in the Colony of Massachusetts but would backfire disastrously. While many Whigs had disliked the Massachusetts Government Act, the King's rejection of it had enraged them. Some suspected that he'd allowed the act to progress this far, only to publically Veto it to assert his growing power further, though this has never been proven. It should be noted that on the eve of fighting, this move confirmed to many in the colonies the King's respect for the principle of self-government so long as it didn't step on the people's liberties, further damaging the Whig case.

The election of 1774 would prove to be the end of the line for the North Government. The Rockinghamites now had a commanding lead in the Parliament, though the faction remained divided. and the King reluctantly restored Rockingham to the office of Prime Minister. While many in the Colonies were greatly relieved by the return of the Whigs, the hardline support that had emerged for the King, and the reduction of support and interest for the Colonies among the Whigs, in part due to the King's actions, had changed the dynamic significantly the Whigs' constant attacks on the King's interference had been published widely in the Colonies and had led to a great deal of suspicion toward the new ministry especially one led by the man that had passed the Declaratory Act, which had been controversial at the time, had become a hated document due to the actions of the previous Parliament. Still concerned about new Government policies, the Colonies continued to prepare for possible fighting.

With command over the Parliament and the Government, a small group of Whigs began to move to remove the King and replace him with someone more acceptable, hoping to restore the promises of the Glorious Revolution. This palace coup failed, however, due mainly to false impressions of loyalty from key figures in the King's household. Though many Rockinghamites, being aristocratic conservatives sought to reign in though retain the King, what followed proved to be the final straw. As the King attempted to launch mass arrests of those he believed to have organized the coup attempt; the famed storming of the Parliament was a bridge too far, their worst fears seemed realized. Those that had not already been sympathetic toward the effort to remove the King were now in support of replacing him; Rockingham himself, who the King attempted to remove, reluctantly remained at the head of the Parliament—hoping to control the situation and prevent more radical forces from taking control. The Colonies, owing to their newfound loyalty to the King, elected to place their support with him, though many involved in the so-called "Independence Movement" began to move for separation or neutrality in the conflict. However, this force has been losing strength throughout the 1770s as the King moved to support the Colonies. Fighting would break out in 1776, leading it to become the second, and later the main theatre, of the civil war.

Burke returned to Ireland to muster a force there, a move made in no small part due to his connections with Rockingham. Here, he proved to be an effective military commander and played a critical role in securing Ireland, which had broken into a three-way civil war between supporters of the King, those loyal to the Parliament in London, and faction of Irishmen seeking to break Ireland free and restore the Stuarts. The crisis was over by 1778, and Burke returned to Great Britain, at the head of a significant battle-hardened force, to aid Parliament. The following year, the King went into exile, taking with him his entire family, and much of the strife in the Home Islands came to a close, with the bulk of the fighting now taking place in the Colonies. Burke, in 1780, was appointed Paymaster of the Forces, but during that year, the political winds began to shift. The bitter fighting across the Home Islands had shattered support for the King in many areas.

Most Historians now date 1780 as the start of the British Revolution, as the growing Foxite faction began to advocate for a more radical shift in Government after the end of the war. Arguing that the suffering that the nation went through must have meaning. In that year's election, the Foxites would emerge as the second-largest Whig faction in Parliament behind only the more organized Rockingham, though they were the more popular force. Moreover, as Rockingham's health continued to deteriorate over 1782-1784, after being tweaked during a flu epidemic, Fox would further entrench himself as the new Secretary of State for the Home Department; while the man had never sought to excise power, he now believed he needed to act to prevent a return to Hanover rule, and the lingering threat of absolute.

With the King's exile agreed to and his children making it clear they did not want to assume the throne of Great Britain and Ireland, the search for a new King was launched in early 1784, and an issue quickly became apparent. There was no suitable candidate, none at all. And with that, Fox took his chance; having already laid the groundwork for the move over the last four years, he suggested to appointed of a lord protector, in what he meant would be a temporary measure until a suitable king could be found. "A figure to watch over the state for the duration", he argued. And while many in Parliament were unsure about the move, the election that year would give Fox and his supporters an outright majority in the house, allowing them to move forward with the plan. In the end, there was only one candidate. Edmund Burke ascended to the office of Lord Protector under the Commonwealth Constitution Act, which outlined the duties of the new limited head of state, and placed those powers in the hand of the Lord Protector. Over the next several years, as the revolution raged on and the new politics of the United Commonwealth arrested itself, the notion that the Lord Protector would be a temporary measure faded. The suggestion that a King would be appointed was abandoned entirely in 1820. After Rockingham's death, Burke appointed James Charles Fox as Prime Minister. The latter would enact a radical agenda and further cement the new Aristocratic Republic as a compromise between those that still advocated a monarchy and his positions.

By the time of Burke's death and the appointment of the Duke of Portland by the Parliament as Lord Protector, Burke's treatise laid matters out best "We are a crownless monarchy, this is not what I desired, but it shall keep for now"




By Lord Shelby

I'll be doing more on the British Revolution Soon and the actions of Fox

I usually don't include my source list. But this was an exciting read, and the quiet from Rockingham is from there
Questions
I hope this answers some questions

Rockingham lives a little longer, and that does change matters.
 
Last edited:
George III and the Church
George III and the Church
"The King is no Papist!" Any American is familiar with that line, appearing at the start of an essay published in 1768 to refute claims swirling around the Home Islands as the nation teetered toward civil war. At the time, the Whig party was attempting to discredit the King and were using his limited tolerance for Roman Catholics. While the King remained a committed Protestant and would come to bitterly oppose Catholic emancipation as King of the United Provinces as a violation of his coronation oath, he remained personally tolerant of Catholics. He was willing to give way to some limited relief. In 1765, he met with a small group of Catholic Americans from Maryland as a part of a larger delegation organised by one of his favourites, Benjamin Franklin. Certain Whigs pounced on this and began publishing documents proclaiming the King was under a "Papist spell" and needed to be removed to make way for a new Monarch. Elements of the public, having already grown suspicious of the Monarch's overly American court thanks to efforts engaged in by the Whigs before this, whipped into a frenzy. This resulted in the Riots of 1765, which, while quickly suppressed, the deaths that came with it were blamed entirely on the King for failing to understand his peoples 'Reasonable concerns." The so-called London Massacre likely had a more significant effect than the Catholic issue.

Given that Edmund Burke would later ascend to the office of Lord Protector, and with him great Catholic emancipation, we should be mindful to quantify of relevancy of all this. Fears of Catholics in their midst played well in some regions of Great Britain, but the King's growing interventions in Parliament would prove to be a primary source of concern. For the Whigs, using this limited Catholic tolerance was one of many actions to move their fears into the public consciousness.

The Whig Party's chief goal in this era was alternating the general population to the threat posed by their more active King, and if that meant creating an imagined Papist threat, then so be it. While the small urban population of Britain were already growing concerned by the King's action by 1763, believing they weakened the British economy in favour of the Colonies, these accusations would prove to further damage the King's reputation and diminish his support base.



The Conflict in the Isles - The Use of Leaflets in the British Civil War​

1668747938200.png
 
Last edited:
He now believed that the Parliament would need to assert itself as the supreme body, at home and in the colonies, and move to reduce the King once they were in the position to do so, leading to, at times, actively support North's efforts to tax and dictate to the Colonies, causing him to become relieved among the colonists.
I assume you mean "reviled" there.
 
  1. 1967-1977 - Richard Casey, 1st Earl Casey - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Liberal - Note - Governor-General from 1965
  2. 1977-1978 - Robert Menzies, 1st Earl Menzies - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Liberal - Note - Died in office
    • Garfield Barwick, 1st Earl Barwick served as acting Lord Protector from the 15th of May to the 5th of March
  3. 1979-1989 - Paul Hasluck, 1st Earl Hasluck - Home State - Western Australia - Party - Liberal
  4. 1989-1994 - Andrew Peacock, 1st Earl Peacock - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Liberal
  5. 1994-2004 - Robert 'Bob' Hawke, 1st Earl Hawke - Home State - Melbourne - Party - Labor
  6. 2004-2009 - Tim Fischer, 1st Earl Fischer - Home State - New South Wales - Party - National
  7. 2009-2014 - Paul Keating - Home State - New South Wales - Party - Labor
  8. 2014-2019 - John Howard, 1st Earl Howard - Home State - New South Wales - Party - Liberal
  9. 2019-present - Sir Steve Irwin - Home State - Cooksland - Party - Independent
Steve Irwin as Australia’s Lord Protector
 
Last edited:
France - Part I New
The French Empire
"Returning to our live coverage of the French general election, the total collapse of the.... one moment .... I... I mean... but... we're... this show is....national? ..... right...."

"The ABC can now announce that Napoleon V, Emperor of the French, has passed away at the age of 103."

Jon Stewart announcing the death of Napoleon IV to the United Provinces of America.

VKr0aTi.png


Have your say!


Thank you all for voting in previous polls. Labour leader and the results of the independence of Lesser Sunda will appear on Saturday!
 
French Monarchs New
Monarchs of the French Empire
  1. 1804-1834 - Napoleon I - Napoleon the Great
  2. 1834-1876 - Napoleon II
  3. 1876-1909 - Napoleon III
  4. 1909-1925 - Napoleon IV
    • 1925-1945 - Second French Republic
    • 1945-1947 - Occupation of France
  5. 1947-1972 - Charles XI
  6. 1972-2022 - Napoleon V
  7. 2022-present - Louis XVIII

The Royal Title

His Imperial Majesty Louis XVIII, By the Grace of God, the Will of the Nation and the Constitution of the Republic, Emperor of the French and Co-Prince of Andorra.
 
I love it! Why is there a referendum on the future of the monarchy in France? Is the new emperor so controversial?
Also, why did the far right lead a coup against the Bonaparte dynasty?
I think that Jean-Marie le Pen should not effectively lead his party anymore if he is the same age as OTL, the man is very weakened today
 
Last edited:
Top