Relations between Chartist Britain and the USA

PoD: Queen Victoria is stillborn or dies during her childhood. Ernest August becomes King of the United Kingdom sometime in the 1830s and gets ousted by a republican revolution within a decade of the beginning of his reign. He still rules Hanover. The HEIC is for all intents and purposes independent.
What kind of relation would the British Republic have with the United States? Does the Mexican-American still happen? What will be the fate of Canada?
 
Was it a French style revolution of the middle and lower classes, or an American style of the ruling class?

If French (which seems more likely) then relations with both America and France better but the trouble with all rebulics is they are by their very nature short-termist they lack the ability to take the long view because no leader can be there for more than 8 years.

I would expect all the colonies to be "set free" by the new government, however if Earnst was alive and still commanded some troops there may be some battles between royals and revolutionaries in the colonies.

India is just to big a prize to loose (sorry to the dominions) so that is going to be the hot spot.
 
The OP and the thread title are incongruent: the Chartists weren't revolutionaries, they were parliamentary reformers who wanted a wider franchise and a fairer voting system, not a Republic; indeed, the fact that they send petitions (Charters) to Parliament and the monarch shows that they were committed to the parliamentary system.
 
The OP and the thread title are incongruent: the Chartists weren't revolutionaries, they were parliamentary reformers who wanted a wider franchise and a fairer voting system, not a Republic; indeed, the fact that they send petitions (Charters) to Parliament and the monarch shows that they were committed to the parliamentary system.
Right. My idea is that in the face of a more intransigent king, they'd turn to republicanism, but I agree it's confusing. I'll try to edit the title.
 
The OP and the thread title are incongruent: the Chartists weren't revolutionaries, they were parliamentary reformers who wanted a wider franchise and a fairer voting system, not a Republic; indeed, the fact that they send petitions (Charters) to Parliament and the monarch shows that they were committed to the parliamentary system.

On the other hand, both the US and french future revolutionary started out just wanting reforms, not overthrow so it might start that way with the chartrist but go downhill from there.
 
PoD: Queen Victoria is stillborn or dies during her childhood. Ernest August becomes King of the United Kingdom sometime in the 1830s and gets ousted by a republican revolution within a decade of the beginning of his reign. He still rules Hanover. The HEIC is for all intents and purposes independent.
The HEIC needs British military support (or -- for example -- the Great Mutiny, if that still happens, will completely destroy its power) and potentially, although less so than when France was still a major threat, British naval support as well.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The HEIC needs British military support (or -- for example -- the Great Mutiny, if that still happens, will completely destroy its power) and potentially, although less so than when France was still a major threat, British naval support as well.
What if you have a Republican home Islands who -can't- or isn't willing to help the EIC put down the Great mutiny?
 
If French (which seems more likely) then relations with both America and France better but the trouble with all rebulics is they are by their very nature short-termist they lack the ability to take the long view because no leader can be there for more than 8 years.

8 years? Why only eight? If they follow the same rules for leaders that parliament has had then there's not really a limit.
 
What if you have a Republican home Islands who -can't- or isn't willing to help the EIC put down the Great mutiny?
If the HEIC even manages to hold on to power until the OTL date of that uprising, the initial rebellion followed by most native princes' rejecting the British overlordship that they'd previously found it expedient to accept almost certainly see the HEIC pushed back to -- if it's lucky -- Bombay and the Carnatic, losing all of its gains from Clive's time onwards. Pretty well all Europeans who were living further north than that in 'British' India are massacred. At least some of the rebel-held areas accept a nominal restoration of Mughal suzerainty for a generation or two, but in the perceived absence of a serious external threat 'India' actually begins to balkanise again quite quickly.
Oh, and various peripheral areas get taken over by Afghanistan, Nepal, or Burma.
 
Well taking a broad speculation, where Ernest Augustus, maybe with the Duke of Wellington as PM, basically try to maintain a High Tory rump and are forced to flee during an uprising, you'd probably get a mishmash of results.

I think you'll need a middle-class and working-class alliance for a relatively simple revolution, it will also see lofty ideas beyond cheaper bread and full employment come in. remember the Chartists were more an 1840s thing, brought about by the middle-classes being placated by the 1832 Reform Act. Avoid that and they remain united.

I think radical overhaul of constituencies, universal manhood suffrage (or rather household suffrage), abolition of the Lords, replacing it with a Senate I imagine, though they might go unicameral. Removal of tariffs, depending on the make-up of the revolution, independence for Ireland (though possibly as a de facto satellite of Britain) or if not, the new Republic has its first war on its hands.

I actually doubt the HEIC would 'secede' from Britain - there's still plenty of middle-class self-made man types in the Company hierarchy and I imagine they'll want British markets over loyalty to some reactionary German nut job. I can see some of the princely states using the situation to revolt but the situation on the ground hasn't changed so I think at worst it will be a smaller *Indian Mutiny.

Given the Westminster system that will probably maintained in some form, I can see a ceremonial President with long terms being put in place as a unifying figure head, to oversee a Parliament that might very well have annual elections though I doubt this, they could still be 3 or 4 years fixed terms.

Canada is going through its own revolts at this time - however I can imagine it will be complicated. whats to say a strong Royalist faction don't declare for the King? Republic tells them to go stuff it, local nationalists rise up and then the Americans see whats going on and might take advantage. Maybe they seize them or set up puppets, or maybe the Republic sorts it out and establishes a dominion thirty years early? Of course without a monarch such a state might be either a more equal free state in alliance or an autonomous part of the Republic.

Apart from that I can't see the colonies being let go.

I imagine for revolution to hit Britain, the King will have to had annoyed a lot of people and if its a 'American' style affair, I can see large parts of the Army and Navy joining in or simply sitting by while the King is booted out.

I can imagine a lot of people expecting a reformed monarchy however, with Ernst Augustus in good health and with a power base in Hanover, I can see the Republic slowly forming for practical and ideological reasons. EA's son George wasn't much of a liberal himself so you've got a couple of generations for the Republic to become entrenched.

---------------

ANYWAY - the OP: I think republican brotherhood will strengthen the good old humour if there's no Canadian War, at least at first. However there's a good chance populism will have a greater impact on British politics in such a world. Say the ACW breaks out. Say a *Trent Affair happens. Well the likes of Palmerston might just get their wish and declare war on the Union.
 
I think a British Republic is highly likely to have a very positive relationship with the Americans. They will both share an identity of Anglo-Saxon liberty throwing off monarchical rule, and the Americans will see the revolution as a successor to their own, while the British put more emphasis of both revolutions tracing back to the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution. I think it's highly likely that British North America will become another Republic as the country sees the opportunity to demand more self-rule, which will again help the British-American relationship.
 
The Duke of Cambridge is going to be a joker in the pack

Before the time of the Mutiny, it was not unusual for Europeans to settle to a quasi-Indian life in the North, being friends with the local nobility and unmolested.

The Mughal Empire could certainly reassert its existing rights but whether it would be stable enough to grow back into a power I doubt.

Ranjit Singh and go might achieve a lot more, tho

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think that the public opinion in the US would regard a republican britain much more favourably that it did a monarchist one.
Back then, Americans still equated monarchy with tyranny.
 
Top