King George I of America

What if the American Founding Fathers failed. Afterall Franklin believed that the Republic wouldn't last, or so it was claimed in a passing remark. Consequentially they remodel the United States as a constitutional monarchy, similar to Britain, albeit with substancial differences in regards to representation & the powers of Congress. And it goes without saying George Washington becomes King of America.

So how does the history of the United States change as a result?

Is there still a Civil War?

And how is world history effected?

Anything else?
 
Been thinking along this same line for a bit. There is an old AH article that a Monarch may have been able to prevented the WBtS or at least would have done alot to reach some sort of compromise. The King could be the 'Guardian of the Constitution'. There are a few US Supreme Court judges, like Salmon Chase (not the later Salmon P. Chase) who should have been removed because of being unfit for service, who could be removed by the Monarch.

I think it would be interesting to consider a peaceful split between the US and the Confederate States - not including Virginia and Kentucky - and there being a dual monarchy period such like that of Austria-Hungary. Foreign affairs and the military will be handled by a small cabinet answering to the King.

Eventually Charleston (or Atlanta) the capital of the Confederacy works out a gradual emancipation of the slaves with some sort of payment. Undoubtedly, there would be some financial aid provided by the Crown that eventually there is a form reunion of the two seperate governments.

I would also suggest that this would be an elegant way to get both Texas, California and Hawaii eventually into the United States. Texas and California send a delegation to Washington City and offer the crown of their respective nations to the King of America. Their legislatures operate as semi-independent nations (which they wish sometimes to act today anyway) with only foreign affairs and the military being directed by the Crown.

Another possibility is that since Jefferson had questions about the legality of the Federal Government buy Louisiana he requests the Crown to arrange finances and purchase the vast land from Napoleon. The same can be said about Alaska, tho the Crown receives some payment for mineral rights.

Its possible that under such an arrangement the Indians, looking toward the Great White Chief in Washington may get a better deal. The lynch pin would be how the Cherokee are dealt with.

Government wise there would still be a president, tho he would be more of a President-Minister for the Crown.

One can never turn their back on the tourism dollars brought in by royal coronations and marriages and the accompanying paraphanalia. Tho if one has ever been to Monacco one can see that things can get a little out of hand.
 
Great ideas there David. That part about the duel Monarchy is certainly a highly original way to deal with the secessionist split over slavery.
 
I like the idea and utility of an American Crown, but David's discussion of it seems to suggest an elective monarchy with the president titled king/guardian of the constitution. One with set terms (King for 4 years) doesn't make sense. One elective until death does, indeed, it makes more sense than notions that Washington would have taken a hereditary throne: since he had no heirs, George I would have immediately created something of a succession crisis. It would also allow the monarchy to grow, becoming more hereditary as time went on, along the lines of the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburgs.

My favorite question, what is the heir's customary title? Leading contenders: Duke of Columbia, Margrave of Alaska, or Prince of the Potomac.
 
I favour a hereditary line originating with George Washington. Tho I believe his stepson via Martha predeceased him. Frankly, I would just get a nephew since there are other surviving members of the same 'blood'. So far I'm not advocating any 'butterflies' but just generally discussing it.

With the formation of the Empire of Brazil Pedro I was granted some not quite deliniated constitutional powers that were to permit him to influence government. I would expect that any power granted the Crown, like recalling the Congress from recess or holding them over until they work things out, will be clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Regarding titles, undoubtedly there would be a US College of Heraldry. I think it would follow the English House of Lords, tho probably with Grand Dukes as titles for members of the Royal Family. Franklin would Duke of Philadelphia, perhaps Robert E. Lee would be Duke of Arlington (which I think Turtledove does use in his fantasy ACW books).

About 'Guardian of the Constitution'. I really see that as part of the King's full title along with 'Defender of the Faiths' or 'Defender of the Faiths and Freedoms'. Perhaps we have:

George, By the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of America, Guardian of the Constitution, Defender of the Faiths.

which becomes:

George III, By the Grace of God, King of the United States and of the Confederate States, King of Texas and California, Emperor of Mexico, Guardian of the Constitutions, Defender of the Faiths.

Something is missing and I'll think about it later. Something to do with 'possessions overseas' etc.

My earliest ATL, even before the advent of the WWW, was on this particular subject. I've got reams of paper typed out on this subject. However, I actually see the title of King becoming superceded by that of Emperor. Just because the King meets and befriends Emperor Norton.
 
Last edited:
George, By the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of America, Guardian of the Constitution, Defender of the Faiths.
Better would be:

By the Consent of the Senate and People of America, George I, Constitutional Emperor of the United States of America, Guardian of the Constitution, Defender of our Freedom.

Mainly because cutting out the terms "God" and "Faith(s)" would foster a secular vision for the American monarchy, as part of the new "imperial republic" built on absolute freedom and representative democracy.
Plus, Emperor implies a more Romanesque/Neoclassical and Revolutionary mindset, which definitely fits the bill for the Americans, especially Washington.
 
I dunno. I guess the hard time I have with it is that it's not America if they're willing to appoint some one king.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
You'd have to have the revolution occur, but it'd have to be less revolutionary, which is possible, but would probably require a PoD before 1750 or so.

I could see a Washington Monarchy being established, but you might need to make Virginia even more important than it was OTL. More immigration to Virginia for some reasons, that would make the other colonies think of Virginia as being even more paramount, and its nobility even more regal....
 
Perhaps this king would simply be a figurehead with limited powers, along the lines of the British Crown, am I on the right track here?
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Perhaps this king would simply be a figurehead with limited powers, along the lines of the British Crown, am I on the right track here?

I'd think any King, established after the revolutioon with Washington as a model, would have more than symbolc powers, first and foremost would be some sort of martial powers.

Washington was viewed as a war leader, pure and simple, of the virtous sort. So, the American King is likely to retain the 'Commander n Chief' role, at the least. (Before any judicial or defender of the constitution roles.)

His powers aren't going to be absolute, of course. Looking at the Articles of Confederation, he'd command the Federal Army no doubt, but everything elese is probably open for negotion. And would likely have his powers limited first and foremost by having strong states over which he'd only have limited powers.

Question is, would things play out as they did OTL, with situations and events inclining americans to convieve of and accept a greater role for 'federal authority' if the centralizing figure is the king?

Washington was still alive and well when the constitution was being ratified, so, it's possible he could have recieved the benefits of the greater powers granted the federal government under its tutalage.


SUCESSION IS STILL THE BIG QUESTION WITH AN AMERICAN MONARCHY,

But I think an american Monarch would have close to, if not all, the powers of an American president constitutionally, with the powers and rights given to the Congress demed sufficient (Even if their argument about that today) to prevent tyranny. And I think AMericans might prove less likely, in the long run, to stiffle the powers of their monarch...
 
Perhaps this king would simply be a figurehead with limited powers, along the lines of the British Crown, am I on the right track here?

You are on the right track. Its very interesting that while the US people didn't want a king like figure to rule over them, they did create a President that had far more power than their former King.
 
Better would be:

By the Consent of the Senate and People of America, George I, Constitutional Emperor of the United States of America, Guardian of the Constitution, Defender of our Freedom.

Mainly because cutting out the terms "God" and "Faith(s)" would foster a secular vision for the American monarchy, as part of the new "imperial republic" built on absolute freedom and representative democracy.
Plus, Emperor implies a more Romanesque/Neoclassical and Revolutionary mindset, which definitely fits the bill for the Americans, especially Washington.

I doubt very many people had the idea they were off to create a secular country after beating the British. Even today, the advent of a 'secular nation' is greatly premature - if not an entire fiction. Why else do we have 'In God We Trust' on our coins? Also this nation isn't built on 'absolute freedom' that a bizarre concept that doesn't appear in the Declaration of Independence or any other accompanying works of the period. You've only got those freedoms listed in the Constitution.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
You are on the right track. Its very interesting that while the US people didn't want a king like figure to rule over them, they did create a President that had far more power than their former King.

That's why I don't think, if Washington were to be made king, he'd have only cerimonial powers. Americans weren't really revolting against the powers of the King, they were revolting against what they precived as their lack of a voice in parliment, and infringements of their economic interest.

The King became an effective rallying point, which kind of assured another king wouldn't take his place. But imagine a revolution where the home-island reps from Parliment were as demonized or more than the king. Then its quite possible, that a new Monarchy could be established. It's just that AMericans would believe their king, and their parliment, would have their best interest at heart.

I don't think that's too far fetches.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
I doubt very many people had the idea they were off to create a secular country after beating the British. Even today, the advent of a 'secular nation' is greatly premature - if not an entire fiction. Why else do we have 'In God We Trust' on our coins? Also this nation isn't built on 'absolute freedom' that a bizarre concept that doesn't appear in the Declaration of Independence or any other accompanying works of the period. You've only got those freedoms listed in the Constitution.

Secular might be a concept too modern for the founders. Lack of an established church seems to fit in well with their beliefs, from which secularism arisese, although I dfoubt it'd be addressed in a King's title. Although defender of the constitution seems apt, and any constituion seems like it would include a provision against forcing people to pay a tax to contribute to a church whose doctrine they don't believe in...alah the Anglican church..


So George I, defender of concience (ie, religious concience) might be appropriate.

And I don't know why we have in god we trust on our coins? I never found it to be a religious / pious statment, as I think of money / financial matters as being pretty bane, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Is there a greater reason than pandering to the sorts who see god and see 'Good' despite whomever the messanger may be? (A messanger like a State, who, despite all its good, shouldn't be worshipped?)
 
Who the next King of America would be is not really that difficult. As Washington himself had no royal title, I could easily see the founding fathers taking a "relaxed" stance upon who is the next King. Washington's adopted son George Washington Parke Custis could fit the role, he would be 18 when King George I dies, and as a bonus he does have some link to noblity as he was a great-grandson of Charles Calvert the 5th Baron Baltimore and of Henry Lee of Ditchley who was Queen Elizabeth's Master of the Royal Armouries.

Yet the opposite of this, is that would congress allow such a young man to become King. They just had a war against a monarch, and even though they are creating one themselves, I doubt they would enjoy someone so young holding such power. So might we see a Regent for a few years before George Washington Parke Custis offically takes the crown? Would John Adams, or some such other do this?

Another thing of note is what status would the other founding fathers take? All had many children, and I could expect quite the scramble to marry the girls off to the next King. For America failing as a Republic means that certain people will take on roles not as political leaders, but as the political leaders. Maybe the Senate is like the House of Lords, and filled with the children of the founding fathers who themselves became Lord Franklin, Lord Jefferson, and Baron Adams.
 
Last edited:

sprite

Donor
Monthly Donor
Monarchs of the USA

Monarchs of the United States of America.

House of Washington

King George I 'Father of the Nation' (1788-1800)

House of Washington-Custis

King George II Parke Custis 'The Poet' (1800-1856)

House of Lee-Custis

Queen Mary 'The Liberator' Anna Randolph (1856-1873)
King George III Washington 'The Peacemaker' (1873-1913)
King Robert I Edward 'The Unready' (1913-1917)


Monarchy abolished 1917 during Progressive revolution.

Replaced with office of President-General.
 
How about:

With the Consent of Both Houses in General Congress Assembled, King George I, Sovereign and High Protector of the American States.


As for an impact on the rest of history, Latin America just lost its main republican model of government.
 
How about:

With the Consent of Both Houses in General Congress Assembled, King George I, Sovereign and High Protector of the American States.


As for an impact on the rest of history, Latin America just lost its main republican model of government.

And how successful has the republican model of government in Latin America been?
 
Top