Washington's Successors if He Were Made King

Major Tom

Banned
In my Jacksonian World thread, the topic of succession of a childless founding monarch came up. I am not a big fan of this suggestion, and gave the example of Eugene de Beauharnais not given any Napoleonic succession.
So, whom, instead of George Washington Parke Custis, do I have as George's successor if I made an AH timeline in which he was made king? (For the record I will not do such a timeline, because there is no reasonable way that he would accept it, and I believe his smallpox and childlessness played some factor int). Well I used these following articles for research:

The Man (or Woman) Who Would be King

Stubborn Washington Spurned Kingdom

If Washington Had Become King

If Washington Had Been Crowned

After reading those articles, I decided that I would use the unconventional Napoleonic rules of succession in order for a AH Washingtonian King List, so here is how it came out to be:

George I: 1789-1799
William I: 1799-1810
George II: 1810-1854 (an older brother, Bushrod, gets the Lucien treatment, aka, disinherinted line)
Louis I: 1854-1871
James I: 1871-1900
William II: 1900-1933
Thornton I: 1933-1935
Lawrence I: 1935-1997
Paul I: 1997-
Crown Prince: Richard, with son Connor

If anything happens to them, the succession goes to any son of Paul's second oldest son Bill, who has some political disagreements with King Paul (the headship of the house of Bonaparte has skipped two Prince Napoleons for similar reasons).

However, there would reasonably be a pretender line for those who wanted succession to based on the traditional rules of succession of the English crown. The list of pretender kings are as follows:
House of Washington​
John I: 1799-1841
Lawrence I: 1841-1856
Daniel I: 1856-1887
Thornton I: 1887-1935
House of Craig​
Frank I: 1935-1958
Felix I: 1958-2002
Frank II: 2002-

However as some of the articles notice, the butterflies can come into effect. For example, using the "If Washington hadn't been crowned example", by having King William I or John I (depending on which line you prefer), marry Princess Elizabeth of France due to Lafayette's urging. And if you find that odd that one of Wasington's nephews marrying the devoutly Catholic Elizabeth, remember that Belgium's first royal couple was the Protestant Leopold I and the devoutly Catholic Louise-Marie of France.

Any comments on my imagined line?​
 
I think the type of King the Founding Fathers might have chosen would have been along the Polish-Lithuanian or Papal lines, that is to say an Elective Monarchy. Don't know if the peasant rabble would have been allowed to vote for their king.
 
I think the type of King the Founding Fathers might have chosen would have been along the Polish-Lithuanian or Papal lines, that is to say an Elective Monarchy. Don't know if the peasant rabble would have been allowed to vote for their king.
It would be cool to see Charles Lee as king, just for history!lol factor. :D

Actually Elective Monarchy would be most realistic. Although give Arnold a nice post and keep him popular and you could end up with a tradition of military leaders becoming Kings. It could go up there with Russia and Prussia as the other nations that forces its kings to go through military service before they serve. Rule of awesome there.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
As I am tenuously planning my own American Monarchy thread (becaue AH.com needs another one of those :rolleyes:), I've looked into all of this quite a bit, and I'm fairly certain I've come up with a relatively airtight succession assuming Washington does accept the crown.

I'd go into more detail, but the whole thing's still in the planning stages; I've decided to finish up Tail-Gunner before tackling a monarchical America and the veritable horde of butterflies that swarm out of it.

Here's the House of Washington succession:

  • Monarch (reign)
    • Birth and Ancestry
    • Marriage(s) and number of issue
    • Death
  • George I (1789-1799)
    • February 2, 1732, Westmoreland County, VA, son of Augustine Washington and Mary Ball Washington
    • Martha Dandridge-Custis at the White House, January 6, 1759. No children.
    • December 14, 1799, Mount Vernon. Aged 67.
  • George II (1799-1857)
    • April 30, 1781, Mount Airy, MD, adopted son of George I and Martha Dandridge-Custis
    • Mary Lee Fitzhugh at Mount Vernon, July 7, 1804. 4 children.
    • October 10, 1857, Arlington House. Aged 77.

    [*]Mary I (1857-1873)
    • October 1, 1808, Arlington House, daughter of George II and Mary Lee Fitzhugh
    • Robert Edward Lee at Arlington House, June 30, 1831. 7 children.
    • November 5, 1873, Mount Vernon. Aged 66.
    [*]George III (1873-1913)
    • September 16, 1832, Fort Monroe, VA, son of Mary I and Robert E. Lee
    • None
    • February 18, 1913, Arlington House. Aged 80.
    [*]Robert I (1913-1914)
    • October 27, 1843, Arlington House, son of Mary I and Robert E. Lee
    • 1) Charlotte Taylor Hoxall at Mount Vernon, November 16, 1871. No children. 2) Juliet Carter at Arlington House, March 8, 1894. 2 children.
    • October 19, 1914, Arlington House. Aged 70.
    [*]Robert II (1914-1922)
    • February 11 1869, Arlington House, son of Prince William and Princess Mary Tabb Bolling
    • Mary Wilkinson Middleton at Mount Vernon, December 25, 1919. No children.
    • September 7, 1922, Arlington House. Aged 75.
    [*]George IV (1922-1948)
    • August 31, 1872, Arlington House, son of Prince William and Princess Mary Tabb Bolling
    • Helen Madeline Keeney at Arlington House, April 21, 1920. 2 children.
    • July 13, 1948, Arlington House. Aged 75.
    [*]Robert III (1948-Present)
    • December 2, 1924, Arlington House, son of George IV and Helen M. Keeney
    • Data not yet recovered
    • N/A
 
Last edited:

Major Tom

Banned
Well, in my future timeline, Haiti will end up being an elective monarchy. But a TL in which Arnold becomes king of America sounds nice. But Charles Lee? Does this look like a great warrior to you????



OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! It's Chaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrllllllllllesss Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!! The dreaded ruler of the Continental Army!!!!!!!! ROTFLM*O. I'm really glad I hanged him in my timeline. He got the death he deserved for being an overall incompetent general.
 
I'm really glad I hanged him in my timeline. He got the death he deserved for being an overall incompetent general.
You dont execute a general for being incompetent unless this is Stalin's Russia or Hitlers Germany or something!

Unless he did treason or something. And no incompetence does not equal treason. :p Although yes he was a rather bad general, some schools of thought say that he would have performed more, uh enthusiastically if he was in C-in-C though. And remember there were many that though George Washington would be a push over too.
 
Last edited:

Major Tom

Banned
You dont execute a general for being incompetent unless this is Stalin's Russia or Hitlers Germany or something!

Unless he did treason or something. And no incompetence does not equal treason. :p Although yes he was a rather bad general, some schools of thought say that he would have performed more, uh enthusiastically if he was in C-in-C though.

Hiiamthief, Please look at the timeline in my signature below. I did have him (and Schuyler and Putnam) executed for treason. But the only reason I killed Lee in this timeline was because I thought he deserved to meet a more awful fate than he did in OTL. Also, to the guy with the President McCarthy timeline, I too am considering another American Monarchy timeline, based on the consideration of the Duke of York being named King of the United States (as well as many other timelines, such as 'More Holy, More Roman, and More Empire: Frankish Victory at Roncesvalles', 'A Man on Mars [a more optimistic version of Baxter's 'Voyage'], Napoleonic North America [an ATL of the 'Jacksonian World' TL], and my own stab at a Confederate Victory), but that will wait after I finish 'Jacksonian World'.
 

Major Tom

Banned
And Wolfpaw122 (sorry for forgetting your name), as I told you. This so-called 'Foolproof' succession is not what I favor, and I consider it pretty well cliched. I'll repeat this example of why I oppose this cliche again: Napoleon did not give Eugene de Beauharnais any succession. In fact, I'm naming this cliche the EUGENE DE BEAUHARNAIS IS ENVIOUS AT G.W.P. CUSTIS!!!!!!!! Cliche. But it's your timeline, not mine, and you do whatever you want with it. In fact, the POD of my Confederate victory TL has Judah Benjamin successfully convincing the Court of Napoleon III to fight against the Yanks. Cliched if you ask me, right?
 

Dialga

Banned
I think things could get very interesting in that timeline once the 1860's rolled around. A War of the Roses-type scenario over slavery, anyone?
 

Jake Vektor

Banned
:



    [*]Mary I (1857-1873)
    • October 1, 1808, Arlington House, daughter of George II and Mary Lee Fitzhugh
    • Robert Edward Lee at Arlington House, June 30, 1831. 7 children.
    • November 5, 1873, Mount Vernon. Aged 66.
    [*]George III (1873-1913)
    • September 16, 1832, Fort Monroe, VA, son of Mary I and Robert E. Lee
    • None
    • February 18, 1913, Arlington House. Aged 80.
    [*]Robert I (1913-1914)
    • October 27, 1843, Arlington House, son of Mary I and Robert E. Lee
    • 1) Charlotte Taylor Hoxall at Mount Vernon, November 16, 1871. No children. 2) Juliet Carter at Arlington House, March 8, 1894. 2 children.
    • October 19, 1914, Arlington House. Aged 70.
With Robert E. Lee marrying into the royal family, it is safe to assume Virginia would remain in the union in the ACW. That means OTL's best Confederate generals (like good ol' Stonewall Jackson) would be fighting on the side of the Union. In other words, the pro-slavery forces are doomed.:D (Yeah, I'm a Neo-Confederate, but I imagine that TTL's CSA would be different from the one I know and love.)
 
If the United States were a monarchy, it would be an elective one. Most likely, Hamilton would have tried to be King after Washington, considering his views, and all. That is, if he wasn't ineligible.
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
I'm not sure if it would be an elective monarchy.

Basically, I forsee the USA retaining OTL's political system, only with a monarch who, at the nation's inception, would be pretty much powerless and strictly ceremonial. He/she would probably have to go through a ceremony where they swear allegiance to the Congress and probably have to get "approval" from the Senate to be monarch, sort of like how the UK's prime minister has to be "asked" by the monarch to form a government.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if it would be an elective monarchy.

Basically, I forsee th eUSA retaining OTL's political system, only with a monarch who, at the nation's inception, would be pretty much powerless and strictly ceremonial. He/she would probably have to go through a ceremony where they swear allegiance to the Congress and probably have to get "approval" from the Senate to be monarch, sort of like how the UK's prime minister has to be "asked" by the monarch to form a government.

I basically agree with your assessment. I think the King will be given more control over Foreign Policy, although making war will still go through the Congress. I think the Senate will delve more into a House of Lords sort of thing. But overall, I find it more likely that the King will be elected than there being hereditary succession in the US. The Electoral college will probably be morphed into the Senate and this will be one of the Senate's duties choosing the new King.

If G.W. is king Hamilton will not follow him. I think we will get some more from left Field, like Edward Randolph of Virginia, TJ is possible as is Adams. Or my personal favorite, now that I know more about him, John Jay I King of the Federal Republic of America.
 
Top