WI; British Raj continued under independent Emporer?

Ok folks how about this? Let's say that at some point by ohh 1800 strait when British dominance in India had started to really and truly become unquestioned could let's saaaay Sha Alam II's of the Mughals empires sons die from cholera, or maybe he just doesn't have any son's either way is it within the real of realism that he should send a delegation with the very reasonable request for a younger son of the house of england to be adopted as his heir, perhaps as a way to ensure his daughter would have a strong powerbase? I image it would be scandelous in England in the same sense that "oh the young Prince is to rule over heathens and cannibals...how ungodly!" Maybe the clergy could get behind it as a way to bring Christ to India? How would this go down in the Mughals court or other Indian courts? BTW it doesn't need to be the mughals specifically. I admit I know this is probably more ASB, but I really want to avoid a Peshawar Lancers trope of combining the courts, I'd rather like to see them view each other as "strange cousin's over yonder ocean." Yay or nay?
 
A fascinating scenario, @Galba Otho Vitelius! Realistically, it will run into the problems that @Indicus raised: handful of white fellows trying to govern vast masses of Indians and all that. Not to mention the fact that at this point, it'll hardly be a British Raj being ruled by William Henry. Without British support, he'll indeed be King of Bengal, but vast areas of Indian will be beyond his control-- and beyond his hopes of conquering. (On the other hand, a smaller kingdom will be correspondingly easier to hold on to for a few white men. There is precedent for that sort of thing...)

The issue, of course, is that Bengal is the most densely populated part of India, so maybe move this kingdom to a less populous part of India - say, to Travancore or around the Circars.
 
A fascinating scenario, @Galba Otho Vitelius! Realistically, it will run into the problems that @Indicus raised: handful of white fellows trying to govern vast masses of Indians and all that. Not to mention the fact that at this point, it'll hardly be a British Raj being ruled by William Henry. Without British support, he'll indeed be King of Bengal, but vast areas of Indian will be beyond his control-- and beyond his hopes of conquering. (On the other hand, a smaller kingdom will be correspondingly easier to hold on to for a few white men. There is precedent for that sort of thing...)
You know Sarawak was actually a major inspiration for this. I always admired their paternalistic rule over their subjects, and it was this that made me wonder if with the resources and help of the British empire that sort of thing could have been done to India. Theres this great TL thats among my favorites https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/of-rajahs-and-hornbills-a-timeline.311331/.
 
<delurks>

My first thought on an answer is for something akin to the Home Rule movement to get off the ground (Civil Service and Military along with a stronger Parliament opened completely with any incoming Brits being obliged to earn their place in honest competition and expected to stay long term), only with a cadet branch of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha being set up as a largely toothless ceremonial monarch rather than an equally toothless appointed-on-advice-of-the-actual-government Governor General. But then that may be a post 1900 POD

The great issue with this is that there are only a few thousand white people ruling over millions of Indians. British rule was premeditated on co-opting the elite and the threat of force. Take away the latter and you just have a few thousand people trying to grasp for power unsuccessfully.
One question. How many were the Mughal forces to start with?

Not what did they become and how effectively did they assimilate. How big was the Turkic host the Timurid refugee Babur brung from the north-east? I admit that by the window for becoming more than a local power on one hand and the point where going 'native' after getting cut off from London becomes impossible on the other is a limited one.
 
One question. How many were the Mughal forces to start with?

Not what did they become and how effectively did they assimilate. How big was the Turkic host the Timurid refugee Babur brung from the north-east? I admit that by the window for becoming more than a local power on one hand and the point where going 'native' after getting cut off from London becomes impossible on the other is a limited one.

It was somewhat larger than the British. However, it must also be understood that there was a quite large preexisting Turkic population since the Delhi Sultanate that arrived in India fleeing the Mongols, as well as the later arrival of Persians after Humayun's conquest, so the situation is not really comparable.
 

fi11222

Banned
@fi11222 Where did you hear that the Muslim mutineers were Wahhabi?
In most studies about the mutiny, they are called "ghazis" or "jihadis". Apparently, there was a fundamentalist movement in India long before the mutiny and its leaders were preaching Jihad against the British. Apparently, at least one of these preachers was a contemporary of Abdulwahab, the saudi founder of Wahabism in the Arabian peninsula, and he had studied in Arabia at about the same time. As a result, the doctrines of the Indian jihadi movement of the early 19th century were very similar to wahabism and this is why several auhors, like Wiliam Dalrymple or this guy call them "wahabis".
 
Great post,just a tiny bit of nitpick.Members of the British Royal family can marry non-Anglicans,just not Catholics.Edward VIII was forced to abdicate not because he wanted to marry a Catholic--it was because the person he wanted to marry was a divorcee,which social attitudes of the time prohibited him from doing so.I agree though that it's gonna be quite stormy if a member of the British Royal family wanted to marry a 'Pagan' or a Muslim even though it's legally possible.
 
Last edited:
In most studies about the mutiny, they are called "ghazis" or "jihadis". Apparently, there was a fundamentalist movement in India long before the mutiny and its leaders were preaching Jihad against the British. Apparently, at least one of these preachers was a contemporary of Abdulwahab, the saudi founder of Wahabism in the Arabian peninsula, and he had studied in Arabia at about the same time. As a result, the doctrines of the Indian jihadi movement of the early 19th century were very similar to wahabism and this is why several auhors, like Wiliam Dalrymple or this guy call them "wahabis".

Oh I see. That makes some sense though I disagree with it. However, the entire point of the article in the link you gave seems to be arguing against the influence of Fundamentalist Muslims in the Rebellion. It emphasizes how the Fundamentalists were more inclined to collaborate with the British and details the role of charismatic, unorthodox preachers in whipping up Muslim support. Furthermore, it says that while there were probably some Muslims influenced by Fundamentalist doctrines at Dehli, most of the Muslim mutineers there were not.
 
Top