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

I can only imagine this being deeply tied to the concept of Commonwealth, which leads to the hilarious idea of a British Monarch of India.

It could work, in a weird way if you forego an Emperor that dominates them all - fully independent, but with their own common court (which is probably where Representative of the Monarch would go).

So in order to ensure that there are strong ties, but also common laws, trade ties and military alliances (i.e. everything except taxes to Britain)

Brief outline

1) Starting with Canada, Britain has calls for Dominions, and rather than resist, starts naming heirs the Monarchs of the Dominion (no King title, no Kingdom of Canada, just Monarch). However, in order to keep ties, sets up a common court where in the case of a tie, the Monarch of Britain gets the deciding vote. With just the UK and Canada, that obvious leaves Canada a bit overshadowed, but it is a start. That court helps to ensure that disputes are resolved peacefully, and compensation paid between the parties.

2) Australia calls for Dominion status - and now the dynamic changes. Australia and Canada can work together to overrule Britain.

3) India gets a Monarch (or multiple, depends on the strategy/concerns of the time regarding Indian dominance over the Council) - and now there are possibly ties with the UK and Canada on one side, Australia and India on the other, which leads to whoever ties with the UK winning.

But the key is - so that no Monarch can get multiple seats, all Dominions are indivisible, and unmergable with other dominions. Basically if you are the Monarch of Canada, and the heir of the UK, and the UK Monarch dies - you either abdicate Canada, or get skipped over for the UK.

So rather than a US-style federation, we basically have a UK-primacy in a Federation of Dominions, that besides conflict resolution and war, are pretty much independent.

I don't think I can emphasis how important "indivisible, AND unmergable" is - it prevents the rollback of independence, which, if missing, would render the entire exercise pointless.
 
If Britain was in danger of losing a war and being forced to surrender, it might be advantageous for the dominions to each be completely independent, so they couldn't be included in terms that Britain had forced on it. In the right circumstances, a USA that was indifferent to Britain might find it to be in its own best interests to keep Russia or France from getting their hands on Canada, for example.
 
We already have a Prince of Wales as the customary title for the heir to the throne. Other Dukedoms and Earldoms are created for Royal Family members as required.

It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to imagine "Prince of ......" titles for the dominions being awarded to close Royal family members. They needn't be hereditary
 
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.
Very good point. Do you think we'd get "Emperor of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas," or would "Emperor of India" be good enough to denote his precedence? I'm sort of liking the latter - keep calling him "King of the United Kingdom and Emperor of India," quietly insinuating that the former takes precedence over the latter and thus by implication all other kings in the Empire.

It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to imagine "Prince of ......" titles for the dominions being awarded to close Royal family members. They needn't be hereditary
Even better: To avoid tying the heir to the King-Emperorship with any one realm, he gets a title in each dominion, to go along with being both Prince of Wales in England and Duke of Rothesay in Scotland.
 
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
There's no "Duke of Scotland" - Scotland was a Kingdom, not a Duchy, and is now (*cough* unfortunately *cough*) part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unless you're a Jacobite, in which case it remains a Kingdom sui iuris. Vivat Franciscus secundus Rex!)

You're probably thinking of the Duke of Edinburgh, currently Prince Philip "Don't stay in China too long or you'll all grow slitty-eyed!" von Battenberg. (Since I'm new I feel compelled to point out this is a quote of his; I don't have some kind of racist Tourette's.) :)

Anyway, returning to the topic, one scenario I haven't seen mentioned is a variation on a Norway-like split from Sweden; where the populations of the dominions have referenda in which they choose independence, but have no republican aspirations, and thus demand their own monarchs. Said monarch is quite likely to be part of the existing royal family (experience and all that), although a high-ranking "local" noble would be an option especially in Ireland - not so much in the colonies of course.
 

Wallet

Banned
There's no "Duke of Scotland" - Scotland was a Kingdom, not a Duchy, and is now (*cough* unfortunately *cough*) part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unless you're a Jacobite, in which case it remains a Kingdom sui iuris. Vivat Franciscus secundus Rex!)

You're probably thinking of the Duke of Edinburgh, currently Prince Philip "Don't stay in China too long or you'll all grow slitty-eyed!" von Battenberg. (Since I'm new I feel compelled to point out this is a quote of his; I don't have some kind of racist Tourette's.) :)

Anyway, returning to the topic, one scenario I haven't seen mentioned is a variation on a Norway-like split from Sweden; where the populations of the dominions have referenda in which they choose independence, but have no republican aspirations, and thus demand their own monarchs. Said monarch is quite likely to be part of the existing royal family (experience and all that), although a high-ranking "local" noble would be an option especially in Ireland - not so much in the colonies of course.
I'm a red blooded American. I know the difference between BBQ sauce from Memphis, Texas, and Georgia. I don't know anything about kingdoms or Duchy or princes or dudes named von.
 
Anyway, returning to the topic, one scenario I haven't seen mentioned is a variation on a Norway-like split from Sweden; where the populations of the dominions have referenda in which they choose independence, but have no republican aspirations, and thus demand their own monarchs. Said monarch is quite likely to be part of the existing royal family (experience and all that), although a high-ranking "local" noble would be an option especially in Ireland - not so much in the colonies of course.
Very interesting idea. It'd be difficult to get any dominion to the point where they'd choose independence without having a republican movement strong enough to stop a new monarch (like happened in Ireland), but I could see something like this happening in India. Or, I suppose, in Zimbabwe if Ian Smith stays around.
 
The general discussion appears correct. The Professor and RogueTraderEnthusiast seem to have things best outlined.

Required PODs.

1) Creation of noble titles linked to at least several territories within each of the world's areas under the British Crown, supported by some official list, heritable, with some privileges respected locally and under British parliamentary law. Such brats of such nobility to be granted mobility at Eton and Sandhurst and the Inns at Court.

2) A crisis involving confidence, unitary British culture, and an ongoing foreign threat or series of foreign threats ("foreign" meaning anyone who does not collectively speak English).

3) A period of growth and success following a period of international war, a situation requiring a consolidation of purpose among English speaking peoples. Nobility within the many realms of the Empire being put forth by the populace as worthy monarchs and Parliament approving while ("spontaneously" yet simultaneously) raising the leading title of the House of Hanover (now House of Britannia) to Her Imperial Highness, the Britannic Empress. (Note: it won't be Victoria, too many Butterflies, but whoever she is, she'll be English, forbidden to travel, and her dumbest, youngest sister or cousin will be made Queen of England to keep the expanding Empire secure.
 
raising the leading title of the House of Hanover (now House of Britannia) to Her Imperial Highness, the Britannic Empress. (Note: it won't be Victoria, too many Butterflies

This lines up nicely with the OTL "Empress of India" title, given to make sure Victoria wouldn't be outranked by her daughter the German Empress-to-be. I could see them maybe choosing Britannic Empress to make sure it stayed at home, though... but India sounds more imperial, given the long-extant line of Kings of Great Britain who were most definitely not emperors.
and her dumbest, youngest sister or cousin will be made Queen of England to keep the expanding Empire secure.
I don't think that lines up with how the British did things, though. When there was a Canadian Parliament, Southern Irish Parliament, or Scottish Parliament, England didn't get a Parliament of its own; no, the Imperial Parliament at Westminster was also a Parliament for England. In the same manner, the Brittanic Empress will also be Queen of Great Britain (since I don't think Scotland would get independence at this time.)
 
Top