Would it not be American radicals and British conservatives? America is the place where the King gave dukedoms to commoners, colonial commoners mind you. Meanwhile, in Britain, while the act of deposing your king is quite radical, is now headed by bougie lords, who also derive their power from their hereditary background.
Good King George - A Republican Britain and a Monarchist America
- Thread starter Lewie
- Start date
America is framed as the protector of tradition in their defence of Monarchy, though some American thinkers do frame it that way when discussing the matter. There exists a long-standing debate on the issue. A liberal American might see the whole matter as that and denounce the British for that reason. Having never genuinely reformed and removed the only force that stood up for Liberty.
I'll likely do a whole write-up on how the civil war is viewed through different historiographical lenses. Might as well put my degree to use
Last edited:
What services does the Congo Company provide?
I think it’s a great idea!
You know, I think I might just have a few of them (as well as the ones in Anhalt) survive to the present instead.
Thanks! They could even be related to Alaska’s Viceroy.
The Baker-Trudeau coalition
The Baker-Trudeau coalition
"What we have here, is a government" - Baker announces the end of coalition talks, holding up the Montreal Agreement.
The Baker-Trudeau coalition was formed by Charles Baker and Justin Trudeau when King Henry IX invited Baker to form a new government, following the resignation of Prime Minister Diana Spencer on the 18th of June 2016, after the general election on the 11th. It was the UP's first coalition government since the Churchill Wartime ministry of 1942-1947. The coalition was led by Baker as Prime Minister with Trudeau as Deputy Prime Minister and composed of members of both Bakers' centre-right Conservative Party and Trudeau's French-speaking party, Union Des Francophones. The UdF being handed three portfolios, Social Servies, Transport and the Environment, under the terms of the arrangement."What we have here, is a government" - Baker announces the end of coalition talks, holding up the Montreal Agreement.
The election had been a relatively tight race, and while the Conservatives had emerged as the largest party in the new Parliament, they were now 12 seats short of a majority. While some talk was given about forming a minority government, party elder former Prime Minister Geroge Bush, Earl of Greenwich, advised strongly against this course of action and urged Baker to seek a coalition partner. After the King signalled this was his preference, Baker began talks with the only party willing to open negotiations, Justin Trudeau's UdF. Thanks to a divided vote, the party had done exceptionally well in the election, dominating the results in Quebec, southern Louisiana, and French-speaking areas of Canada and Michigan.
The talks began on the 20th and were held in Montreal, a significant concession to the UdF. Trudeau opened discussions with the long-standing demand of the party, making French a co-equal official language with English, with the long-term goal of official bilingualism. While Trudeau knew this wouldn't happen, he felt obligated to place it on the table, come what may. Baker, aware of this, traded it for increased funding to French-language schools in non-French provinces, providing political cover to Trudeau. Elements within the party attempted to force Trudeau to obtain a pledge to allow Quebec to hold an independence referendum, but he refused, having spent the past decade transforming the former Patri Quebecois into a broad church French-speakers party; he feared doing so would shatter party unity, and alienate pro-union forces that dominated the UdF outside the province,
After three and half weeks of negotiations, the Montreal agreement was completed and accepted by both parties, allowing them to form government at the invitation of the King on the 8th of July, ending the Spencer Government, which had remained in caretaker mode; there was, however, one last crisis to deal with. Trudeau had demanded the right for his MPs to address the House in French, and written translations to be provided. Since this was technically illegal, the King revoked the 1904 Parliamentary Language Act in a rare use of his absolute authority.
The government would prove to be relatively moderate and surprisingly stable, undergoing no full reshuffles during its term. However, Baker's narrow lead on the Labour party throughout the lifespan of the coalition meant he never felt confident enough to call for an early election, instead seeing through the whole term of the 53rd UP Parliament to its conclusion and going on to win a narrow majority in the 2021 election, ending the coalition.
Last edited:
All monarchs after Frederick are fictional and yet OTL's politicians still exist. Also, which provinces in the United Provinces are Francophone?
For the most part, I sort of had to do it this way for things to make sense. And while I will use OTL politicians, I'll use some fictional ones as well in certain places.
As for which are Francophone, Quebec stands alone as the majority Francophone province, but there are substantial populations in Canada, Michigan, Nova Scotia, Vermont, Maine and Rupert's Land. Then there's Louisiana where the southern part of the state is very French, and the north isn't
Last edited:
The very act of marriage in a monarchy back then was a political choice, and political choices are susceptible to change. Meanwhile, politicians originating from "commoner" families are unlikely to have their heritages changed because they were unimportant.
I still don't think anyone alive today would exist ITTL (with the possible exception of uncontacted tribes in the Amazon or New Guinea) due to the massive butterflies that would come from 250 years of alternate wars, migrations and unpredictable events. Imagine if a young man who IOTL produced many descendants died in a war before he had the chance to procreate ITTL. Now multiply that by millions of such instances and you get a completely foreign world.
I think it comes down to different approaches to alternate history. There are timelines that focus more on creating completely new figures, while there are other timelines (especially a lot of graphics timelines) that predominantly use OTL figures even with PODs centuries prior. I think both sorts of timelines have their niche, and when it comes to graphics timelines I personally prefer the latter, since it's more interesting to see what Fidel Castro, for example, got up to ITTL compared to OTL rather than just seeing a bunch of random figures we have no connection with.
Personally, I like graphic timelines that contain both OTL and TTL figures.
Ideas:
- Otto of Greece can have children, and their father's death in 1867 return to the country that he once ruled and become the Greek equivalents to the Battenbergs and Tecks.
- Norway could gain independence in the mid 19th century, with it’s current leader being the OTL Danish Queen,
- The Swedish Holstein-Gottorps can still be around in the present.
This is largely where I lean on this issue. I love creating whole new characters, and they will turn up in certain places, but for the most part, I think using people from OTL ground the story and provide for some fun vignettes. If there is anyone from OTL people want to see, I'd be happy to come up with something for them. As WheelyWheelyLegsNoFeely noted, it's down to personal cut choice. That and it makes my life easier!
1 - That's not a bad idea, Greece's history is a tad different, and ITTL they got awfully close to fulfilling the megali idea, and were able to secure Cyprus and a little more of Thrace before themselves
2 - Norway remained a part of the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway until 1909 when it was granted its own Monarch during the creation of the first Scandinavian Union, the precursor of the later full federation.
3 - That's a fairly good idea, I was tempted to still have our mad French marshal get the job.
She's 24. Given her father's youth, she wasn't expected to take the throne for decades.
There was a terrorist attack on Gerogetown, from elements coming out of the Central African Federation, or as they call it the Sokoto Caliphate. To say things in this world are rather fraught right now would be an understatement.
Last edited:
Thanks!
Good to know.
Bernadotte could become King of Finland.
Shouldn't it be Georgetown unless there is a major city named Washington?
Is this terrorist attack TTL’s equivalent to 9/11? As someone who was born just a few months after the event, it’s crazy to imagine living through that as well as the coronation of a new monarch in the same vein as OTL’s Elizabeth II.
Current events - October 29th 2022
ABC News - October 29th 2022
New Caledonia has voted narrowly, by a margin of less than 1,000, to remain a part of the Commonwealth of Australia, with the final result being announced at midnight local time. The tight race was the culmination of two decades of negotiation between the state and federal Governments over New Caledonia's position within the Australian federation. Australian forces occupied the predominantly French-speaking Island in 1938 during the Second World War. It was transferred to the Commonwealth as a territory in 1947 under the terms of the Treaty of London. The Island, which contained a large ethnically French settler population, and its native Kanaks' remained a territory of Australia until 1967, when it was granted statehood at the request of London. The United Commonwealth, in the early phases of the Second (Third) Civil War, feared that the resurgent French might attempt to regain the Island as they had Corsica and Oran, asked Australia to integrate the Island fully in exchange for passing the Australia act, severing the last constitutional ties between the counties. While statehood bought a greater degree of economic development to the Island, the Island's vast nickel deposits remain its most significant source of economic output.
While statehood was accepted without significant resistance, beginning in the 1980s, there were growing calls for Independence from Australia as many Frech-speakers abandoned the notion of a return to French rule and united with the Kanak sovereignty movement that had been growing in momentum since the 1940s. This eventually resulted in the election of the "New Caledonian Union", a broad church independence party that became, along with the Australia Unity Party, one of the two primary parties of the state. Ruling the Island without interruption since 1997, the NCU has sought a referendum on the Island's position and was finally granted one by the former Rudd government in 2020.
While polling during the leadup to the vote had shown a lead for the independence camp, the ongoing Pacific Economic Crisis led to a drop in support; a matter made worse when the newly elected Turnbull government published its "New Deal for New Caledonia" offering further autonomy within the Australian Commonwealth. However, many figures in New Caledonia tonight are blaming the popular Lord Protector and former Media presenter Steve Irwin, who visited the Island unannounced on Monday to campaign for the No side. While the yes camp has publically accepted the results, as has Premier Roch Wamytan, civil unrest has broken out in many pro-independence communities across the Island as the closeness of the vote became apparent. "What I want," said Irène Degarmo, who had joined a protest in her hometown. "Is another vote. We would have won this had that bastard not come here and the economy been better". While the protests have remained largely peaceful, there are concerns that unrest may intensify tomorrow as the Island awakens to the results.
For the head of the Yes Campaign Philippe Gomès, the results should be viewed "As nothing more than a roadblock, tomorrow we begin making a case for another vote, which I believe we can win", she went on to denounce rioters in the capital and called for calm. Elsewhere, the mood is jubilant with the opposition leader Shannon Noll, known for proclaiming he had been robbed of his victory in the Island's last state election, declaring that "The question of Independence is settled, forever", a sentiment that many would share, though as tonight's result show nearly as many reject.
Last edited:
Don't tell me that COVID still exists ITTL!
I'm more interested though in the "Second (Third) Civil War" mentioned. I'm assuming the first two were OTL's English Civil War and TTL's British Civil War/American Revolution, but what was the third war about?
For the naming conventions. The bracket is to appease Americans, why?
First British Civil War - The break up of America and the UC and the exile of the Monarchy.
Second British Civil war, according to Americans is the OTL American Civil War.
Third British Civil War. Or second according to literally everyone else. As for what it's about, without giving much away, the UC used to be a lot more centralized, and a lot more aristocratic, and that blew up in everyone's face during the 60s.
American historians exclusively used his convention, and you can sort of edit wars on Wikipedia about it
Thanks! Fixed it! And I like the King of Finland idea!
Basically! It will be ITTLs version of 9/11. By the time the day is over, New York and Georgetown were in chaos; over 6,000 people were dead, and the King and Queen were among them, having been the direct targets of a very well-coordinated attack on the capital. It has been just over a year, and the coronation will take place soon, and there are 200,000 men deployed in the ongoing Sokoto War.
How did the attacks get carried out and kill 6000 people? Did planes crash into Parliament and the palace? Even then, I don't think 6000 would fit in them.
Concerning an unrelated subject, I believe to have read somewhere here that the Americans viewed the House of Bonaparte as illegitimate, which is understandable because America is monarchist and Napoleon usurped the throne in their view. But this is at odds with the fundamental basis of the American state: that God has given the royal house a mission to reign over their peoples justly and respect their liberties; this the Bourbons failed to do, losing their “Mandate of Heaven”, if you will, allowing for a new family to take the throne. How did and still how do the Americans reconcile these two viewpoints?
Concerning an unrelated subject, I believe to have read somewhere here that the Americans viewed the House of Bonaparte as illegitimate, which is understandable because America is monarchist and Napoleon usurped the throne in their view. But this is at odds with the fundamental basis of the American state: that God has given the royal house a mission to reign over their peoples justly and respect their liberties; this the Bourbons failed to do, losing their “Mandate of Heaven”, if you will, allowing for a new family to take the throne. How did and still how do the Americans reconcile these two viewpoints?
Last edited: