No, England was mentioned as being a republic during one of the time travelers escapades.
Look to the West Volume V: To Dream Again
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
On a second thought, it seems strange that anyone was worried about a Nordic invasion of Britain,
but nobody would consider the possibility of a Nordic invasion of Iceland and the Faroe Islands, former Nordic/Danish territories despite the Nordics joining the war in the first place in order to regain former Danish territory.
Less reason for Ireland and Iceland to stick with the American Emperor.
And in Ireland's case, they have their own local Lord Deputy whose family is de facto a royal house in Ireland as a third option.
The English regime seems to be a Royal regime.
but nobody would consider the possibility of a Nordic invasion of Iceland and the Faroe Islands, former Nordic/Danish territories despite the Nordics joining the war in the first place in order to regain former Danish territory.
Less reason for Ireland and Iceland to stick with the American Emperor.
And in Ireland's case, they have their own local Lord Deputy whose family is de facto a royal house in Ireland as a third option.
The English regime seems to be a Royal regime.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-volume-iv-tottenham-nil.258681/#post-6794875
Ephraim Ben Raphael
Banned
Quite true. And the fact that the author chose to portray both Emperor and Duke as being saddened and broken up over the event, could imply an eventual reunion and attempts to brush over historical divisions.
There have, however, been a multitude of references to “Atlantic bad blood”.
Or maybe, at some point, Ireland cuts ties with both sides and choose to become fully independent.
I'm not sure who would be king of Ireland in that cause, though.
Pretty sure it was confirmed that England, Scotland and Ireland are all kingdoms, while their dynasties were never mentioned.
I would guess they reconcile somewhat. They are all allies in the present day, aren't they?
Last edited:
Thande
Donor
Technically the plural would be Lords-President
...though by 1900 most people just say President and Presidents.1788-1795: George Augustine Washington, 1st Viscount Washington (crossbencher)
1795-1799: Alexander Hamilton, 1st Baron Hamilton (Patriot) (1st term)
1799-1805: James Monroe (Constitutionalist)
1805-1811: Alexander Hamilton, 1st Baron Hamilton (Patriot) (2nd term)
1811-1814: Augustus Seymour (Patriot)
1814-1819: Matthew Quincy (Constitutionalist)
1819-1822: Artemas Ward Jr. (Patriot)
1822-1825: Josiah Crane (Patriot, leading Patriot-Whig coalition; Patriot minority government after 1824)
1825-1828: Benjamin Harrison VII† (Whig, leading Whig-Carterite Patriot coalition; died in office)
1828-1828: Solomon Carter (Carterite Patriot, leading Whig-Carterite Patriot coalition; acting Lord President for a brief period, while the Whigs elected a new leader)
1828-1832: Andrew Eveleigh (Whig, leading Whig-Carterite Patriot coalition; deposed by confidence vote)
1832-1832: Albert Sinclair (Whig, leading Whig-Carterite Patriot coalition)
1832-1839: Eric Mullenbergh† (Radical, leading Radical-Neutral coalition)
1839-1839: Derek Boyd (Neutral, leading Radical-Neutral coalition; acting Lord President for a brief period, while the Radicals elected a new leader)
1839-1840: John Vanburen (Radical, leading Radical-Neutral coalition, then Liberal minority after party merger and split) (1st term)
1840-1844: Nathaniel Crowninshield (reunited Patriot)
1844-1848: John Vanburen (Liberal, leading Liberal-Patriot “American Coalition”) (2nd term)
1848-1851: Peter Martin† (Supremacist, leading Supremacist-Liberal “Reform Coalition” and then “War Coalition”)
1851-1853: John Vanburen (Liberal, leading Supremacist-Liberal “War Coalition”) (3rd term)
1853-1857: Francis Bassett (Patriot, leading Patriot-Independents “Peace Coalition” or “Anti-Reform Coalition”)
1857-1862: Lewis Studebaker (Supremacist minority 1857-8, Supremacist-Liberal National Government 1858-62)
1862-1867: Thomas Whipple (Liberal minority)
1867-1872: Joseph Fletcher (Supremacist)
1872-1875: Albert Braithwaite† (Liberal)
1875-1885: Michael Chamberlain (Liberal)
1885-1887: Henry Foxbury (Supremacist)
1887-1892: Dennis Cooper (Liberal)
1892-1898: Stuart Jamison (Supremacist)
1898-1900: Lewis Burwell (Supremacist)
1900-????: Lewis Faulkner (Liberal minority with Mentian support)
(NB some of the ones between Whipple and Burwell will also have been minorities but I haven't worked out the details of that yet)
The Duke of Dublin.
Diversitarian allies which means that reconciliation has to be limited.
DIVIDED WE STAND, UNITED WE FALL
Perhaps Ireland plots a middle course between the two. Keeps the Emperor-King in charge, but leans on the Dukes of Dublin to be the stand in. Canada has a comparable system, paying lip service to a monarch, but in reality the monarch's representative, the Governor General, has all the power and does all the work.
A quick question for you Thande, does the reference to "the ice fayres of Mount-Royal" indicate that the Carnaval of Quebec still exists and is thriving ITTL? Though presumably based more at Mount-Royal then Wolfeston (which if memory serves is the moniker Quebec city was rechristened with). And if that's the case, will Bronhomme de neige be making an appearance, or no dice for that toqued and besashed mascot? Also, is it safe to assume fayre is one of those words that got re-anglicized from french spelling, or is that a typo on your part?
A quick question for you Thande, does the reference to "the ice fayres of Mount-Royal" indicate that the Carnaval of Quebec still exists and is thriving ITTL? Though presumably based more at Mount-Royal then Wolfeston (which if memory serves is the moniker Quebec city was rechristened with). And if that's the case, will Bronhomme de neige be making an appearance, or no dice for that toqued and besashed mascot? Also, is it safe to assume fayre is one of those words that got re-anglicized from french spelling, or is that a typo on your part?
Well, that’s already what’s going on, isn’t it? Aren’t the Dukes of Dublin already the hereditary acting heads of state of Ireland?
The important difference is that the Lord Deputies of Ireland in the 19th century were not just monarch's representatives.
Richard Wesley, 1st Duke of Mornington who has been Lord Deputy of Ireland for several decades was described as king in all but name.
The next Lord Deputy was his grandson Arthur Wesley, 1st Duke of Dublin who was later succeeded by James Wesley, 2nd Duke of Dublin.
What does Ireland get for paying lip service to the distant American emperor?
All the benefits of de-facto independence, with none of the drawbacks of being a small fish in a big pond. Ireland is already benefiting from being a separate realm in terms of tax arrangements, tying itself back to Britain would likely cause a great deal of damage economically. After all, if Britain is going independent and re-orientating itself towards Europe economically (as it presumably would if this Atlantic bad blood pans out), Ireland can remain Europe's gateway to the Hannoverian realms in North America, whilst keeping its autonomy and the Dukes of Dublin more or less in charge on the ground.
Bulldoggus
Banned
Also, "Atlantic Bad Blood" could well mean just mutual distrust and discord, not necessarily political disunion.
Ireland does benefit from de jure independence. De facto, the Irish independence is restricted as foreign and military policy shown.
Britain's misfortune was that the Kingdom of the Britons was bigger, less united and less lucky than Ireland and most importantly run by an elite less committed to local/national interests than their Irish counterparts.
Join the Marseilles Protocol which has provided other small European states with protection.
A colony in Tejas???
Now we are talking. Expansion in the Novamund would be impossible without being approved by the Septens.
I think it clearly means almost if not quite the opposite though. Nonnegotiable bottom line, England and Scotland are not going to trust to a single overarching monarchy again, not if it means de facto "Novamund" rule and being treated as an auxiliary. We did see some developing "distrust and discord" indeed, but time will tell whether a dynastic clean break will paper over that, as "Jonathans" in private business come to regret losing an inside track to British business and vice versa (emphasis on the Novamundians having regrets because they were the gigantic tail wagging the Anglo-Scottish dog and are the ones who have to offer attractive concessions to patch things over, but Britons certainly might regret losing an inside track to the vast and expanding ENA markets too). Being masters in their own house will go a long way toward patching over accumulated resentments I think. Or can; it is in the author's hands which way it develops from here.
Certainly the Emperor's self-reproaches are a possible olive branch, if he can convey some effective version of this attitude--"the Hanoverian lines should reconcile, and we were in the wrong and should be generous." Being a different man than his father, the new Emperor can reconcile a policy of re-harmonization with personal innocence, as long as he doesn't project being mortally offended.
Obviously in neither realm does the monarch simply dictate; each must cultivate attitudes in the rival parliamentary factions consistent with their aims and might well be repudiated, by one party or both. There is plenty of latitude for movement in either direction. The ambiguous messages of the 21st century snapshots don't seem like decisive prophecy to me. The rise of Diversitarian ideology which we have reason to think predominates in all three British Isles realms and in the Novamund too could be grounds for insisting on different monarchs or provide cover for four disjunct realms under one crowned head, or it even seems disputed whether some or all might be republics by the 2000s.
We have a whole century to go, reflect on how the ATL stood in 1800 and how long ago those posts were! And how many canon posts there have been between then and ATL 1900 and these final posts of this book!
At any rate, if we look ahead to any possibility of dynastic reunification, the "distrust and discord" must be resolved first. We shall not have any grounds to expect dynastic reunification without some combination of "behind their backs" reconvergence of divergent interest (I would not put much weight on that) and conscious and deliberate attempts to bridge gaps, almost certainly involving institutionalizing local power at least to a degree that makes Novamund and British Isles policy run on separate tracks with local accountability first, followed by active governmental mechanisms to harmonize, or organize agreements to disagree, at the top level. Without this there is no reason to expect either side to be able to impose its own one-sided notion of forced unity on the other. Quite likely if such mechanisms can be talked out, they can work about as well with four realms as with two and the separations between Scotland and England, and that of Ireland with either continuing, should be expected to remain. Of course maybe the Novamund empire can "restore" unity by main force, but I would anticipate great difficulty deterring all but a fanatical faction, with active opposition to such highhandedness to be found in American politics and of course quickly rising to high levels in the British kingdoms, should ENA blowhards seem to gain the upper hand across the sea. If the enterprise is attempted I would think it would end very badly for all concerned, and we can at least see by the 2000s era frame stories any such attempt has either been deterred successfully, or has collapsed pretty ignominiously. As it would deserve to!
I think my own inclinations in 1900 of the ATL, were I to visualize myself as an American "Jonathan" of the Novamund ENA, would be a conflict between Mentian ambitions and a general philosophy that union is better than disunion. This might often suggest diametrically opposite short run policy preferences of course; I suppose it would be a question of which direction seemed more attainable combined with whether a generic preference for recovering union of the Anglosphere and by implication under some Hanoverian subdynasty would be in direct conflict with Mentian radical aims versus the two being as it were at right angles, advancing one does not directly aid or impede the other at all.
But mentally I seceded from ENA allegiance long ago, favoring the USPA until it came to its tragic messy end and before that jumping ship to California, where I can still fancy an Adamantine-Mentian faction being a major player.
Noting that mapping OTL Leftism onto Mentianism, which is I suppose wrong by Thande's ukase, also overlaps Societist unity of humanity notions.
I've probably said it before but not recently here I guess--I dislike the notion that "economics being yoked to political ideology" via class struggle and so forth is merely an arbitrary OTL hobbyhorse. I think it is a real and solid thing, having a perturbing effect on real world political alignments whether people are conscious of it or not. Most of the "oversimplification" Marxists and their critics alike are accused of OTL strikes me as the idle talk of talking heads on both sides, but actual mass movements align around real discontents and ambitions and hopes and fears, and those Marxists I respect the most are pretty good at factoring in realistic caveats and complications--in the abstract and in analysis if not so hot at putting the programmatic pedal to the metal of realistic and ear to the ground current politics. Indeed I think Marx personally and many a Marxist in his wake have failed to be very good politicians. Nevertheless analysis of evolving societies remains most astute and apt from a dialectical materialist point of view. The author wants it to be otherwise and I remain suspicious of the realism of any moves that are forced just to provide a contrast, but it is not so easy to discern that as things evolve in the various nations and alleged supernational Societist factions. It seems to plod on on pretty solid ground.
Anyway California seems to be slipping more or less into the Russian sphere, but I suspect maintains enough latitude of free action so there is little danger of it simply falling under their direct thumb. I would expect many an immigrant Russian by ethnicity values their freedom of action as a Californian and while favoring Russia sentimentally and as far as they can carve out a valuable role as a Russian ally, would balk at schemes to rob themselves of full autonomy. Nor can California afford to seem too hostile or threatening to the ENA which lies so ominously right on its borders, with I gather having for a time anyway gained an effective upper hand over northern Mexico. It is all very well that the Russian presence in the Novamund is stronger than ever, especially counting themselves as no mean Russian ally, but the Russian ability to defend California is limited both in reach and sure intent; from a Russian POV California, or anyway parts of it, might seem like a pawn to sacrifice. Trying to play both off against the other will work best if they diplomatically and strategically take a high road, of reasonable levels of self defense but not any appearance of building power to levels that pose a major threat to either, of looking for ways to be a profitable and useful trade partner to both.
But mentally I seceded from ENA allegiance long ago, favoring the USPA until it came to its tragic messy end and before that jumping ship to California, where I can still fancy an Adamantine-Mentian faction being a major player.
Noting that mapping OTL Leftism onto Mentianism, which is I suppose wrong by Thande's ukase, also overlaps Societist unity of humanity notions.
I've probably said it before but not recently here I guess--I dislike the notion that "economics being yoked to political ideology" via class struggle and so forth is merely an arbitrary OTL hobbyhorse. I think it is a real and solid thing, having a perturbing effect on real world political alignments whether people are conscious of it or not. Most of the "oversimplification" Marxists and their critics alike are accused of OTL strikes me as the idle talk of talking heads on both sides, but actual mass movements align around real discontents and ambitions and hopes and fears, and those Marxists I respect the most are pretty good at factoring in realistic caveats and complications--in the abstract and in analysis if not so hot at putting the programmatic pedal to the metal of realistic and ear to the ground current politics. Indeed I think Marx personally and many a Marxist in his wake have failed to be very good politicians. Nevertheless analysis of evolving societies remains most astute and apt from a dialectical materialist point of view. The author wants it to be otherwise and I remain suspicious of the realism of any moves that are forced just to provide a contrast, but it is not so easy to discern that as things evolve in the various nations and alleged supernational Societist factions. It seems to plod on on pretty solid ground.
Anyway California seems to be slipping more or less into the Russian sphere, but I suspect maintains enough latitude of free action so there is little danger of it simply falling under their direct thumb. I would expect many an immigrant Russian by ethnicity values their freedom of action as a Californian and while favoring Russia sentimentally and as far as they can carve out a valuable role as a Russian ally, would balk at schemes to rob themselves of full autonomy. Nor can California afford to seem too hostile or threatening to the ENA which lies so ominously right on its borders, with I gather having for a time anyway gained an effective upper hand over northern Mexico. It is all very well that the Russian presence in the Novamund is stronger than ever, especially counting themselves as no mean Russian ally, but the Russian ability to defend California is limited both in reach and sure intent; from a Russian POV California, or anyway parts of it, might seem like a pawn to sacrifice. Trying to play both off against the other will work best if they diplomatically and strategically take a high road, of reasonable levels of self defense but not any appearance of building power to levels that pose a major threat to either, of looking for ways to be a profitable and useful trade partner to both.
And at the end of the last segment was the recognition that his brother's descendants won't rule (pre-1988) England.
I think all this speculation about how to reunite England, Scotland and America is misguided. Just because the in-universe author of this segment clearly thinks the divorce was a bad idea and chooses to portray George IV as a sympathetic character, doesn't mean that people in England and Scotland in-universe would agree with him/her.
This sort of thing—a "Glorious Revolution", the overthrow of an arrogant and oppressive regime, which treated the lives of the people of this country as valueless and cared more about appeasing its foreign overlords than serving the people, by the people—is a national story. It's the sort of thing that becomes a national mythology, absolutely foundational to how a nation perceives itself and its place in the world. (Note that description could be just as easily applied to certain OTL events as to the ATL revolution we've just seen.) Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum, except perhaps the most extreme of the extreme fringes, will be calling upon this story and reframing it to suit their own ends and paint themselves as its heirs. Some people in OTL have a habit of talking about markets as if it's the only important thing in the universe, but there are some things people care more about than they care about markets. Maintaining its sense that it is an independent country, not a puppet of the old oppressors, is more important to a country than having economic access to a large and useful market. As a thought-experiment—suppose that, somehow, everyone in the OTL United States knew that the USA would be more prosperous if it joined a union with European monarchies. Would Americans vote to do that?
After an experience like this, I can't see where the political will would be for England and (especially) Scotland—whose independence was made possible by a grand act of defiance against a pro-American regime—to seek political closeness with America. Anyone proposing it will immediately be tarred with a dark brush because people will associate them mentally with the enemy in the national mythology. Americans are likely to be the usual villains in English and Scottish movies for at least a generation. Imagine OTL's United States of America deciding, hey, George III wasn't that bad, let's rejoin the UK! Or imagine modern-day Vietnam deciding to join France. Or what about the Dutch Republic wanting to go under the Habsburg dynasty? Perhaps OTL Ukraine and Russia, post-Crimean-annexation, wanting to share a head of state? That's about as plausible as LTTW England and Scotland agreeing to rejoin themselves as appendages to the Empire of North America IMO. A personal union is out of the question and a political union is totally out of the window, unless imposed by force of arms.
This isn't to say that the ENA and England and Scotland will always hate each other. I'm not saying that. But I really really really REALLY do not think it is believable that England and Scotland would be willing to form any kind of union with America, after the events of TTL (though the Americans' opinion of this may well be different). They might be allies of the Empire of North America but I don't think they will consent to be joined to a union with it, ever again.
This sort of thing—a "Glorious Revolution", the overthrow of an arrogant and oppressive regime, which treated the lives of the people of this country as valueless and cared more about appeasing its foreign overlords than serving the people, by the people—is a national story. It's the sort of thing that becomes a national mythology, absolutely foundational to how a nation perceives itself and its place in the world. (Note that description could be just as easily applied to certain OTL events as to the ATL revolution we've just seen.) Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum, except perhaps the most extreme of the extreme fringes, will be calling upon this story and reframing it to suit their own ends and paint themselves as its heirs. Some people in OTL have a habit of talking about markets as if it's the only important thing in the universe, but there are some things people care more about than they care about markets. Maintaining its sense that it is an independent country, not a puppet of the old oppressors, is more important to a country than having economic access to a large and useful market. As a thought-experiment—suppose that, somehow, everyone in the OTL United States knew that the USA would be more prosperous if it joined a union with European monarchies. Would Americans vote to do that?
After an experience like this, I can't see where the political will would be for England and (especially) Scotland—whose independence was made possible by a grand act of defiance against a pro-American regime—to seek political closeness with America. Anyone proposing it will immediately be tarred with a dark brush because people will associate them mentally with the enemy in the national mythology. Americans are likely to be the usual villains in English and Scottish movies for at least a generation. Imagine OTL's United States of America deciding, hey, George III wasn't that bad, let's rejoin the UK! Or imagine modern-day Vietnam deciding to join France. Or what about the Dutch Republic wanting to go under the Habsburg dynasty? Perhaps OTL Ukraine and Russia, post-Crimean-annexation, wanting to share a head of state? That's about as plausible as LTTW England and Scotland agreeing to rejoin themselves as appendages to the Empire of North America IMO. A personal union is out of the question and a political union is totally out of the window, unless imposed by force of arms.
This isn't to say that the ENA and England and Scotland will always hate each other. I'm not saying that. But I really really really REALLY do not think it is believable that England and Scotland would be willing to form any kind of union with America, after the events of TTL (though the Americans' opinion of this may well be different). They might be allies of the Empire of North America but I don't think they will consent to be joined to a union with it, ever again.