What if King George III visits America?

I have recently heard that King George had planned to visit his American colonies some time before the revolution, but that he had to cancel due to health issues.

I don't know if this is historically accurate, but for this thread I'll assume it is.

So what would've happened if his health had held and King George had personally toured America?

Could he have lowered the tensions? Would he have addressed the colony's concerns, such as giving representation, or just made things worse?
 
I have recently heard that King George had planned to visit his American colonies some time before the revolution, but that he had to cancel due to health issues.

I don't know if this is historically accurate, but for this thread I'll assume it is.

So what would've happened if his health had held and King George had personally toured America?

Could he have lowered the tensions? Would he have addressed the colony's concerns, such as giving representation, or just made things worse?

It'd make for a rather interesting POD. He'd try to address whatever issues or problems the colonists may have, in order to improve the relations between Britain and the 13 Colonies.
 
I have recently heard that King George had planned to visit his American colonies some time before the revolution, but that he had to cancel due to health issues.

I don't know if this is historically accurate, but for this thread I'll assume it is.

So what would've happened if his health had held and King George had personally toured America?

Could he have lowered the tensions? Would he have addressed the colony's concerns, such as giving representation, or just made things worse?

I have never heard this. Do you have a source?
 
Whilst I think it likely that George III would be moved be the arguements of leading colonials for more representation, and that he might even plan to introduce reforms, ultimately any such efforts will be neutered by parliment. The most that could be possibly made to stick are probably the creation of a peerage system for North America, and/or royal patronage for existing colonial assemblies. Neither of which are realistically going to solve the underlying issues.

It would likely however leave the King and colonists somewhat better predisposed to each other, and might have some interesting repercusions down the line. The king would probably be more receptive to further entreaties and though parliment would no doubt resist further, King George would be seen as a colonial ally rather than as an opponent.
This might paradoxically lead to a increase in support for the rebels, who would gain those who would otherwise have been loyalists but now view the conflcit though the frame of a benevolent and sympathetic king being thwarted by corrupt advisors. The king's support if it continues during the war, would probably lead to it being shorter as the British establishment's tolerance for setback would be even less and wider society, taking cues from thier sovereign, would be even more symapthetic to the American cause than OTL.

Another resulting quirk, especially with a large number of monarchists among the 'patriots' might be that the Americans decide to form a consitutional monarchy, just as many of the nationalist movements of the 19th century would later do, either offering the crown of America to George to be held in Personal Union, or to one of his sons. Quite possibly Prince Edward, which amusingly might then lead to Queen Victoria of America, who would then inherit the throne of Britian from her uncle.

In one timeline you might see the United Kingdom of America, and the United Kingdom of Britian in personal union for a singificant part of the 19th century, both developing as co-equal leaders of the larger British Empire. As technology and political thought develops into the 20th century, and the stresses of maintaining the Empire begin to take thier toll, it is very likely that sometime in that century there is either a final split that severs the two, or one more act of union that unites Parliament and Congress as one. Though by that point Congress would no doubt be the more powerful of the two institutions.
 
Whilst I think it likely that George III would be moved be the arguements of leading colonials for more representation, and that he might even plan to introduce reforms, ultimately any such efforts will be neutered by parliment. The most that could be possibly made to stick are probably the creation of a peerage system for North America, and/or royal patronage for existing colonial assemblies. Neither of which are realistically going to solve the underlying issues.

It would likely however leave the King and colonists somewhat better predisposed to each other, and might have some interesting repercusions down the line. The king would probably be more receptive to further entreaties and though parliment would no doubt resist further, King George would be seen as a colonial ally rather than as an opponent.
This might paradoxically lead to a increase in support for the rebels, who would gain those who would otherwise have been loyalists but now view the conflcit though the frame of a benevolent and sympathetic king being thwarted by corrupt advisors. The king's support if it continues during the war, would probably lead to it being shorter as the British establishment's tolerance for setback would be even less and wider society, taking cues from thier sovereign, would be even more symapthetic to the American cause than OTL.

Another resulting quirk, especially with a large number of monarchists among the 'patriots' might be that the Americans decide to form a consitutional monarchy, just as many of the nationalist movements of the 19th century would later do, either offering the crown of America to George to be held in Personal Union, or to one of his sons. Quite possibly Prince Edward, which amusingly might then lead to Queen Victoria of America, who would then inherit the throne of Britian from her uncle.

In one timeline you might see the United Kingdom of America, and the United Kingdom of Britian in personal union for a singificant part of the 19th century, both developing as co-equal leaders of the larger British Empire. As technology and political thought develops into the 20th century, and the stresses of maintaining the Empire begin to take thier toll, it is very likely that sometime in that century there is either a final split that severs the two, or one more act of union that unites Parliament and Congress as one. Though by that point Congress would no doubt be the more powerful of the two institutions.

I think something like that happened in one of my favorite TLs, The Course of Human Events. It was where King George III's Proclamation of 1763 set off a series of events leading up to the formation of the Continental Provinces of Albion. So, provided there are at least little to no obstacles, a constitutional monarchy for America may very well happen if he plays his cards right.
 

I agree with all of this barring the idea of America being a specific co-leader of the Empire: the American *Dominion would be entirely preoccupied with North America and most likely heading to the Pacific in grabbing Spanish Louisiana, New Mexico, and California during the Jacobin-Napoleonic Wars and continuing to settle the vast expanse of the continent under Anglo-American control.

This is mostly because even in OTL America didn't bother to look into the wider world much at all until 1898, and that alone was catalyzed by local interest Cuba to boot, and not from the Philippines or anything. I DO agree many Americans will bolster numbers and energy in the British Armed Forces or Trading Companies, but specifically as members of those institutions, not specifically American members, branches of the institutions, etc.

I would also argue in my eyes the formal split as two different nations happens in the mid-19th century or so and not the mid-20th, because America was that much more populated and developed enough to (obviously) run itself by the 1770s versus settler Canada and Australasia just STARTING colonization in the 1780s, and because it took a good eighty-five years from individual Responsible Government for Canadian colonies (1841) to the Balfour Declaration confirming Canada's formal independence from the Empire (1926). Which amusingly means the parallel time at earliest for formal American independence is around the OTL time of Canadian Responsible Government (1841, again) to the latest being the American Civil War's Federal supremacy/Canadian Dominion status (mid 1860s).
 
Last edited:
George III struggled with Parliament for much of his reign. If he takes a shine to some of the Founding Fathers he might try to use the colonies as a bloc to break his political enemies. Being the balance of power might be preferable to independence.
 
I've thought this was a good idea and the best chance the British government had in reducing the chances. It might have backfired bot was worth trying.

However, I'm not sure if it was considered. The first visit of a European monarchy to the colonies was the flight of the Portuguese royal family from Portugal to Brazil, thirty years later and under very different circumstances. I'm not sure when the first visit of a British monarch to one of the overseas dominions was, but it had to be much later.

There was a reasonably large consensus in the British establishment in favor of the policies that led to the split, and I'm coming to the conclusion that the British financial position and the need to shore up their position in India and Canada really gave them no choice. However where George III came in was in insisting on the attempt to reconquer the colonies by force, which his chief military advisor (Amherst) told him couldn't be done, and his political advisors other than Germain certainly wanted to cut a deal as soon as possible.

So if George III takes a different attitude, I could see the British government simply folding around the time of the evacuation of Boston, probably sending the IOTL peace commission earlier and not accompanied by Howe's army. This would preserve a personal union of the crown with America and have big effects down the road, starting with butterflying away the US constitution. Another butterfly would affect France, who would have no opportunity to get involved in a war that was just prevented, meaning they either shore up their own financial position or get involved in a continental European war instead.
 
What if George III travels to the American colonies, but on the way back home wrecks and George loses his life? What could be the effects? I'm leaving the date as open as in the OP.
 

Kaze

Banned
Succession would be clear if George III died = George IV would come to the throne. George IV was a spend-thrift, he would expect the colonies to support him, so there might be still a rebellion where in George III would be seen as a "good king" by the rebels. If the rebellion happens - George Washington might be tasked to fill the role of the lost king as the "King of the Americas" even if he protests it.

As for the French Revolution - it was inevitable as a sunrise.
 
Just hearsay. I am looking though.

Well, this is spectacularly unlikely. America was considered a wild backwater and the trip across the Atlantic is far too long and difficult for a King. The modern British monarchy did not visit Ireland until the 1820s, so the idea they would take a massively longer trip to visit the colonies is pretty crazy.
 
Succession would be clear if George III died = George IV would come to the throne.

Well I guess my biggest issue is that he's only born in 1762, so he'd still be quite young when he does so. So perhaps we get a stronger Parliament than even historically?
 
Succession would be clear if George III died = George IV would come to the throne. George IV was a spend-thrift, he would expect the colonies to support him, so there might be still a rebellion where in George III would be seen as a "good king" by the rebels. If the rebellion happens - George Washington might be tasked to fill the role of the lost king as the "King of the Americas" even if he protests it.

As for the French Revolution - it was inevitable as a sunrise.

George III had several sons. Dissatisfaction with George IV would allow the American Kingdom or whatever it might be called in this timeline to claim that with the death of Good King George, their monarch would be the second son, the highly competent Frederick Augustus. Assuming he still marries Frederica Charlotte and is as unhappy as OTL, the crowns could still be united by Edward Augustus' line, should he have only one offspring as OTL. However, this would give precedent to the Kingdom of America again being split off when alt-Victoria dies with several viable heirs.

So, flag of Hawaii? Hanover coat of arms in a ring of stars?
 
George III had several sons. Dissatisfaction with George IV would allow the American Kingdom or whatever it might be called in this timeline to claim that with the death of Good King George, their monarch would be the second son, the highly competent Frederick Augustus. Assuming he still marries Frederica Charlotte and is as unhappy as OTL, the crowns could still be united by Edward Augustus' line, should he have only one offspring as OTL. However, this would give precedent to the Kingdom of America again being split off when alt-Victoria dies with several viable heirs.

So, flag of Hawaii? Hanover coat of arms in a ring of stars?

OTL Grand Union flag I'd say, since the thirteen colonies bit was a common element for a while and represented the originally-English settled, most-established colonies pre-French and Indian War.
 
Top