US keeps monarchy after Independence.

This may be leaning into ASB but i thought i would post and see how it went.

What if during the American Revolutionary War, instead of the monarchy being unfairly demonised by the revolutionaries, the blame was properly put on Parliament throughout the revolution with a majority of the coloniest seeing the monarch in a neutral or postive light.

The monarchs power in the colonies can be large or minimal depending on which you think is the most likely but Parliament can have no say.in the running of the.colonoes.

No specific way of achieving this that i can think of so let's hear your idea's.
 
Last edited:
I think you'd need a pre-Revolution POD. There may have been some support for a monarchy among the general population but the Founding Fathers were pretty uniformly anti-monarchy. With a POD after the Revolution starts there's no way the Americans accept a king. And while Parliment may have run the war King George really was kind of an ass and not the type of person you'd choose as king if you had a choice. His views on absolutist monarchy put him squarely opposed to the republican ideal's of the Americans.

The easiest thing to do is have England understand the depth of the anger in the Americas and cave to the colonists' demands and give them an early form of dominion status. Nominally independent with the monarchy on top.
 
Who would they want as a monarch?

Would they keep the British Monarch but just not the parliament, e.g. an earlier Canada/Australia.

A relative of George III, so still a British royalty but without it being the King himself?

A foreign king, such as Henry of Prussia or a relative of Louis XVI of France (this could help them gain Louisiana? and please the Pro-French supporters)
 
Could this lead to Canada + USA as one nation when they get independence later, or would they still remain separate?
 
Maybe the French could demand recognition of their monarch as a condition for their help?

I think they'd sooner go back to the English. They were grateful for the military aid but installing a Catholic French monarch in any official capacity, even ceremonial, would probably result in the Continental Congress being lynched by angry mobs.

An elected non-hereditary kingship is probably the best bet for a domestic monarchy if there is no reconciliation with Britain.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
I think they'd sooner go back to the English.

Considering the extent on which they were reliant on French aid, they would have to.

They were grateful for the military aid but installing a Catholic French monarch in any official capacity, even ceremonial, would probably result in the Continental Congress being lynched by angry mobs.

I'm skeptical of this.

An elected non-hereditary kingship is probably the best bet for a domestic monarchy if there is no reconciliation with Britain.

Wouldn't that just be a President?
 
What if during the American Revolutionary War, instead of the monarchy being unfairly demonised by the revolutionaries, the blame was properly put on Parliament throughout the revolution with a majority of the coloniest seeing the monarch in a neutral or postive light.
Actually, that's how things went for a while. As late as October 1774 the Continental Congress sent a petition to George III for relief. George never responded, though.

War broke out the following April and still the dispute was understood to be with Parliament and not necessarily the King. Thomas Paine's Common Sense, published in January 1776, was really the first time anyone called for a break with the monarchy itself. The war was 15 months old before the Congress decided to formally break ranks with the monarchy.

If you have George III respond to the Americans' concerns and portray himself as a neutral arbiter, the monarchy could survive. Declaring independence from the monarchy was a step that a lot of Americans did not initially want to take.
 
Top