A couple of years ago now the YouTuber UsefulCharts did an alternate history chart, of who would be King of Canada if Canada‘s monarchy after independence had a monarch from the British royal family, but seperate to Queen Victoria. The Prince chosen in this video was Prince Alfred, Victoria’s second son. Could this happen with Canada and other British dominions (eg. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, maybe even India or Ireland).
WI: Alternate Monarchs for British Dominions
- Thread starter Emperor Max
- Start date
This needs a precedent and I think a better way to have this is having a Hanover Prince stationed as governor in the British North America prior to American Revolution, and actually sided with the colonists, and thus made the King of United Kingdoms of America.
And the relationship between America and Britain ended up reconciliated rather fast afterwards.
This would set a precedence to split the parts of the Empire into nominally independent Kingdoms but having them being kept in a looser federation tied in family ties.
And the relationship between America and Britain ended up reconciliated rather fast afterwards.
This would set a precedence to split the parts of the Empire into nominally independent Kingdoms but having them being kept in a looser federation tied in family ties.
Maybe starting with an albany plan-esque arrangement with Prince Frederick appointed as President-General by the King?
Disraeli mooted such an idea for Victoria's younger sons. In the 1870s Victoria's daughter Louise's husband was Governor General of Canada and they proved a popular couple. Later Victoria's son Arthur was Governor General and was equally popular, his daughter Patricia who acted as effective First Lady was very popular there and retained a connection with the Canadian military until her death in the 1970s!
I don't think its impossible what you suggest you just have to identify the right time.
You need a 'Norway 1905' moment, where the local population wanted greater independence from the colonial power but also wanted to maintain the existing monarchical system and a connection to the previous ruling dynasty.
The logical one would be 1936, when the abdication happened.
Maybe Arthur is instituted as King instead of Governor-General (or is promoted in 1912/1913 time, just before WW1), and this practice is repeated for other dominions seeking independence.
I think you have four options
1880s - when the idea of an Imperial Britain was in full swing, drawing upon the German Empire, you could have the Empress Victoria of the British Empire and her descendants ruling sub-monarchies as King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
Post WW1 - I think maybe after WW1 is more likely than pre-war as the war is often viewed as being the point where the idea of being Canadian, Australian etc and detached (somewhat) from the UK became a much more widespread idea so the idea of having a separate monarch but one attached to the mother country may have been appealing. Of course in 1918/1919 at that time King George V had four healthy sons (Prince John, the fifth son died in 1919) and I anticipate he and Queen Mary may have felt more inclined to support their younger sons taking thrones as opposed to elderly uncles. Edward VII had much the same view on Norway, he pushed his son-in-law Carl of Denmark to accept the Norwegian throne as he preferred his descendants on the Norwegian throne as opposed to the other suggested candidate Carl of Sweden who was himself married to Edward's niece by marriage.
Post 1931 - As part of the Statute of Westminster some move towards independent monarchies under the headship of an Emperor (such title being held by the British monarch) as part of the gradual evolving nature of the Dominions relationship with the UK.
Post 1936 - the Commonwealth countries reacted more furiously to the idea of Edward VIII marrying Wallis Simpson than the British government. At that time, Henry of Gloucester and George of Kent were happily married to beautiful popular women and would have seemed potentially attractive candidates, its not inconceivable that infuriated by what was going on in London they wanted their own monarch and would look to the younger brothers of George VI. The Duke of Gloucester served as Governor General of Australia in the mid 1940s, Queen Mary's brother the Earl of Athlone acted as Governor General of Canada for the entire Second world war and had previously been GG of South Africa for over 5 years.
WanderingProfessor
Banned
The British Empire creating Kingdoms for it's colonies would result in Dominions rendered obsolete and the Imperial Federarion actually becoming a real political entity since the children and descendants of Victoria would continue to rule places like Australia or Canada. In the case of Ireland, there were efforts to create a Parliament for the Emerald Isle but they were all for nothing after the Easter Rising of 1916 and the subsequent Irish War of Independence but having a King or Queen in charge with full local representation would alleviate the concerns of most Irish Catholics and strengthen ties with the Home Islands. Similarly, South Africa and India are also candidates for a relative of the Royal Family to rule as King or Queen.
Last edited:
I think it would be easier for the precedent to be set if there were already Royals involved in Governor General Positions, starting as early as Post-Revolutionary War period, such as Prince Edward being the GG of British North America instead of just visiting. This practice could theoretically extend to Australia at some point in the 19th Century, along with the Cape, India, or even Ireland following crises (e.g. 1845 or 1847). By already having precedent of Royals active in the "Viceroyalties", then by the time you reach an ALT-Victoria, there is political precedent to make those temporary postings more permanent, maybe in light of shifting power in the Concert of Europe. Thus Alt-Victoria gives crowns to the Dominions as part of a greater British Empire.
Of course that action can also spectacularly backfire and cause the Empire more headaches later on
Of course that action can also spectacularly backfire and cause the Empire more headaches later on
There are other threads like this, and it's worth noting that a number of the governors general among the dominions in the twentieth century had royal blood. I'm planning on doing something like this with a map I'm putting together with a POD in 1843, but might well be doable with a twentieth century or late nineteenth century POD. My idea right now is that one of the numerous butterflies from my POD is a war between Britain on one side and Imperial Russia and the Second French Empire on the other, resulting in enough of a defeat for the British that the dominions and India end up breaking away as separate monarchies.
A thread on here I think less than a year ago, maybe longer, was Australia-focused but centered on the idea of various princes being kings of the dominions after World War I.
A thread on here I think less than a year ago, maybe longer, was Australia-focused but centered on the idea of various princes being kings of the dominions after World War I.