The Kingdom of Liberty: A History of the United States
- Thread starter Roosevelt
- Start date
So the American kings even speak English at the moment? I imagine the situation might be a bit like GB where their kings don't even speak their language.
Correct, Augustus II is the first one who speaks English fluently given he lived in the U.S. since his dad relocated there in 1790.
Just want to say that I love the name Augustus for the American kings. I also really liked how you had Cuba go to Britain in this TL. Most TLs I've seen almost always have them either to the US or independent. Great work btw.
Great TL Roosevelt, though I will say this, make of it what you will. Be careful you don't fall into the Turtledove trap of having TTL events be to close to OTL events for comfort. You've said TTL's Civil War will be quite different from OTL, so I don't think this will necessarily be the case.
Another quick question. As the Federal government now has a monarch, do any of the individual states have a monarchical system? Wherein they would have dukes or counts or something as their executive or figurehead? Thanks.
No, they'll still be ruled by a democratically elected Governor. I think that'd get out of control, especially as the U.S. expands.
I did actually consider that for a while, creating titles like the "Duke of New York" or "Duke of Virginia," but the problem with these titles is the time period and the divide between the north and south. If the Duke of New York was a more senior title than the Duke of Virginia, then the south would think the monarchy is preferring the north over the south. I decided that "Prince(ss) [name] of the United States" is what royalty would get, unless you're next in line for the throne, where you are the Crown Prince(ss).
Excellent TL.
I agree with everyone else that your monarchy is too figurehead for this time period.
At the same time, given the monarchy is a figurehead, your President has too much power. The Country Whig/Republican tradition that the Founders came out of wanted to keep the executive and the legislative power separate to avoid tyranny. Your President basically combines them. Its the least realistic part of the scenario, even less realistic than the monarch.
I agree with everyone else that your monarchy is too figurehead for this time period.
At the same time, given the monarchy is a figurehead, your President has too much power. The Country Whig/Republican tradition that the Founders came out of wanted to keep the executive and the legislative power separate to avoid tyranny. Your President basically combines them. Its the least realistic part of the scenario, even less realistic than the monarch.
The monarch has pretty much the same powers as the OTL President. Keep in mind that if the monarch had too much power, then the whole point of revolution was pointless. The President carries out the will of the House of Representatives and the Senate serves as a check on the House.
Keep in mind, the monarch can dissolve Congress to call a new election. That’s a pretty big power to have. (granted, it is typically carried out when Congress asks. If a monarch dissolved congress without reason this early, it’d surely mean republicanism would take over).
Earlier you said some things that made it sound like the monarch did not effectively have the same powers as the OTL President--for instance, that he was only a figurehead CinC. If you are saying that the monarch is basically the executive as we understand it, that makes sense to me.
I think the Prussian King would actually give more "legitimacy" in the eyes of European nations, which will work both for and against the U.S. in the future. As for territory, I'm not sure if King Leopold is a good model for an Enlightenment monarchy...