Washington Burns: A Story of Alternate America

Honestly I think the new palace would have to be the same size as Buckingham Palace or bigger just to show strength and power. It might look bad for the monarchy if they are seen as having to downsize after a major challenge to royal authority.

Agreed. Not to mention the size of other royal palaces in Europe at this time (Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, Versailles, City Palace in Berlin), all large and impressive buildings. Buckingham measures up. I don't think that St. James's or Kensington do. And my own suggestion of Lancaster House would not be a permanent fix (it wasn't owned by the Royals/government yet anyway).

Rebuild the Palace of Whitehall? :p (I'm kidding...though it would be cool...)
 
What if Buckingham palace isn't just rebuilt, but expanded and made larger and more impressive? The East Wing (which faces St. James's park and is OTL the iconic front of the building, is preserved, but a newer, grander (and maybe domed) palace is built to replace what has been lost.
 
Sounds like a plan. Except maybe without the dome (That's just personal preference).

Noted. Not sure I want a dome either. we will see what I can come up with.

And, it's not that I'm opposed to having a new palace somewhere else, or the adoption of a pre-existing structure.
It's just that you'd want to keep the palace somewhat centrally located to the rest of the government, and at the same time, you want to have a nice location in the broader city layout (which St. James's lacks).
 
Chapter 18: Wider World Gazette, Edition 3: Russia, Eastern Europe, and Italy, 1814-1900
Wider World Gazette

Edition 3, 1814 - 1900, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Italy

Russia/Eastern Europe
- Russia, for the first half of the 19th century, was largely a symbol of stability and slow but noticeable reform, all under the stable hand of Czar Alexander I. Starting in 1830, Alexander held a special legislative assembly, called the Duma, every five years, comprising of nobles from across the Empire. In 1847, the Czar announced his intention to eventually liberate the serfs as part of a broader modernization program. Unfortunately, he would not live to see this happen. Czar Alexander’s death in 1849 sees his youngest brother (and only one of three brothers to produce a male heir) Michael take the throne.

Czar Michael II had spent much of his youth studying in Europe, and was very impressed with the modernization sweeping parts of the continent (especially railroads), and was a supporter of his late brother’s plans to end serfdom in the Empire, which he made happen in 1854. Michael II also kept up the tradition of holding a Duma every 5 years. In 1861, inspired by the American government-owned railway, the Czar establishes the Imperial Railway Service (IZS). In the last year of his reign, 1869, Michael II approves of a plan to establish a limited constitution for the Empire, but passes away before this plan is implemented. That task would fall to his son, Czar Michael III.

Michael III was not as enthralled by reform as his father had been. He agreed to still hold the constitutional convention as part of 1870 meeting of the Duma, but he negotiated a much more conservative document than the one his father likely would have agreed to. The 1870 Constitution of the Russian Empire allowed for a biennial meeting of the Duma, and gave it the power to initiate legislation. However, giving the franchise to non-nobles was vetoed, and the Emperor maintained the right to appoint his own government ministers and the right to dissolve the Duma. It is during this time that the alliance with Prussia is strengthened, since Michael III’s wife is the sister of the Prussian King Frederick William V. Thanks to Prussian support, Russia is able to expand into the Balkans as Ottoman control in that region continues to shrink. Michael III declares in 1880 that Russia is the protector of all Slavic peoples. This is met with mixed response in the Balkans. Territories traditionally under sway of the Ottomans welcome Russian protection, while former Austrian territories are very happy with their newfound independence, and do not want to trade one imperial ruler for another. The former Austrian territories, almost all of whom are now republics, reject Russian overtures for the most part.

When the war between France and Prussia breaks out in 1899, Michael happily promises support, declaring war on Bavaria and France and sending men to help support the Prussians.

Italy - The modern Italian Empire owes its existence to the radical revolts of 1839, which sparked first in the German states but quickly spread across Europe. The Italians had been grumbling about Italian unity and Austrian dominance ever since the 1815 Congress of Vienna. And it was far from just the radical liberals that wanted to change things. Plenty of moderates and even some of the nobility wanted to change. When demonstrators took to the streets in Italy, the leaders took notice. Leading the charge of those willing to work with the demonstrators was King Charles Albert of Sardinia, who granted a more liberal constitution to his people in late 1839. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies followed suit in 1840. Several smaller states followed suit in 1841. As the Austrians invaded the short-lived German Republic that year, the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia issued its own constitution and declared nominal independence from Austrian interference. To back this up, the Kingdom of Sardinia and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies promised to defend Lombardy-Venetia. The following year, King Charles Albert hosted leaders from all the Italian States, including Pope Pius IX (different person that OTL). Charles Albert proposed the creation of a common defense and customs union to “protect all Italians.” This suggestion will give birth to the Italian Union in early 1843. The Union had a Parliament, which all members sent delegates to. Every year, a different member state would have its leader serve as “President of the Union,” and preside over the opening of the Parliament, which met in Naples. Over time, the Union government gained more and more authority, so that by the time the Austrian Empire collapsed in 1879, the Italian Union had a common currency, common military, and as of 1877 a common diplomatic service.

At the 1880 meeting of the Union Parliament in Naples, delegates from Sardinia, Venetia, and the Two Sicilies proposed converting the Union into a single Empire. The general idea was very popular, but the details took the entire year to work out. In the end, the 1881 Constitution of the United Empire of Italy was adopted. It established a unicameral Parliament, which had legislative power, and an elected monarch with the following conditions: the Emperor of Italy would be elected by the nobility and from the nobility of the Empire, and a newly elected Emperor could not be the son/descendant of the previous Emperor, nor could they be from the same state. Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia and son of Charles Albert, was elected first Emperor of Italy at the first meeting of the Council of Nobles (the body charged with electing the Emperor), on March 1, 1881. The Pope, Pius X, had objected to the new constitution, saying the Pope could not be under the temporal authority of another. A compromise was reached. The Vatican would remain nominally independent, with the Pope as its leader. The Papal states would be reorganized as the Kingdom of Rome. And the Pope would be granted special permission to approve of the election of the Italian Emperor, and the Emperor would be crowned in St. Peters. The Capital, however, would remain in Naples. Upon the coronation of Emperor Victor I, the Habsburg family, which had been taking refuge in Rome, relocated to Switzerland permanently.

As the twentieth century approached, the Italian Empire has tried to remain neutral in the growing rivalry between Prussia and France.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found I needed to flesh some of this information out before I continued with the main story, especially with the Great War. While Russia initially sends troops to help the Prussians fight the French, events in the Balkans and the former Austrian Empire are about to draw their attention closer to home. The Italian Empire *may* be able to stay neutral. Maybe.

I was looking for a way to involve the United States into this conflict, but I'm not sure I see it. Heck, I don't even think the UK will be getting involved, since they'll be trying to restore order at home, make peace in Ireland, figure out what the heck to do in Japan, and pray that India doesn't try to revolt as well.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. And with Dublin badly damaged after the conflict, the new city could be built to better reflect the inclusiveness of all Ireland. OR.....maybe as a unifying gesture, the People's government relocates to Belfast? Or they build a new, neutral city to be the capital of a newly independent, more secular Ireland? (I mean, this IS a TL built around the idea of new capitals :) )

I'd prefer either Dublin or Belfast being used as the new Irish capital. I wouldn't know where to put the Brasilia-style planned capital anyway.

Definitely like the idea of the East Wing becoming a museum of some sort (and/or possibly a government ministry? Would it be too ostentatious to serve as the residence/office of the Prime Minister?)

Hampton Court is definitely more impressive (IMO) than Kensington or St. James's, but it is fully outside the city. I'm not sure the Queen would want to be too far from the rest of the government. I was actually considering Lancaster House, which is next to St. James's, built between 1825-1840. At least as a temporary residence, to start with.

It's a wee bit too ostentatious to serve as the residence of an elected official.

I guess it was a bit foolish to base it off of Hampton Court's location in present-day Greater London. Though it isn't like I suggested Holyroodhouse in Scotland as the monarch's main residence. A little bit outside London isn't all that bad since the city will inevitably engulf the location.

I actually love this, and it would be hard to prove either way. I can just see TTL's equivalent of a History Channel or Discovery Channel doing a documentary about the "truth of the Buckingham Palace explosion" as part of some sort of "history's unsolved mysteries" series.

The thing is that it just seemed too quick for it to have been intentional. Even though the transcript was from a dramatization I just like the idea of the smile being wiped from Edward's face with an unforeseen explosion. He was the mastermind of a plot to control the government and he was killed presumably because a servant did something stupid near explosives.

Agreed. Not to mention the size of other royal palaces in Europe at this time (Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, Versailles, City Palace in Berlin), all large and impressive buildings. Buckingham measures up. I don't think that St. James's or Kensington do. And my own suggestion of Lancaster House would not be a permanent fix (it wasn't owned by the Royals/government yet anyway).

Rebuild the Palace of Whitehall? :p (I'm kidding...though it would be cool...)

What if Buckingham palace isn't just rebuilt, but expanded and made larger and more impressive? The East Wing (which faces St. James's park and is OTL the iconic front of the building, is preserved, but a newer, grander (and maybe domed) palace is built to replace what has been lost.

Noted. Not sure I want a dome either. we will see what I can come up with.

And, it's not that I'm opposed to having a new palace somewhere else, or the adoption of a pre-existing structure.
It's just that you'd want to keep the palace somewhat centrally located to the rest of the government, and at the same time, you want to have a nice location in the broader city layout (which St. James's lacks).

Christopher Wren's plan to rebuild Whitehall included a dome. It might be a good idea to crib ideas off of his plan for the rebuilt Whitehall if you want to rebuild Buckingham. I had planned on including an image from the wikipedia page but the forum doesn't feel like cooperating.
File:WhitehallWren.jpg
 
Re Ireland.
I'd prefer something more novel than the fully independent Ireland you're so set on having. That's why I kept suggesting the devolution angle. It would be much more interesting to see how the 20thC went with Ireland a full partner in the UK.
 
Re Ireland.
I'd prefer something more novel than the fully independent Ireland you're so set on having. That's why I kept suggesting the devolution angle. It would be much more interesting to see how the 20thC went with Ireland a full partner in the UK.

I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed at this point. The Irish have fought a revolution against the English and control large portions of the island. It's really to late to save the union.
 
If you want to rebuild the royal palace from a potentially accidental disaster & make it bigger than ever to show off how they have emerged stronger from a civil war, then I would suggest you restore Whitehall. It was the largest palace in Europe at the time, it was the one used by Charles & James & William & Mary (briefly). It too was destroyed in a spectacular manner, though they just moved away since they had so many palaces at the time. But yeah, give Whitehall a second look.
 
A week ago I stumbled across this site, and have been fascinated by your timeline ever since. I joined up to express my appreciation for your work and ideas.
As a Brit, I am particularly interested in the most recent angles, and I can see Vic II leaving an unholy mess behind her when she goes. As a personally popular Queen representing what must be seen as an unpopular establishment, her death could even see it all kick off again, as Populists, Irish and fans of the type of state that may have emerged in the meantime in Europe make common cause. Could a federal republic of the British Isles be 15 years down the line?
As for the American continent, will Texas be destabilised by events involving Prussia and Germany generally? Will a potential Nationalist administration after 1906 find an opportunity to take over some oil wells? (I admit that is more of an OTL mentality showing through )
I look forward to reading more when it comes.
 
I misread this as "George Washington Burns"....I need to sleep.

Funny. The original name of the TL was "Washington Lost," but I changed it to "Washington Burns," because I figured more people would mistake this to be a TL about George Washington with the original title than with the new one :p

Re Ireland.
I'd prefer something more novel than the fully independent Ireland you're so set on having. That's why I kept suggesting the devolution angle. It would be much more interesting to see how the 20thC went with Ireland a full partner in the UK.

I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed at this point. The Irish have fought a revolution against the English and control large portions of the island. It's really to late to save the union.

I get where you are coming from on wanting an Irish dominion in union with the Queen. However, I think it is harder to pull off, since Ireland has basically always been an occupied country by the British. And ITTL the Irish People's Party has a hard nationalist streak, and thanks to the events of the Reign of Fire, the destruction of Dublin, and the mistreatment of thousands by the army under orders from Prince Edward and Prime Minister Bradley during the regency, it is extremely unlikely that such a dominion would be palatable by those who now control the western coast of the country.

At this point the only options I see are A) total independence of all of Ireland under the People's Republic, or B) Partition of Ireland along the truce line, with the People's Republic in the West and i'm not exactly sure what in the East (possibly a Dominion, but maybe not). And personally I'd rather avoid another partitioning of Ireland.

If you want to rebuild the royal palace from a potentially accidental disaster & make it bigger than ever to show off how they have emerged stronger from a civil war, then I would suggest you restore Whitehall. It was the largest palace in Europe at the time, it was the one used by Charles & James & William & Mary (briefly). It too was destroyed in a spectacular manner, though they just moved away since they had so many palaces at the time. But yeah, give Whitehall a second look.

I mentioned Whitehall earlier, but mostly as a pipe dream. I like the idea, but I'm not sure how practical it would be when compared to just rebuilding/expanding Buckingham. The issue I see is that much of the Government is now located along the street that the palace lent it's name and location to. I've been trying to find a map showing the original palace superimposed on the modern city, but having trouble with that. If someone knows where one is at, that would be very helpful. ALSO, I've been trying to find Christopher Wren's plans for a restored Whitehall. Can't find those either. Found the one by the architect Inigo Jones, and those are impressive (and rather massive - based on what I can find, it would sit totally atop Whitehall Street, and stretch from the River, across Whitehall, and into St. Jame's Park, consuming Downing Street and a bunch of other stuff too).
 
A week ago I stumbled across this site, and have been fascinated by your timeline ever since. I joined up to express my appreciation for your work and ideas.
As a Brit, I am particularly interested in the most recent angles, and I can see Vic II leaving an unholy mess behind her when she goes. As a personally popular Queen representing what must be seen as an unpopular establishment, her death could even see it all kick off again, as Populists, Irish and fans of the type of state that may have emerged in the meantime in Europe make common cause. Could a federal republic of the British Isles be 15 years down the line?
As for the American continent, will Texas be destabilised by events involving Prussia and Germany generally? Will a potential Nationalist administration after 1906 find an opportunity to take over some oil wells? (I admit that is more of an OTL mentality showing through )
I look forward to reading more when it comes.

Thank you! I'm glad you've been enjoying things! And welcome to AH.com :)

There are a lot of unknowns yet as to what will happen in the early part of the 20th Century. Victoria II is 56 when she returns to London in 1900. The stress of the events of 1899-1900, along with the illness that initially had her waylaid, will take a toll on her health, and we will be lucky if she lasts past 1910. That said, she's already been a powerful and outspoken figure, and those 10 years will be busy and filled with reform. When she dies, her daughter, Princess Alexandria, will become queen. Princess Alexandria was born in 1871, and will be just shy of 40 when her mother passes. She'll be a pretty natural fit, since she was always more interested in the affairs of state than her late brother Prince Victor William.

While I don't see republicanism taking root in Britain, I do see a lot of reforms and some level of devolution taking place to make things more equal.

In America....I haven't decided yet on the fate of Texas. The resources will be able to keep the Federation afloat. But there is also a lot of "vacant" land in the western half of the country that is hard to "rule" and probably filled with all sorts of odd characters. It could be that Indian tribes within Texas start bothering US states, states that are filled with old Slaver expats and who vote Nationalist, and that could spur things on.
As far as the events in Prussia/Germany affecting Texas, if anything Texas becomes a safe haven for those escaping the war (as will states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Iowa, which also have large German populations). The problem will be that in the 1840s up till the war, most Germans coming to Texas and the US are liberals trying to escape persecution. AFTER the war, many of those fleeing will be the conservatives, especially from Bavaria, Baden, and Wurttemberg, which all go Red. That will make for an interesting mix.

If the Nationalists take power in the US after 1906 or 1912, I could see Texas being a target, but I'm not sure they'd be able to take all of it. Also, keep in mind Texas has an ally in California, which is doing decent on it's own and is a trading partner with the British. So a war with Texas and California could bode poorly for US/British relations, which have been pretty strong since the 1860s (in fact, I'm working an event into the next update where the British will formally apologize for the destruction of Washington City).
 
Just discovered this yesterday; binged it all in one overnight sitting. First, I'd like to point out that the edits that were suggested for the first 4-5 pages never got done.

More immediately relevant, Ireland: I propose that there be an immediate armistice followed by a 3-5 year transition period. The official (and possibly actual) reason for the delay being so that any residents of Ireland who wish to remain British subjects can conclude their business and move out before the People's Republic gains full independence. Of course, I envision something of an Irish Civil War breaking out approximately ten seconds after the last British Army boot steps onto the boat home....

Secondly, the European War: with Prussia and Russia on the same side and Britain distracted by her own internal issues in the short term, I don't see how Bavaria, in particular, can hold out for more than a year or two, assuming reasonably competent generals on the Russo-Prussian side. OTL, Prussia had five times the population of Bavaria in 1900. If British policy is anything like OTL, they -will- seek to stop Prussia and Russia from becoming too buddy-buddy, to preserve the balance of power in Europe. Of course, they may be too busy getting their own house set to rights to do so before it's too late for Bavaria. Possibly, if the home front in Prussia is unstable enough, populist disturbances might interfere before the war with France concludes naturally, but I wouldn't personally bet on it.
 
Just discovered this yesterday; binged it all in one overnight sitting. First, I'd like to point out that the edits that were suggested for the first 4-5 pages never got done.

More immediately relevant, Ireland: I propose that there be an immediate armistice followed by a 3-5 year transition period. The official (and possibly actual) reason for the delay being so that any residents of Ireland who wish to remain British subjects can conclude their business and move out before the People's Republic gains full independence. Of course, I envision something of an Irish Civil War breaking out approximately ten seconds after the last British Army boot steps onto the boat home....

Secondly, the European War: with Prussia and Russia on the same side and Britain distracted by her own internal issues in the short term, I don't see how Bavaria, in particular, can hold out for more than a year or two, assuming reasonably competent generals on the Russo-Prussian side. OTL, Prussia had five times the population of Bavaria in 1900. If British policy is anything like OTL, they -will- seek to stop Prussia and Russia from becoming too buddy-buddy, to preserve the balance of power in Europe. Of course, they may be too busy getting their own house set to rights to do so before it's too late for Bavaria. Possibly, if the home front in Prussia is unstable enough, populist disturbances might interfere before the war with France concludes naturally, but I wouldn't personally bet on it.

Welcome! And wow, binged all at once, nice! Hope you enjoyed it overall.

I've been meaning to go back and take a look at those early edits (I believe in reference to the VP death issue back in 1817?), I just hadn't made time yet to do so. Thanks for the reminder.

A transition period makes sense. US President Fleak is going to step up to be a mediator when it comes to Ireland.
I'm not sure that we will see a civil war. For one, the independence movement here isn't tied to catholicism. Two, the heavy hand used by the British during the Regency will have made more people sympathetic to the Irish People's Party. It is likely that most diehards against independence would just leave for Britain.
This was also why I proposed making Belfast, and not ruined Dublin, the capital of the People's Republic, as an olive branch to the Protestants

So Russia doesn't get directly involved in the war at first, not until 1901. And Bavaria is basically a client state of France. The French send troops to help. And really, the war basically becomes France vs. Prussia, with Bavaria being a secondary theater. And it isn't just Bavaria. Baden and Wurttemberg are also on the French side, and the Austrians, despite being anti-Monarchy, also start to pitch in.
I'm not sure how Britain will fit into this picture really. They've never really become friendly with the French, and QVII's husband is Prussian. I see the British trying to get the war to end and mediate between both sides, rather than any direct involvement.

We will start seeing the first stirrings of populist uprising in 1901, 1902, with things starting to get out of hand in 1903.
 
True, I was making a generalization. But it isn't entirely false either.
Ah but it's not more true than false.
Looking into the actual history of Ireland will show how it wasn't the case of Irish natives suffering under an occupying foreign force. Even during the Victorian era most of those running the country were Irish, they just weren't Catholic.

Edit: my point being that framing the history of Ireland only as an Irish vs Outside Occupation is on par with saying the Pilgrims founded the United States.
 
Last edited:
Slightly off-topic, and apologies if this is a gauche newby error, but I'm intrigued by the possibilities of ITTL linguistics. Now that we're nearing 100 years from the POD, there are an increasing number of terms and expressions which this timeline will never hear. Dickensian, Twainite and Kiplingesque expressions we take for granted, replaced with something different, possibly a greater influence on English from High German and even Japanese. I like the 'autowagon', and I'm wondering if President Beck will save a young bear on a hunting expedition, this giving America's children a new toy! :)

Meanwhile, on a similar note. There was a mention of the Bavarian-French royal couple honeymooning on the French Riviera. Without the gifting of Nice to France after OTL's Franco-Austrian war of - I think - 1860, it could be the Ligurian Riviera!
 
Top