Successful Chartists: What Happens to the Empire?

archaeogeek

Banned
If 1839 is our definite date, HEIC India still was relatively open to natives and to mixed marriages. The policies of evangelism, religious antagonism and racialism didn't really start until the 1840s. If the relationship with London becomes - strained - then it's very possible it stays that way.
So they' become a sort of Raj in exile instead of the HEIC of the mutiny.

Not sure about Canada under those circumstances. The rebellion has been definitively put down by that point; even the USA probably sees that the opportunity has been missed.
The USA was sympathetic to the rebellion, but made no moves towards a filibuster. There would be feelers for statehood, but it would have to be like Texas (i.e. the new republic asks, not the US invades - Canada's 1812 victimhood complex is ridiculous).

The ownership of the Oregon Teritory has not been settled yet. I wonder if the USA demands the whole thing from the new British Government?
There were no settlers whatsoever in Oregon territory at that point. There are slight chances of the US swooping in, but without the Columbia gold rush, neither side is going to be rushing for it.

If the RN chooses Country over King, any invasion is - unlikely. Louis-Philippe isn't going to go for it. Off the top of my head, I suspect Prussia, Russia and Austria lack the naval capacity to do so anyway.

Of course, it could also suffer as the french navy did: loss of officers in mutinies and the like. But Louis-Philippe is probably not going to risk giving the republicans ideas, his reign is fragile and he's not going to go it alone.
 
I think a very important factor in determining the East India Company's ability to exist Independence of a Chartist Great Britain would be the allegiance of Scotland. A very high percentage of the Company's employees were Scots, including a surprising number of the Company's Board of Directors. See "The Scottish Empire." Enough of the men on the ground who actually ran the company were Scottish that without their continued loyalty, the Company would have a great deal of difficulty maintaining its control over India on its own. Therefore how well the Chartists managed to integrate Scotland into their new Republic would directly effect the EITC's ability to exist independently of the Empire.

Though it was largely integrated into the political framework of Great Britain by 1800, there were still political divisions in Scotland at the time that could have estranged that part of the country from a Revolutionary government. Two issues that could have estranged Scotland from a Chartist government would be religion, and the status of Peers. The Church of Scotland was divided between the Evangelical and the more "High Church" faction over the issue of patronage, and any attempt by the central government to take a side could have caused a great deal of discord. More likely, any attempt by the central government to reduce the power/influence of the great Dukes would great a lot of resistance in Scotland. Much more than in England or Wales, a very small group of Lords controlled a vast amount of wealth and power in Scotland. Any attempt to reduce that influence would have estranged the ruling class of Scotland, and possibly led to violence.

On the other hand, I could be overestimating the degree to which Scotland was distinct from the rest of the UK in the early 19th century, and its attachment to the House of Hanover. Anybody more knowledgable about that topic?
 
On the other hand, they might try and find a more palatable royal and put him/her on the throne. After all, that's exactly what they did in France in 1830 after Charles VI behaved in a similarly dickish manner, and they had been a republic well within living memory - this would be all the more likely to happen if prominent Whigs defected to the rebel side. I'm not sure whether there are any other male cadet branches of the Royal Family around at this time however.
 
Something to keep in mind: The Chartists were not radical socialists. In fact, a look at their demands suggests they were successful. There was significant middle class support for their ideas, after all.

Further, to get a Revolution to have any chance, you will need the English middle classes on board. I think this is viable, but it suggests the English state will make it through intact, with the navy not defecting under the threat of radical mutinies.

(For some reason I imagine the British Revolution being remarkably civilized, with a bunch of parliamentarians showing up at Buckingham and telling Ernst to get out before they throw him out).


IIRC, just one of the Chartist demands did not become law in England: yearly elections. This, as well as the fact that the Hyde Park meeting ended up without bloodshed, demonstrates that the Chartists were not just very reasonable people but visionary too.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, they might try and find a more palatable royal and put him/her on the throne. After all, that's exactly what they did in France in 1830 after Charles VI behaved in a similarly dickish manner, and they had been a republic well within living memory - this would be all the more likely to happen if prominent Whigs defected to the rebel side. I'm not sure whether there are any other male cadet branches of the Royal Family around at this time however.

Charles X.
It's also important to note the division between the senior branch of the Bourbons and the junior branch: the Dukes of Orléans. Philippe Égalite voted for the death of Louis XVI and it was never forgotten--while Louis Philippe returned to France with his family, Louis XVIII snubbed them, practically ensuring that Louis-Philippe moved into liberal opposition political circles. While he was on friendlier terms with Charles, the damage was done. Louis-Philippe had no taste for his cousin's reactionary politics, and quickly took the throne when it was offered to him.

The British family wasn't divided in such a way, so it makes it unlikely a cadet branch would be raised to the throne. The only extant branch, if Ernst is king, IIRC, are the Dukes of Cambridge. After that, there are no Hannoverians left, not counting George III's unmarried daughters, who in the 1830s are spinsters.
 
If you're startign in 1839 all this talk of Republic and revolution and wondering whether they'll be able to take the RN is kinda superfluous. The Chartists were never that radical (I should know-I've been studying them for the past two months for my A levels) and at this time they were even less so. Their main leader was William Lovett who believed in moral force and not in violent revolution. Even the most popular Chartist leader, Feargus O'Connor repeatedly shied away from violence and in 1848 actually encouraged the enormous crowd of pro-Chartists who'd assembled in London to go home peacefully.

If that Charter of 1839 had been accepted by Parliament-maybe a few more Radicals had been elected a few years previously, then not an awful lot would change. The Chartists weren't anti-imperialist and were very much of their time-they were just as racist and imperialist as everyone else was in Europe at that time. You'd have a more representative Parliament and probably a better democracy. You might get earlier votes for women (there were some notable female Chartists) and probably a stronger social democrat tradition in Britain but certainly no revolution.

If you want revolution then 1848 is your best bet. Chartism was at its most radical, it had the highest numbers (I think 6 million people signed the 1848 Charter) and the government was the most afraid of it then-Lord John Russell mobilised thousands of soldiers to defend London and the Royal Family fled to the Isle of Wight. All you'd need is for a few scuffles between soldiers and Chartists to end very badly, maybe someone says 'fire' in a rather inopportune moment and you might have a revolution . . . or just another bloody repression a la Peterloo or the Newport Rising.
 
This period is the best for ending up with a republic by default because there is no viable cadet branch of the royal family - the Duke of Cambridge was a military man and would have been directly involved in Ernest's regime.

The question of what would happen to the aristocracy is an interesting one - a lot of the more recent creations (last century or so) are either military, political or mercantile/industrial rewards. You can say that is always how the aristocracy reinvigorates itself, but it means that a fair amount of British industrial wealth and viable land is under someone who sits in the House of Lords. It would be very hard even for a revolutionary regime to destroy this, and therefore difficult to do away with the Lords as a hereditary house.

What's more likely is the usual pattern where anyone who sided with Ernest ends up exiled and attainted and new noble creations are made from those who side with the revolution. Of course, you then end up with the question of legitimacy - once the king is definitely gone as an institution who issues the letters patent? I can't see the republic doing it, so at that moment you get an impasse where there has to be some change in how the Lords is seen.


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

archaeogeek

Banned
This period is the best for ending up with a republic by default because there is no viable cadet branch of the royal family - the Duke of Cambridge was a military man and would have been directly involved in Ernest's regime.

The question of what would happen to the aristocracy is an interesting one - a lot of the more recent creations (last century or so) are either military, political or mercantile/industrial rewards. You can say that is always how the aristocracy reinvigorates itself, but it means that a fair amount of British industrial wealth and viable land is under someone who sits in the House of Lords. It would be very hard even for a revolutionary regime to destroy this, and therefore difficult to do away with the Lords as a hereditary house.

What's more likely is the usual pattern where anyone who sided with Ernest ends up exiled and attainted and new noble creations are made from those who side with the revolution. Of course, you then end up with the question of legitimacy - once the king is definitely gone as an institution who issues the letters patent? I can't see the republic doing it, so at that moment you get an impasse where there has to be some change in how the Lords is seen.


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The Swiss faced this situation; they had hereditary aristocracy in much of the cantons. Based on what they did, they simply abolished the titles between 1797 and 1848, more or less violently. I could see the House of Lords going on for maybe a generation before it exploded again.
 
I hadn't really considered Australia and New Zealand, but I don't see much of a chance for revolution there. Maybe it would receive a lot of royalist immigration and become a monarchy with no-one on the throne (though of course, the King is still around; Hanoverian Australia?)?


The problem is that they're too sparsely populated. New Zealand hasn't even had the Treaty of Waitangi yet, so if it does become settled it'll be by Republicans. As for Australia, what settlements there are skew towards the poor and working class. To say nothing of the still extant transportation. There's neither the power base for independence at this time, nor the will for it.

Besides, who's going to flee to Australasia? People often had to be subsidised to come out there. If they're poor royalists, that's not going to happen. If they're middle class or rich, why would they go? Exile in France, or the USA, or one of the German states is so much more practical, civilised and above all affordable.

Oh, and if you go to Australia you have to give up all hopes of a restoration, which means it's unlikely for any royalists of importance to go there.
 
So they' become a sort of Raj in exile instead of the HEIC of the mutiny.


The USA was sympathetic to the rebellion, but made no moves towards a filibuster. There would be feelers for statehood, but it would have to be like Texas (i.e. the new republic asks, not the US invades - Canada's 1812 victimhood complex is ridiculous).
It made no moves because it was certain Britain would restore order and didn't care to have a rematch of 1812. If Britain looked unable to project force to restore order, it would be an entirely different affair. The Feniens might be left to their own devices in Lower and Upper Canada in exchange for American title to the prairie.
There were no settlers whatsoever in Oregon territory at that point. There are slight chances of the US swooping in, but without the Columbia gold rush, neither side is going to be rushing for it.
Wildly incorrect. The British had well-established forts on the south end of Vancouver Island and what is now Vancouver, Washington (on the Columbia River), and there were similar numbers of settlers of American origin spread throughout the Willamette Valley, with a few scattered farther north. The deluge of Americans didn't arrive until 1842, but settlement had been underway for 30 years, from both Britain and the USA.

Perhaps the USA still waits til 1842, perhaps it doesn't. But if Britain is in disarray, "54'40" or fight" is not a slogan for the fringe, it's official policy. Britain will keep Vancouver Island, but the Americans will take what is now mainland British Columbia, by force if no agreement can be reached (but I doubt a Britian in disarray is going to contest any part of the mainland, just Vancouver Island).
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Wildly incorrect. The British had well-established forts on the south end of Vancouver Island and what is now Vancouver, Washington (on the Columbia River), and there were similar numbers of settlers of American origin spread throughout the Willamette Valley, with a few scattered farther north. The deluge of Americans didn't arrive until 1842, but settlement had been underway for 30 years, from both Britain and the USA.

Perhaps the USA still waits til 1842, perhaps it doesn't. But if Britain is in disarray, "54'40" or fight" is not a slogan for the fringe, it's official policy. Britain will keep Vancouver Island, but the Americans will take what is now mainland British Columbia, by force if no agreement can be reached (but I doubt a Britian in disarray is going to contest any part of the mainland, just Vancouver Island).

Well established forts are not settlers, they're implantations for the Hudson's bay company and their population was hardly a few hundreds at the time. A Britain in disarray will be hard pressed to even contest Vancouver island.
 
Well established forts are not settlers, they're implantations for the Hudson's bay company and their population was hardly a few hundreds at the time. A Britain in disarray will be hard pressed to even contest Vancouver island.

Surely it depends on whether or not the USA recognises the new British republic, and on the surface it would be hard to see why it would not. There are treaties and agreements between the USA and Britain on agreed-to lines of demarcation, and the US breaking these (as opposed to not-yet-decided ones) would be tantamount to a declaration of war

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Why are you all talking about a Republic? The Chartists were not Republicans! They didn't even want a revolution-they petitioned parliament three times peacefully-not the actions of revolutionaries. All this talk of monarchist backlash in the colonies is pointless.
 
Why are you all talking about a Republic? The Chartists were not Republicans! They didn't even want a revolution-they petitioned parliament three times peacefully-not the actions of revolutionaries. All this talk of monarchist backlash in the colonies is pointless.

By that argument why bother talking at all???

This is ALTERNATE HISTORY based on a what-if of Ernest becoming king IIRC. The ONLY alternative to Ernest if they overthrow him is the Duke of Cambridge and they're not about to choose the commander of the army which tries to put them down to invite to be king

It will be a republic by default as I said in a previous post

Grey Wolf
 
I've wondered myself about the British East India Company as an independent state. Freed from the restraint of London, I imagine it would be more expansionist and look to the Philippines and China earlier on. It could also be very willing to recruit high quality sailors and managers from all over Europe and the Americas. Could it possibly encourage the Dutch East India Company to follow its model, and then go for a merger?
 
By that argument why bother talking at all???

This is ALTERNATE HISTORY based on a what-if of Ernest becoming king IIRC. The ONLY alternative to Ernest if they overthrow him is the Duke of Cambridge and they're not about to choose the commander of the army which tries to put them down to invite to be king

It will be a republic by default as I said in a previous post

Grey Wolf

I think I understand the idea of alternate history. However, the thread is called 'Successful Chartists'-therefore, discussion of Chartism is probably going to be quite important. You've all discussed royal lineages and far off places in the world as we are oft to do on this board, yet no one has discussed Chartism. Given that the most radical thing that the Chartists ever demanded was an annual Parliament, all this talk of Republic is pointless. No one wanted to get rid of the monarchy except for Hearney and he was pretty fringe. As I've said, the two main Chartist leaders were William Lovett and Feargus O'Connor neither of whom were republicans.

I thought it would be obvious in a thread about Chartism to talk about Chartism.
 
Okay, for the purposes of discussion, let's say that this scenario takes place within the context of a world where (due to the death of William IV in the Napoleonic Wars and some jiggling of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to get Ernest of Hanover on the throne), in the late 1830s Great Britain undergoes a successful republican revolution spawned from frustration over the monarchy's increasingly auhoritarian nature and stubborness on reform. By 1840, Britain has settled downas a radical (yet constitutional) republic.

.

First paragraph of the OP, bolded by me.
 
Surely it depends on whether or not the USA recognises the new British republic, and on the surface it would be hard to see why it would not. There are treaties and agreements between the USA and Britain on agreed-to lines of demarcation, and the US breaking these (as opposed to not-yet-decided ones) would be tantamount to a declaration of war

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

If the United States sends troops to aid a Canadian independence movement, then its already tantamount to a declaration of war, no?

Anyway, in the long term, with an Independent Canada, the Northwest territories and British Columbia, etc., are not viable British possessions. Given any significant hiccups in British stability and power, in the short term the US will at least press for a border further north in the Oregon territory.

If the US ends up with vast chunks of northern land, interesting to think what effects there might be on Texas, the Mexican War, etc.
 
IIRC, just one of the Chartist demands did not become law in England: yearly elections. This, as well as the fact that the Hyde Park meeting ended up without bloodshed, demonstrates that the Chartists were not just very reasonable people but visionary too.

I do have to say I don't think this means a revolution is impossible. The demands in France in 1830 started out moderate as well, no?
 
Top