The British Revolution (instead of the French)

The British Revolution (instead of the French)

Would a potential POD for this be that France does not enter the ARW, the British win an expensive victory and then have to win the peace, an expensive and difficult task over the next couple of decades

Come the 1790s, the king is mad, the heir is hated, the country's finances are drained, Ireland is unsettled, and people are beginning to stir...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The British Revolution (instead of the French)

Would a potential POD for this be that France does not enter the ARW, the British win an expensive victory and then have to win the peace, an expensive and difficult task over the next couple of decades

Come the 1790s, the king is mad, the heir is hated, the country's finances are drained, Ireland is unsettled, and people are beginning to stir...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Please do this timeline!
 
Please do this timeline!

I was going to flesh out the initial post but had a sneezing fit of 20 or more in a row, was exhausted and wasn't allowed a sherry so got depressed...

I'll go for a walk later, acquire some beer and the combination of walking and beer on the return should help me clear my head and have some proper ideas :)

There are of course several elements which could be discussions in their own right, not least how does a defeated American Revolution go in the long run ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The only problem with that is that Parliament essentially used their rivalries with the Hanoverians and George's madness to take away control from under him. I guess things could kick off if the Kings tried to dissolve Parliament and Parliament responded by trying to dethrone the Kings, because that would make both sides extreme and thus force people to take sides in an ideological battle that was not yet entirely won, but to be honest, so long as Parliament is in control of the government then Civil War is somewhat unlikely since they were and always have been such a great stabilising presence on the country. It's hard to find ways to provoke an actual revolt against Parliament because the nature of it dictated that the most natural way to go against Parliament was to support the weaker political party, by nature then upholding Parliament's power rather than destroying it.
 
I was going to flesh out the initial post but had a sneezing fit of 20 or more in a row, was exhausted and wasn't allowed a sherry so got depressed...

I'll go for a walk later, acquire some beer and the combination of walking and beer on the return should help me clear my head and have some proper ideas :)

There are of course several elements which could be discussions in their own right, not least how does a defeated American Revolution go in the long run ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I'd say that a defeated America isn't a loyal America, and that the Revolution in Britain will likely spark off a second Revolution in America.
 
I'd say that a defeated America isn't a loyal America, and that the Revolution in Britain will likely spark off a second Revolution in America.

Would London seek to reorganise the colonies, perhaps federate them under a single royal governor ? Or something in between - create several large colonies, such as one for New England, one for Virginia+, one for the South ?

One assumes Britain holds onto Florida in this scenario also

- - -

On the beer-walk, I was wondering both about the historical effects of a failed Revolution, and also the historiographical ones - would it simply sit within the same story of failed Jacobite and Irish rebellions of the century, or would it start its own chapter ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I was thinking that the Duke of York could have an important role to play in all this, and looked up the relevant bit of his potted Wiki biography (b 1763)

George III decided that his second son would pursue an army career and had him gazetted colonel in 1780. From 1781 to 1787, Prince Frederick lived in Hanover, where he drank and fornicated immoderately yet still found time to earnestly attend the manoeuvres of the Austrian and Prussian armies and studied (along with his younger brothers, Prince Edward, Prince Ernest, Prince Augustus and Prince Adolphus) at the University of Göttingen. He was appointed colonel of the 2nd Horse Grenadier Guards (now 2nd Life Guards) in 1782, and promoted major-general and appointed colonel of the Coldstream Guards in 1784.

He was created Duke of York and Albany and Earl of Ulster on 27 November 1784 and became a member of the Privy Council. He retained the bishopric of Osnabrück until 1803, when, in the course of the secularization preceding the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, the bishopric was incorporated into Hanover.

In the summer of 1787, American newspaper accounts said that a government plot was under way to invite Prince Frederick to become "King of the United States". This of course never happened. On his return to Britain, the Duke took his seat in the House of Lords, where, on 15 December 1788 during the Regency crisis, he opposed William Pitt's Regency Bill in a speech which was supposed to have been caused by the Prince of Wales.
In 1795 The Duke of York took command of the regular British Army, including the Ordnance Corps, the Militia, and the Volunteers

One wonders if the talk of "King of America" may even have surfaced in this timeline, since if there's talk of a single royal governor, there may well have been some who looked for a king instead of a viceroy

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I was thinking that the Duke of York could have an important role to play in all this, and looked up the relevant bit of his potted Wiki biography (b 1763)



One wonders if the talk of "King of America" may even have surfaced in this timeline, since if there's talk of a single royal governor, there may well have been some who looked for a king instead of a viceroy

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Very true, the government would have to recognise the need to placate the American colonies, the best way to do that would be to give them a stronger amount of autonomy with a degree of representation in Westminster, you are right, it would have to include some sort of Viceroy acting in one capacity or the other. I'm not too sure that they King would be happy about having an equally powerful title for the North Americans however, the scheme in OTL to upgrade the British monarchy from the United Kingdom to an Empire of Great Britain could well go though in such an event.
 
Very true, the government would have to recognise the need to placate the American colonies, the best way to do that would be to give them a stronger amount of autonomy with a degree of representation in Westminster, you are right, it would have to include some sort of Viceroy acting in one capacity or the other. I'm not too sure that they King would be happy about having an equally powerful title for the North Americans however, the scheme in OTL to upgrade the British monarchy from the United Kingdom to an Empire of Great Britain could well go though in such an event.

I always like to see an Emperor :)

There would be two sets of Americans in the wake of a successfully defeated American Revolution - the Loyalists (and those who jumped in with them) who would expect to reap the fruits of victory, and the defeated Revolutionaries (one can hardly call them Patriots in this sense) who would number highly, and need to be dealt with, and probably be somewhat akin to keeping the peace in Ireland against a population which really doesn't like Redcoats

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Well I was doing a nice lot of research for this but then the internet crashed all the pages

I was wondering, you see, whether its actually POSSIBLE to placate the LOYALISTS in the event of victory ?

It would seem illogical to give them what the defeated rebels initially wanted, ie representation, so what else can be done ? A congress for the Americas looks dangerous, considering what the last one just did, so would it be separate colonies reporting to the one viceroy ?

Would a nice war help ? Kill the Indians, or something ? I know there was a Proclamation preventing expansion, but now these Americans are NICE Americans...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Well I was doing a nice lot of research for this but then the internet crashed all the pages

I was wondering, you see, whether its actually POSSIBLE to placate the LOYALISTS in the event of victory ?

It would seem illogical to give them what the defeated rebels initially wanted, ie representation, so what else can be done ? A congress for the Americas looks dangerous, considering what the last one just did, so would it be separate colonies reporting to the one viceroy ?

Would a nice war help ? Kill the Indians, or something ? I know there was a Proclamation preventing expansion, but now these Americans are NICE Americans...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I suppose that the loyalists would be able to be placated by a nice expansionist policy westwards backed up with the promise of free land. This would of course have a negative impact on the British Treasury with the possibility of increased taxation for the poorest in society...

...hmmm, an idea forms.
 
I was wondering, you see, whether its actually POSSIBLE to placate the LOYALISTS in the event of victory ?

Very few loyalists were happy with Britain after 1763. They just didn't see ti as worth a war.

Would a nice war help ? Kill the Indians, or something ? I know there was a Proclamation preventing expansion, but now these Americans are NICE Americans...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The proclamation was never envisioned as an absolute ban; after all, Britons had investments in titles to land beyond the line too. There will be quasi-orderly settlement/expansion west, as there was before 1775 OTL.
 
I suppose that the loyalists would be able to be placated by a nice expansionist policy westwards backed up with the promise of free land. This would of course have a negative impact on the British Treasury with the possibility of increased taxation for the poorest in society...

...hmmm, an idea forms.

Why would you have to increase taxes?

That said, but for the conquest of America it's not clear to me what's really different in this universe.
 
Why would you have to increase taxes?

That said, but for the conquest of America it's not clear to me what's really different in this universe.

Well, France isn't spending all its wealth on aiding the Americans

I envisaged that the British would have to spend its money dealing with the aftermath of victory, no cosy settlement but repeated disturbances etc

What they AIM to do in allowing expansion, installing a Viceroy etc, is not going to be the same as what actually happens in simmering rebellions

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top