In the scenario where George Washington became King of America, who would succeed him?

I'll admit that George Washington ever becoming King is kind of ASB, but it was a possibility in early American history if Washington hadn't been a Cincinnatus type. What I'm wondering is who would succeed Washington after his death in 1799. He had no children of his own, only step children who I assume the throne would not pass on to. Could it go to another Washington family member establishing a Washington dynasty? Another possibility is that a foreign noble, perhaps Lafayette would take over and his family would rule from then on. But Americans don't really seem like the type to accept a dynasty, especially a foreign dynasty after they just got rid of the rule of one. Finally, could Alexander Hamilton's idea of an elected king become a possibility post-Washington's death?
 
Last edited:
How likely would be a republican constitution after Washington's reign; changing an elective monarchy to an elective presidency?
 
I don't think a Bolivarian-style presidency is out of the question, especially if the war ends in such a way that there is a serious concern about hostilities resuming or if the indigenous peoples appear to be more of a threat. If we're getting an entirely new person to succeed Washington as head of state because he fails to produce any heirs, it might be a general or some other military figure with successes in either an alt-War of 1812 or in some conflict with Native American Tribes (or maybe with the Spanish over Florida). I'd start looking there, but I don't know enough about the US military at the time (which admittedly could be a very different institution TTL) to know who to choose. How old was Andrew Jackson at the time of Washington's death?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I'm running a thread on the electoral monarchy idea here, although I must point out that in OTL, Hamilton wasn't too clear on the succession method, so it didn't have to become an electoral monarchy per se. On the other hand, as I've argued over there, I'm rather convinced that had Hamilton gotten his way, it would have turned into a fully-fledged plan for an electoral monarchy. That's quite clearly what Hamilton wanted. As for the heir: he was very likely hoping it would be, well... him. And in a situation where his plan is adopted and succesful, he'll surely have a shot at a far greater political career than in OTL, so it's not at all impossible.

Anyway, unless some other POD is given whereby a dynastic monarchy is introduced from the start, I don't think there'll be a ruling dynasty. A Washington monarchy is more likely to become an electoral monarchy, and I think that in the other thread, some ways to make it happen have been discussed.

Another POD, of course, could lead to a foreign monarch being imported. But the most famous candidate, Henry of Prussia, also had no heirs. Of course, Lafayette as first king might well be an option. He was very popular, and it would give you a dynasty. In such a case, the king would probably have far less power, though, and Congress would have more power.
 
George II, of course.
(George Washington Parke Custis. The reason you don`t know him is also the reason the US is not a monarchy.)
Either that or John Adams, if the elected monarchy plan from that Federalist came through.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I could see Lafayette. Washington thought of him as a son. And Lafayette looked at Washington as a father. If Washington accepted a crown, I could see him formally adopting Lafayette and designating him his heir. I also think this would be acceptable to most of the country since Lafayette had fought in the American Army as a general and had defied his own King to do so.
 
I could see Lafayette. Washington thought of him as a son. And Lafayette looked at Washington as a father. If Washington accepted a crown, I could see him formally adopting Lafayette and designating him his heir. I also think this would be acceptable to most of the country since Lafayette had fought in the American Army as a general and had defied his own King to do so.

The problem with that is the issue with giving the crown to a Frenchman. Do the American people really want a Frenchman on their throne? I think that wouldn't fly too well, no matter what he did in the Revolution or what Washington thought of him. They just removed a foreign monarch from power, they wouldn't want to turn around and put an even more foreign one back on their throne. My best bet for the next monarch would be either Hamilton or maybe Knox. If Washington lives longer, Jackson could become a possibility. I'm trying to explore a similar situation in my timeline, and it seems to me that Hamilton definitely intended for his monarchical government to end up with him on the throne, securing his line as rulers of America.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
I could see your argument if Lafayette had only been in America as a French soldier fighting in Rochambeau's Army. But he was here long before that. And as long as Lafayette lived in America since the time Washington adopts him and stays in Anerica, I think he gets to be seen as an American, not a foreigner. Besides, if Washington adopts him, he would no longer be a Lafayette. His surname would be Washington. He even named his son George Washington as it is.

The problem with that is the issue with giving the crown to a Frenchman. Do the American people really want a Frenchman on their throne? I think that wouldn't fly too well, no matter what he did in the Revolution or what Washington thought of him. They just removed a foreign monarch from power, they wouldn't want to turn around and put an even more foreign one back on their throne. My best bet for the next monarch would be either Hamilton or maybe Knox. If Washington lives longer, Jackson could become a possibility. I'm trying to explore a similar situation in my timeline, and it seems to me that Hamilton definitely intended for his monarchical government to end up with him on the throne, securing his line as rulers of America.
 
I could see your argument if Lafayette had only been in America as a French soldier fighting in Rochambeau's Army. But he was here long before that. And as long as Lafayette lived in America since the time Washington adopts him and stays in Anerica, I think he gets to be seen as an American, not a foreigner. Besides, if Washington adopts him, he would no longer be a Lafayette. His surname would be Washington. He even named his son George Washington as it is.
But would it be in Lafayette's interest? If I recall correctly, the Marquis wanted to return to France and facilitate its Revolution, which got him involved in Robespierre, which eventually got him killed. But he really wanted to go help form a republic there, and he was committed.
 

SsgtC

Banned
While that is true, if the US becomes a Constitutional Monarchy with it's King serving as a sort of President for Life, I think he would strongly consider it.

But would it be in Lafayette's interest? If I recall correctly, the Marquis wanted to return to France and facilitate its Revolution, which got him involved in Robespierre, which eventually got him killed. But he really wanted to go help form a republic there, and he was committed.
 
If I recall correctly, the Marquis wanted to return to France and facilitate its Revolution
He returned in France because, well, he lived there, to participate in a late Ancien Régime assembly to enact fiscal reforms; where he argued for the constitution of a larger assembly. Instead, we had the Estate Generals.

He was a liberal reformer, not a revolutionnary in the sense we usually give to the word.

which got him involved in Robespierre, which eventually got him killed.
Not quite dead.
(1757-1834)

But he really wanted to go help form a republic there, and he was committed.
Lafayette was a stunch supporter of a Constitutional Monarch, even in face of the evidence the said monarch was much less enthusiast; which owed him an arrest quickly after the republic was proclaimed (fearing that he would pull a Dumouriez) even before Convention ensured its authority.
 
So now here's a follow up question. If Lafayette moved to America in 1799 to accept the crown, how would that affect the history of the French Revolution and France generally?
 
While that is true, if the US becomes a Constitutional Monarchy with it's King serving as a sort of President for Life, I think he would strongly consider it.

He returned in France because, well, he lived there, to participate in a late Ancien Régime assembly to enact fiscal reforms; where he argued for the constitution of a larger assembly. Instead, we had the Estate Generals.

He was a liberal reformer, not a revolutionnary in the sense we usually give to the word.


Not quite dead.
(1757-1834)


Lafayette was a stunch supporter of a Constitutional Monarch, even in face of the evidence the said monarch was much less enthusiast; which owed him an arrest quickly after the republic was proclaimed (fearing that he would pull a Dumouriez) even before Convention ensured its authority.

Well, everything my US History teacher told me about Lafayette was wrong. Huh. That's a Mississippi education for ya. Maybe he would be eager to be a Constitutional Monarch. That still leaves public opinion, though.
 
If it's an elective monarch - I'm gonna nick from Skallagrim's link and call 'em "Princips" - then it depends on how they're elected. For sake of argument let's say it's the electoral college system, 'advised' by the common man. So the trick would be to convince the masses and also several electors via bribe that it should be Candidate X. Everyone seems sure Hamilton hopes it's him and he'd surely started working on that before Washington's dead or abdicated.

Princip Washington is probably going to abdicate out of exhaustion but probably later than our time, with no convenient election to run out on. Let's say he calls time after the "Quasi-War" tensions with France are settled in 1800 - meaning when the election's on, there's been no Adams, only Washington and the Quasi-War's Major-General Hamilton who has reflected gloss that he'd exploit. So he pulls it off... leaving a lot of unhappy people and bitter enemies and bad press in his wake. More so when he starts increasing centralisation. Things are gonna get nasty when he's in his sixties and wrinkly and there's a lot of tension about who's next in line...

(If he tries to get Alexander Jr as the new princip after his death, that's gonna get nasty.)

EDIT: I'm gonna suggest it - Princip Hamilton II takes power in 1819 (let's say), starting the American Civil War/Second American Revolution depending on your history book as his opponents try to knock him out. Britain & Canada tacitly back the rebels (the Hamiltons fought the War of 1812), the restored French monarchy backs their fellow constitutional monarch, and it all gets very, very nasty.
 
Last edited:
George the Great might pass the crown to his heir Bushrod Washington(crowned George II, caus' seriously King Bushrod?) but you'll have the same issue with heirs, also after George's generation what members of the Washington family stand out as potential candidates? Another alternative would be to pass the crown to John Addams (John the Short) because he has heirs and it would balance the power at the time between the North and South, a Northern King with a Southern Speaker of the House or whatever congress will have.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
But would it be in Lafayette's interest? If I recall correctly, the Marquis wanted to return to France and facilitate its Revolution, which got him involved in Robespierre, which eventually got him killed. But he really wanted to go help form a republic there, and he was committed.

Lafayette wasn't killed in the revolution. He died aged 76 in 1834. He was also not really in favour of a republic, but wanted a constitutional Bourbon monarchy.
 
Lafayette wasn't killed in the revolution. He died aged 76 in 1834. He was also not really in favour of a republic, but wanted a constitutional Bourbon monarchy.
Yeah, we've already addressed that particular misconception of mine. Apparently, my US History teacher either lied to me about Lafayette or didn't have a clue what she was talking about. :idontcare:
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Yeah, we've already addressed that particular misconception of mine. Apparently, my US History teacher either lied to me about Lafayette or didn't have a clue what she was talking about. :idontcare:

Forgive me, I completely missed that being addressed. And you should see what foreign history classes are sometimes like in the Netherlands. Some of the myths presented here as fact are outright bizarre. ;)
 

Skallagrim

Banned
If it's an elective monarch - I'm gonna nick from Skallagrim's link and call 'em "Princips" - then it depends on how they're elected. For sake of argument let's say it's the electoral college system, 'advised' by the common man. So the trick would be to convince the masses and also several electors via bribe that it should be Candidate X. Everyone seems sure Hamilton hopes it's him and he'd surely started working on that before Washington's dead or abdicated.

Princip Washington is probably going to abdicate out of exhaustion but probably later than our time, with no convenient election to run out on. Let's say he calls time after the "Quasi-War" tensions with France are settled in 1800 - meaning when the election's on, there's been no Adams, only Washington and the Quasi-War's Major-General Hamilton who has reflected gloss that he'd exploit. So he pulls it off... leaving a lot of unhappy people and bitter enemies and bad press in his wake. More so when he starts increasing centralisation. Things are gonna get nasty when he's in his sixties and wrinkly and there's a lot of tension about who's next in line...

(If he tries to get Alexander Jr as the new princip after his death, that's gonna get nasty.)

EDIT: I'm gonna suggest it - Princip Hamilton II takes power in 1819 (let's say), starting the American Civil War/Second American Revolution depending on your history book as his opponents try to knock him out. Britain & Canada tacitly back the rebels (the Hamiltons fought the War of 1812), the restored French monarchy backs their fellow constitutional monarch, and it all gets very, very nasty.

All cool, but keep in mind: Washington died in 1799 in OTL. He left office in 1797. Let's say he abdicates in 1798 in this TL. If Hamilton has been a close supporter (and since he was no doubt a key figure in making the monarchy happen), he may very well be the successor. This presupposes he avoids scandal, of course. The thing is, Hamilton will not fight a War of 1812. He wanted to ally with Britain and escalate the Quasi-war to open war against France. This would involve seizing Louisiana by force, instead of buying it.

If Hamilton tries to get his son to succeed him, and this works out, his enemies will be very angry. You may indeed see an attempt at revolution or secession. But Britain is going to back the Hamilton monarchy, and revolutionary France is no longer around. Since Hamilton was very much against slavery (as was his son in OTL, I believe), this whole conflict may lead to the forced abolition of slavery by the early 1820s. Which would be cool. But expect a long Reconstruction analogue for the Southern states...
 
Top