Why might the British dominions each be given their own monarch?

Evan

I'm writing a story set in a world where at least Canada and Ireland - and probably Australia and South Africa as well, but they haven't come into the story yet - have each been given independence with a scion of the British royal house as their monarch. The story's set around the 1920's, well after the PoD, so the precise divergence isn't really necessary to the story - but I want to get it clear at least in my own mind.

(No, this won't fully satisfy the Irish independence movement; the plot's actually focused on their efforts to depose the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hannover in favor of a native Ard-Rí na hÉireann. However, it's endured for at least fifty years or so.)

So, what might lead Britain to adopt this proposal instead of the OTL model of Canadian confederation under the same monarch as the United Kingdom? I'd presume a weaker (or already hostile) United States would be required, since the OTL Confederation was given the title "Dominion" instead of "Kingdom" as a sop to American sensibilities, but what other PoD might lead up to this?
 

Dominic

A necessary but not sufficient condition would probably be considerably stronger and more confident dominions that while still being very much pro-Empire develop a much earlier feeling of responsibility for their corner of it. OTL this sort of was coming into being during the early 20th century, or at least it was for Australia which pre-WW1 had rather expansive naval plans that would if realised even in part made it quite a significant force in its local area. Even what was achieved OTL with HMAS Australia made the RAN easily the most powerful force in the South Pacific. If development in the settler colonies is accelerated to the point that they have a decent percentage of the population/resources that the UK proper had, say in the vicinity of 20%, during the pre-dominion period then it's entirely plausible that they would want their own monarchy to reflect their more confident position. Once the precedent is set it's easy to see Ireland getting the same treatment.

On it's own this is probably not enough, there are other forces at work, but IMO it at least makes it much easier by creating an in general stronger desire for autonomy/responsibility.
 

Evan

@Dominic, that's a good thought. OTL Canada had about 5 million people in 1900, against 35 million in the UK less Ireland, so we're already within shouting distance of 20%. If some immigration that went to the United States iOTL is redirected to Canada, we could get even more. Perhaps a more hostile United States, combined with a Britain distracted by Europe, could require Canada to take leadership over North American affairs for the whole Empire?

Alternatively, perhaps the separate monarchs could be proposed as a solution to the Irish problem, while the Irish independence movement is still at a point where they'd be willing to accept that as a settlement? I'm afraid I don't know enough about Parnell's Irish Parliamentary Party and British politics in that era to guess what might lead to that, though. It'd be a huge concession from Westminster, though of course no less than they were forced to give in 1922.
 

Dominic

Evan said:
@Dominic, that's a good thought. OTL Canada had about 5 million people in 1900, against 35 million in the UK less Ireland, so we're already within shouting distance of 20%. If some immigration that went to the United States iOTL is redirected to Canada, we could get even more. Perhaps a more hostile United States, combined with a Britain distracted by Europe, could require Canada to take leadership over North American affairs for the whole Empire?

Alternatively, perhaps the separate monarchs could be proposed as a solution to the Irish problem, while the Irish independence movement is still at a point where they'd be willing to accept that as a settlement? I'm afraid I don't know enough about Parnell's Irish Parliamentary Party and British politics in that era to guess what might lead to that, though. It'd be a huge concession from Westminster, though of course no less than they were forced to give in 1922.
Click to expand...

By 1900 it's probably far too late, I suspect if the country is established without a monarch it's quite unlikely to get one later. Having a more hostile US would certainly help, depends how far back you want the PoD to be.
 

Evan

Dominic said:
By 1900 it's probably far too late, I suspect if the country is established without a monarch it's quite unlikely to get one later. Having a more hostile US would certainly help, depends how far back you want the PoD to be.
Click to expand...
Well... I don't think it's really too late, considering OTL Australian Federation was in 1901, South African union in 1910, and Irish independence in 1922.

Though yes, Canadian Confederation was in 1867, and for the sake of the story I'd rather like to get separate monarchs at least a little earlier than 1900. Given how a separate Canadian national identity grew during the decades after Confederation (as revealed in the OTL 1903 Alaskan boundary dispute), I'd guess an Irish settlement combined with hostile US would lead Canada to ask for one too.

(I haven't settled on when the PoD would be, but I'm leaning toward some point no earlier than 1860. Hmm, maybe the Trent Affair could go differently?)
 
Pangur

Pangur

Donor
For Ireland it would be a question of when. 1900 is quite doable. There ideas from I think griffth alone these lines.
 

chornedsnorkack

Victoria had 9 children. So younger sons of Royal Family were around.
What would happen if Canadian Confederacy Advises and demands an appointment of a royal as Prince Governor, and then makes the post hereditary?
 

Dominic

Evan said:
Well... I don't think it's really too late, considering OTL Australian Federation was in 1901, South African union in 1910, and Irish independence in 1922.

Though yes, Canadian Confederation was in 1867, and for the sake of the story I'd rather like to get separate monarchs at least a little earlier than 1900. Given how a separate Canadian national identity grew during the decades after Confederation (as revealed in the OTL 1903 Alaskan boundary dispute), I'd guess an Irish settlement combined with hostile US would lead Canada to ask for one too.

(I haven't settled on when the PoD would be, but I'm leaning toward some point no earlier than 1860. Hmm, maybe the Trent Affair could go differently?)
Click to expand...

It'd be a curious situation if Canada was as OTL but Aus and the rest had monarchies. IMO though for Australia you'd need a PoD at least in the late 1880's for a monarchy here.

The 1860's is a good time, IMO it gets easier the further you go back but it's definitely doable then. A straightforward PoD for achieving this then would be an Anglo/French intervention in the ACW that defeats the Union and creates a great deal of animosity between Britain and the US. Immigration to the US would be a little down, in particular British immigration, which could be used to bolster Canada and Australia. All you need is someone influential to promote the idea of a Canadian monarchy and you're off to the races.
 
Wallet

Wallet

Banned
I can see royal titles thrown around. Instead of Duke of Scotland or Prince of Wales you could see Princess of New Zealand or Prince of British Colombia
 

Evan

Dominic said:
It'd be a curious situation if Canada was as OTL but Aus and the rest had monarchies. IMO though for Australia you'd need a PoD at least in the late 1880's for a monarchy here.

The 1860's is a good time, IMO it gets easier the further you go back but it's definitely doable then.
Click to expand...
What makes you say it's more doable for Canada in the 1860's than later? Weren't you saying upthread that it gets easier as the Dominions get more populous and prominent - which Canada definitely wasn't in the 1860's, despite its potential?

And I don't know much about the Australian situation; could you expand?
 

Dominic

Evan said:
What makes you say it's more doable for Canada in the 1860's than later? Weren't you saying upthread that it gets easier as the Dominions get more populous and prominent - which Canada definitely wasn't in the 1860's, despite its potential?

And I don't know much about the Australian situation; could you expand?
Click to expand...

There's two reasons very similar I think it tends to get harder the later the PoD. The first is that once a country's political constitution is established i.e. 1867 for Canada etc, it is quite challenging to dramatically alter it. Not impossible, but once a nation is constituted vested interests rapidly develop in the structural status quo. It's certainly possible to have changes of course, but IMO it would probably take a major crisis that shakes up the nation quite a bit, leading to a desire to in this case have a direct monarch installed, perhaps in the name of stability using the ITTL relatively stable UK as an example. The second very similar reason is that IOTL the establishment of Australia, for example, very much was a pre-1901 affair in terms of working out what federation would look like. Again not impossible to have a change by any means, and honestly if this is a TL with a Canadian Monarch it would be very easy to use that precedent to establish an Australian one, but if the PoD hypothetically were that "Australia gets a monarch in 1901" I would find that implausible, as there'd need to be at least a few years of changes building up to it.

RE more populous and confident dominions, this is a separate dynamic to whether or not they already have existing political structures. It definitely helps a lot to have dominions that want to have more responsibility/autonomy within the Empire, it's just also possible that depending on the PoD they may also have pre-existing structures that are harder to place a monarch on than it would be to have had them established with one originally. But certainly, a Canada with say 5 million people in 1867 facing a hostile US would take a much more active role in its defence, which IMO would in turn create at least a greater willingness for its own personal monarch. Perhaps the view would even develop that if Canada had a junior branch of the royal family on the throne the senior branch would be more likely to come to its aid in a crisis out of a desire not to see its member humiliated in defeat. Securitise the head of state!
 

chornedsnorkack

Dominic said:
It definitely helps a lot to have dominions that want to have more responsibility/autonomy within the Empire, it's just also possible that depending on the PoD they may also have pre-existing structures that are harder to place a monarch on than it would be to have had them established with one originally. But certainly, a Canada with say 5 million people in 1867 facing a hostile US would take a much more active role in its defence, which IMO would in turn create at least a greater willingness for its own personal monarch. Perhaps the view would even develop that if Canada had a junior branch of the royal family on the throne the senior branch would be more likely to come to its aid in a crisis out of a desire not to see its member humiliated in defeat. Securitise the head of state!
Click to expand...
Yes, but there is a question as to who Governor General ought to be. A question that might be up to discussion each few years as Governors General are changed.
Who should be a Governor General of Canada? A mid-level soldier of low birth? A British aristocrat? A Canadian?
Or a member of Royal Family?
 

The Gunslinger

chornedsnorkack said:
Yes, but there is a question as to who Governor General ought to be. A question that might be up to discussion each few years as Governors General are changed.
Who should be a Governor General of Canada? A mid-level soldier of low birth? A British aristocrat? A Canadian?
Or a member of Royal Family?
Click to expand...

If you had a permanent royal family member you could do entirely away with the GG and have the new king act in that position's stead.
 

Dominic

The Gunslinger said:
If you had a permanent royal family member you could do entirely away with the GG and have the new king act in that position's stead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Britain does well without one and despite my ardent republicanism I've no doubt an exclusively Canadian or Australian monarch could do the same.
 

Evan

@Dominic, but the earlier this royal settlement goes, the less populous Canada would be. OTL, the first Canadian census in 1871 recorded 3.7 million; significantly upping that in 1867 would require a much earlier PoD... which's possible, but I'd rather avoid it. I agree that it's more challenging to alter a country's constitution after it's established, but it seems like we're pushing two contradictory requirements here.

desmirelle said:
You should do it during the Victorian era; that way each of her kids gets a country. :p
Click to expand...
I like the notion - and to my surprise, it even works out! :D
  • Vicky Princess Royal married the Crown Prince of Prussia in 1858, probably before the PoD.
  • Albert Edward Prince of Wales would be left as heir to Great Britain. Too bad for him - he'd be stuck in the wings while some of his younger siblings are reigning (and okay maybe possibly doing a bit of ruling?) abroad.
  • Princess Alice married the Grand Duke of Hesse in 1862, still too early to be affected by the PoD.
  • Prince Alfred was planned to succeed to Saxe-Coburg, but things might change... at least after German unification. Or maybe he'll be kept back as a spare heir for Britain.
  • Princess Helena married the exiled Prince of Schleswig-Holstein. They're definitely in line for somewhere. Maybe Ireland, which I'm guessing would be the first place to get its own crown?
  • Princess Louise was OTL a very popular wife of the Governor-General of Canada. It wouldn't kill too many butterflies, so how about crowning her Queen of Canada?
  • Prince Arthur was a later Governor-General of Canada, which will obviated by his elder sister's crown.
  • Prince Leopold died of haemophilia in 1884.
  • Princess Beatrice was OTL kept at home to provide her mother company.
So, we've got three heirs to spare (Arthur, Beatrice, and Alfred), and three more dominions (South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.) On the other hand, by the time South Africa unites IOTL, Edward would have his own children... but choosing his siblings would provide some insulation against a colonial line directly inheriting the British throne. On the other hand, they might also want to be ruled by a child of the current British monarch.

(There's also the Indian Empire, which I don't think would change at all. IOTL it only got provincial legislative assemblies in 1935.)
 

Dominic

Evan said:
@Dominic, but the earlier this royal settlement goes, the less populous Canada would be. OTL, the first Canadian census in 1871 recorded 3.7 million; significantly upping that in 1867 would require a much earlier PoD... which's possible, but I'd rather avoid it. I agree that it's more challenging to alter a country's constitution after it's established, but it seems like we're pushing two contradictory requirements here.
Click to expand...

I suppose your main question then is exactly on the PoD you want to use. Earlier is easier, but if you want to avoid that IMO you'll need some very specific events that lead to such a change in what colonies that will be in their composition fundamentally analogous to OTL. Certainly not impossible, just a little tricky and I look forward to reading what you come up with.
 
The Professor

The Professor

I think the only way to get dominions with separate Kings and Queens from the British Crown would be if the King/Queen of GB&I became Emperor/Emperor (of all the British territories) and that each King/Queen being subordinated to said Emperor/Empress.
Otherwise you're separating out control too much and the most you could do is have the tradition of Royal Princes/Princess being General Governors for each subkingdom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top