The British Revolution
- Thread starter Glen
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
Well, one group (at least) of potential troublemakers are in the New World already: The Puritans.
The way to do it would be a king pushing his luck.
Since the civil war it had been official that the kings were there purely at our leisure, if they became more of a pain then a help....Well we wouldn't hesitate to be off with them.
Mix this in with radicals to get some sort of republic again instead of a better king being found.
Since the civil war it had been official that the kings were there purely at our leisure, if they became more of a pain then a help....Well we wouldn't hesitate to be off with them.
Mix this in with radicals to get some sort of republic again instead of a better king being found.
Glen said:
Glen
Not the unstable older George III but quite possibly the young George, who was caught up in the swing towards the so called enlightened depotism. For a short while in early part of his reign he had a significant degree of influence and if things had gone differently there might have been rebellion in Britain rather than the colonies. That might have given what you want.
In this case however the world's development would have been much different. With a revolution in Britain rather than France you would have a radically different background as no revolutionary wars across Europe. Possibly even an Hanoverian [dynasty] in the Americas as royalty flees to supporters there?
Steve
Glen
Moderator
Interesting POD. However, I do not know that revolution in Britain necessarily precludes revolution in France.
GW
I can't see that as a revolution in Britain. Unless the French can gain and maintain control of the seas I don't think they can continue to reinforce any Irish rebellion and it would be crushed. Furthermore, if it did succeed in establishing a pro-French Ireland, that is more likely to generate strong conservative feeling in Britain.
Damn! I posted a reply to Glen last night but it was quite late and obviously didn't take.
Furthermore got to go out in a few minutes so will try and re-post later this evening.Steve
Orville_third
Banned
It could be interesting if the Gordon Riots led to a potential revolution, and it could be even more interesting if William Blake became a revolutionary.
Glen
Trying to regenerate the post that failed last night. What's with the necromancy spate as this was the 2nd case I saw by you yesterday.
I possibly phased it wrong if I was presuming no continental revolution. Would be true to say its not certain there would be no French revolution. However if a British revolt broke out say in the 1760's-1770's I think its likely that the French revolution would be delayed if not prevented. They would still have a serious problem with existing debts, corruption and extravagance. However, depending on the butterflies you have a good chance I think that France wouldn't be engaged in a major war such as the ARW OTL. With Britain crippled by internal disorder, unless the French started fishing in troubled waters, which they might, there's unlikely to be a major conflict on the continent. Simply because only Britain and France really have the financial resources for extended conflicts so if Britain's out of play there is not the basis for and extended conflict.
Also, as in OTL with Britain reacting to the French revolution, your likely to see France reacting to a British revolution. A stiffening of support for conservative ideas and probably growing repression of radical groups on the continent.
You might get some equivalent of France exporting the revolution but I think its less likely to occur. Britain doesn't have the same human resources or tradition of mass armies so your less likely to see British hordes sweeping the continent. Also with the Americans and Ireland there are areas which could distract from British strength.
Steve
Why not both? For example: what if the madwoman Margaret Nicholson
manages to stab and kill George III in 1786, putting a 25-year old George IV on the throne...
Glen
Moderator
Ah, now that sounds like it has possibilities...care to expand on the concept of how that would work. I'm not that familiar with the Gordon Riots (though I'll be sure to look them up when I have the chance).
Glen
Just had a quick Wiki check to refresh my memory. In 1778 a bill was passed relaxing some of the restrictions on Roman Catholics. In 1780 there was a series of anti-Catholic riots due to this, although the desire for loot seems to have played a significant role.
Lord George Gordon formed a 'Protestant Association' to counter those reforms and drummed up a lot of fears of Catholic uprisings, aided by continental powers. On 2-6-80 he organised a huge march - estimated 40-60 thousand strong which ended up at Parliament. While he was inside presenting a partition things got out of hand outside and a lot of violence resulted.
The army was called out, although not until the 7th, and broke up the crowds, firing on groups of more than 4 who refused to disperse, killing about 285 killed and several hundred wounded. About 20-30 were arrested and tried for treason and Gordan was charged with high treason but aquitted.
Most of this is from the Wiki entry. Sounds like it wouldn't be the best POD for such a republic as you would have had a lot of people opposed to such disorders while little or nothing was planned in terms of a challenge to authority. Also with Britain also de-facto at war with several Catholic powers and much of the army in the Americas - some unrest going on over there at the time
- if some hard line anti-Catholic group had gained power you might well have seen it quickly crushed by internal and external opponents.Steve
Kind of a crazy what if but.... WI George III had colluded with various other Europeans monarchs for backing, some manner to strengthen his power at the expense of parliament? Then have Chevalier D'eon reveal it when he starts publishing his secret notes?
Like I said, kind of crazy. Don't know a whole lot about this period.
Like I said, kind of crazy. Don't know a whole lot about this period.