What if the U.S. started as a Noble Republic?

Zioneer

Banned
Like the title says, what if, after the British recognize American independence, in an effort to salvage relations with the monarchies of Europe, the U.S. invents noble titles, and gives them to the heroes of the American Revolution.

Sort of like Venice with their noble merchant classes, but more modern. Somehow.

Maybe there would be Count Franklin, Lord of Pennsylvania, or something like that?

Would there be any way this WI would be possible?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
I wouldn't see this republic lasting after the Civil War. It would have a different name, something like the 'War of American Feifdoms' [sp?].
 
... hmm so what would Washington be? like God fucking Emperor, or Arch duke or something, :)

Yeah you know the constitution only permitted land owners to vote originally I'd say we stay a lot more conservative than we would be.
 
I don't see why not. The issue was probably considered (or at least proposed) but they definitely did not think much about it.
 
I don't know where I heard it but I heard America was originally supposed to be an elective monarchy, with the monarch elected every 10 years or so by land owners. George Washington managed to turn it into a proper republic. Or so I heard, probably from someone who wasnt an American ;).

Jim
 
I don't know where I heard it but I heard America was originally supposed to be an elective monarchy, with the monarch elected every 10 years or so by land owners. George Washington managed to turn it into a proper republic. Or so I heard, probably from someone who wasnt an American ;).

Jim

Huh hadn't heard that one, I did hear the military offered to make Washington King, and thus the whole spiel about George III and George I
 
When they did it for better relations to European monarchies, the chances for the French Revolution would be diminished. (butterfly: no statue of liberty)
 
Whether or not this happens, the French Revolution will probably still happen. The causes of the French Revolution are way more complicated than the French simply helping the Americans. The causes stretch back to the reign of Louis XIV, and indeed through most of the 18th century. It'd be hard to butterfly it away simply because the Constitutional Congress decides they should have titles.

I don't see why the Congress would want this, to salvage relations with the monarchies of Europe. Who do they really have any relations with, anyways? Spain and France aided America during their struggle, and they fought against Britain. Naturally relations will repair with Britain, and America had no problems with Spain and France during this era.
 
Considering that a lordship is a higher title than a county, he would be better styled "Lord Franklin of Pennsylvania, Count of Philadelphia." :p

Actually, at least in the British peerage, the title "lord" isn't even a proper rank. Rather, it is used to refer to any rank between Baron and Marquess. So, for instance, the Earl of Essex could be called Paul, Earl of Essex, or Lord Essex. But never Lord Paul of Essex, because "Lord Firstname" indicates that you are the second son of a Duke, etc., etc.

So, yes. XD
 

Zioneer

Banned
Whether or not this happens, the French Revolution will probably still happen. The causes of the French Revolution are way more complicated than the French simply helping the Americans. The causes stretch back to the reign of Louis XIV, and indeed through most of the 18th century. It'd be hard to butterfly it away simply because the Constitutional Congress decides they should have titles.

I don't see why the Congress would want this, to salvage relations with the monarchies of Europe. Who do they really have any relations with, anyways? Spain and France aided America during their struggle, and they fought against Britain. Naturally relations will repair with Britain, and America had no problems with Spain and France during this era.

Hmm.. then perhaps Congress becomes more opportunistic, and only creates the titles in order to have a chance of inheriting parts of Europe?

Maybe this makes Congress more conservative, but much more interventionist in European affairs?

Aha! They become a Noble Republic under the advice of Jefferson or Franklin, both realizing that the situation in France will boil over soon, and that if the U.S. is a noble republic, that they can gain a great deal from refugee French Nobles.

Another point towards the Noble Republic is that there was still a bit of pro-monarchist feeling amongst some of the population, and indeed, the army, right? Well, instead of having to stop revolts based on taxes, Congress merely grants some soldiers titles, which will mollify the pro-monarchists, and less money then before.

Of course, John Adams and others like him may not like it, but they may realize that these measures can be useful. Especially if whoever comes up with the Noble Republic does not use the title of "King" and "your excellency", but uses titles similar to Venice's, or simply uses the President title for the Chief Executive, but uses feudal titles for the rest.

As for the salvaging of relations with the monarchies, well, Spain and France would be even more friendly with America if they knew they could inherit parts of it, no?

Perhaps they could gain power, money, and prestige by letting exiled German lords flee to America?

Help me with this, I'm running blank on the actual reason for a Noble Republic.
 
Perhaps the elites just wanted to consolidate their power more? Thats all I can think of.
 
Last edited:
A noble republic for the USA sounds interesting. However, you're trying at far too late of a POD. In order for a noble republic to form, an actual aristocracy needs to be in America before the Revolutionary War. Getting the Lord Baltimores and other nobles who were given permission to create colonies actually in their colonies would help. One of the Stuarts could possibly allow titles of nobility for younger sons of the lower gentry who emigrate to the colonies as a means of buying off men in parliament who are getting annoyed with having to pay for their younger brothers. I don't think that bringing the Dukes and other top tier level nobles would be good, but thats just me.

With an established aristocracy, one could see a noble republic form. I can see the President being authorized by the constitution to grant titles of noblity for servinces rended for the country. The senate and the house of represntatives could potentially become analogious to the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Britian.
 
Lord Stirling served with distinction throughout the war and I always thought it would've been great too make it an official title bestowed by the Senate on a worthy individual. I also like the idea of attracting French nobles to America with generous land grants.
 
Membership in the Society of the Cincinatti was/is limited to Continental Army officers, their eldest sons, and so on, through the eldest male line. Many thought they were trying to create a national aristocracy.

But a certain egalitarianism was fairly ingrained in American culture long before the Revolution. You had your gentlemen and your roughsorts, and everyone respected the King, but all in all the Colonies had a level of social mobility, and a mass participation in local government, that was shocking to newcomers from Europe. That's why so many people moved here. There was a reason we went with a system without nobility; it wasn't just a flip of a coin.

There are earlier PODs that could result in a more durable American aristocracy, I think. Maryland was originally an imitation-feudal kind of place. Carolina and other places were property of "lords proprietor". This system could have evolved to the point where the aristocracy had a more definite role in the governments that emerged.
 
A noble republic for the USA sounds interesting. However, you're trying at far too late of a POD. In order for a noble republic to form, an actual aristocracy needs to be in America before the Revolutionary War. Getting the Lord Baltimores and other nobles who were given permission to create colonies actually in their colonies would help. One of the Stuarts could possibly allow titles of nobility for younger sons of the lower gentry who emigrate to the colonies as a means of buying off men in parliament who are getting annoyed with having to pay for their younger brothers. I don't think that bringing the Dukes and other top tier level nobles would be good, but thats just me.

With an established aristocracy, one could see a noble republic form. I can see the President being authorized by the constitution to grant titles of noblity for servinces rended for the country. The senate and the house of represntatives could potentially become analogious to the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Britian.

I like the sound of this.
Actually, this inadvertently might butterfly away the American revolution, though--or at least delay it significantly. If a 'peerage of the Americas' was created by the Crown (in the same manner as the peerages of Ireland, England, Great Britain, etc.) you'd have to also have an American House of Lords (and thus a House of Commons). Of course, this would most likely be subject de facto to the Parliament in London, just as the Irish Parliament was, but still, it technically provides for representation, and essentially establishes 'home rule' in the colonies, along with an American crown, in personal union with the British one.
This all may be very useful to the Stuarts as well--after all, granting too many domestic peerages clogs up the House of Lords with upstarts and dilutes the aristocracy, but rewarding loyal supporters with 'foreign' peerages (such as in Ireland, or, in this case, the Americas) elevates them in status, and at the same time, keeps the lords of Great Britain in their place as the ruling elite.
(I'm sure you could tweak this a bit, and be able to still get a revolution around the same time, and an aristocratic republic).

Just my observation, sorry for the tangent...:eek:
 
Membership in the Society of the Cincinatti was/is limited to Continental Army officers, their eldest sons, and so on, through the eldest male line. Many thought they were trying to create a national aristocracy.

But a certain egalitarianism was fairly ingrained in American culture long before the Revolution. You had your gentlemen and your roughsorts, and everyone respected the King, but all in all the Colonies had a level of social mobility, and a mass participation in local government, that was shocking to newcomers from Europe. That's why so many people moved here. There was a reason we went with a system without nobility; it wasn't just a flip of a coin.

There are earlier PODs that could result in a more durable American aristocracy, I think. Maryland was originally an imitation-feudal kind of place. Carolina and other places were property of "lords proprietor". This system could have evolved to the point where the aristocracy had a more definite role in the governments that emerged.

This. You all are seriously misunderstanding what the American Revolution was all about for most of the participants. You're repeating silly rumors and, it seems, making some up. None of them have basis in historical fact. The monarchists were a tiny, nearly insignificant faction and they weren't even actual 'monarchists' in the sense that they wanted a king, they simply wanted to get rid of the states and replace them with a fully national government, still republican in nature. Genuine, "Give me a king or give me death!", people simply couldn't gain any political traction. The American colonies already had a long tradition of wide participatory democracy.

I mean, have any of you read Common Sense?

This entire topic verges on ASB.

EDIT: You know what? I've got some free time so I'll do each and every one of these.

Like the title says, what if, after the British recognize American independence, in an effort to salvage relations with the monarchies of Europe, the U.S. invents noble titles, and gives them to the heroes of the American Revolution.

This is just not going to happen. The American Revolution was one of the early liberal revolutions, an ideological thing which outright rejected birthright privileges. Titles of nobility go completely against that. The American Founders were inspired by guys like John Locke and Montesquieu, they weren't interested in an aristocracy. And no, the southern plantation owners weren't aristocrats, no matter how often we may call them so colloquially these days. Even if some of them had been hit hard over the head and ended up supporting an aristocracy, there's a large, well-trained, veteran group of small-holders willing to object, having just fought a war against that very sort of thing. The only possibility ever was George Washington becoming a very weak, constitutional monarch, and that was politically impossible.

Yeah you know the constitution only permitted land owners to vote originally I'd say we stay a lot more conservative than we would be.

The Constitution said nothing about who was allowed to vote, that was left up to the individual states. Some, like Virginia, retained property qualifications for the vote, but it's important to remember that most of the states with property qualifications had vast amounts of essentially free land for any one who was willing to work it to go and take. It's misleading to say the property qualifications made it so the majority couldn't vote, because the majority owned property! Some states, however, immediately adopted universal male suffrage, such as in Pennsylvania or New Jersey.

I don't see why not. The issue was probably considered (or at least proposed) but they definitely did not think much about it.

Well, as mentioned, John Adams was all about making the office of President very aristocratic in nature, giving it an official title something like, "His Excellency and Defender of our Liberties, the President". He was kind of alone on this, though. The closest that others came were such things as several of the early plans for Union involved the creation of a Senate whose members were elected or appointed for life, although this is definitely not the same thing as titled nobility.

I don't know where I heard it but I heard America was originally supposed to be an elective monarchy, with the monarch elected every 10 years or so by land owners. George Washington managed to turn it into a proper republic. Or so I heard, probably from someone who wasnt an American ;).

Jim

I don't know where you heard this but it has no basis in the historical record. Some of the plans for Union, again, did include electing the president for life, but those were all rejected early on, usually before they even left committee.

Huh hadn't heard that one, I did hear the military offered to make Washington King, and thus the whole spiel about George III and George I

This one DID happen, in that a a cabal of military officers from the Continental Army were thinking of marching on Philadelphia during the 1787 convention and demanding Washington be crowned, but Washington himself dispelled the conspiracy by refusing to participate. Getting things to go differently requires changing Washington's personality.

This entire thread comes down to ignorance of the conditions surrounding the Revolutionary era. A noble republic simply wasn't going to happen, democracy with wide suffrage was an already established tradition in American culture at the time. Colonial militia elected the officers that would lead the, for instance.
 
Last edited:
Wanted to reply to this one. I think a good POD to establishing a noble republic in America would be the giving in of Parliament/George III in response to the no taxation without representation demands of the colonies. Instead of the policies pursued the buying off of the merchant/agricultural elite would help establish control of the colonies and tie them more firmly into the British Empire. Giving Jefferson the title of Earl of Monticello, John Adams the title Squire of Briantree, Washington the title of Earl of Mount Vernon, etc. would give the Founding Fathers control of the nation. I remember the Alternate Generals anthology by Turtledove and enjoyed the "Charge of the Light Brigade" story about the aristorcratic Baron Robert E Lee and his brigade of Virginians disobeying the British general and using dragoon tactics to defeat the Russians in the Crimean War.
 
Top