WI: George Washington accepts being king

Okay, thread necromancy, but the concept of an American monarchy is a specialty of mine, so here's my contribution to the debate

Here's the House of Washington succession:


  • Monarch (reign)
    • Birth and Ancestry
    • Marriage(s) and number of issue
    • Death
  • George I (1789-1799)
    • February 2, 1732, Westmoreland County, VA, son of Augustine Washington and Mary Ball Washington
    • Martha Dandridge-Custis at the White House, January 6, 1759. No children.
    • December 14, 1799, Mount Vernon. Aged 67.
  • George II (1799-1857)
    • April 30, 1781, Mount Airy, MD, adopted son of George I and Martha Dandridge-Custis
    • Mary Lee Fitzhugh at Mount Vernon, July 7, 1804. 4 children.
    • October 10, 1857, Arlington House. Aged 77.
  • Mary I (1857-1873)
    • October 1, 1808, Arlington House, daughter of George II and Mary Lee Fitzhugh
    • Robert Edward Lee at Arlington House, June 30, 1831. 7 children.
    • November 5, 1873, Mount Vernon. Aged 66.
  • George III (1873-1913)
    • September 16, 1832, Fort Monroe, VA, son of Mary I and Robert E. Lee
    • None
    • February 18, 1913, Arlington House. Aged 80.
  • Robert I (1913-1914)
    • October 27, 1843, Arlington House, son of Mary I and Robert E. Lee
    • 1) Charlotte Taylor Hoxall at Arlington House, November 16, 1871. No children. 2) Juliet Carter at Arlington House, March 8, 1894. 2 children.
    • October 19, 1914, Arlington House. Aged 70.
  • Robert II (1914-1922)
    • February 11 1869, Arlington House, son of Prince William and Princess Mary Tabb Bolling
    • Mary Wilkinson Middleton at Arlington House, December 25, 1919. No children.
    • September 7, 1922, Arlington House. Aged 75.
  • George IV (1922-1948)
    • August 31, 1872, Arlington House, son of Prince William and Princess Mary Tabb Bolling
    • Helen Madeline Keeney at Arlington House, April 21, 1920. 2 children.
    • July 13, 1948, Arlington House. Aged 75.
  • Robert III (1948-Present)
    • December 25, 1924, Arlington House, son of George IV and Helen M. Keeney
    • Marjorie Frances Tracy at Arlington House, April 21, 1956. 2 children
    • N/A
  • Robert IV (Heir apparent)
    • Data not available, born sometime in 1964

Heh, I did that last night too, though not in detail.

One mistake: there shouldn't be any "Robert I". Succession passes to sons of younger brothers before it passes to youngest brothers. Otherwise good stuff.

I like that Robert E. Lee would have been Prince Consort or something like that. :p
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
One mistake: there shouldn't be any "Robert I". Succession passes to sons of younger brothers before it passes to youngest brothers. Otherwise good stuff.
Oh, I know that. But by the time George III dies in 1913, the middle son, William Henry Fitzhugh Lee is already dead (d. 1891), so it would pass to Mary and Robert's youngest son, Robert E. Lee, Jr., who becomes Robert I.
I like that Robert E. Lee would have been Prince Consort or something like that. :p
The short story in my sig (The Visitor) takes place in this universe. I've been toying with the idea of expanding it into something more, so feel free to take a look and pitch in your two cents :)
 
And yet, at the time he accepts the title, it doesn't mean anything yet. A "King of America" is going to have whatever rights and responsibilities George I defines the office as having, presumably enshrined in a Constitution that he deigns to accept. And while he may accept the word "King" because it is pressed upon him, Washington clearly did not WANT the office to become hereditary, even to George Parke-Custis. The Constitution he accepts probably requires new Kings to be elected by something like the Electoral College; George P-C is no doubt a viable candidate in 1799, but my money's on King Thomas I Jefferson.

I don't think there's a meaningful difference between "President-for-life" and "Elected King", personally, but some probably will. Although there's a very suitable title for such a person in English history, maligned as it often is: Lord Protector.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
And yet, at the time he accepts the title, it doesn't mean anything yet. A "King of America" is going to have whatever rights and responsibilities George I defines the office as having, presumably enshrined in a Constitution that he deigns to accept.
You seem to have very little faith in the republican principles of the Founders. Washington was not some dictator who mandated what was or wasn't in the Constitution, and there's no reason he would become this just because they offer him the crown.

If anything, the Founders are going to make the monarchy as powerless as they can and have it basically serve as a figurehead role (which is really all they wanted from GW: he only led the charge to make the executive branch more powerful than the legislative after he was in office).

Basically I see the United States (IMO they would keep the name, making no reference to the monarchy at all) as being based off of the Dutch system at the time: powerless monarchy (with perhaps some say in military and foreign policy affairs), powerful legislature, judicial branch, and probably an executive branch to make sure the monarchy doesn't meddle too much in the government, though the presidency will still likely become the strongest office in the land.

Washington clearly did not WANT the office to become hereditary, even to George Parke-Custis.
No evidence for this whatsoever. There is no parallel to OTL because there was never talk of making the presidency hereditary.
The Constitution he accepts probably requires new Kings to be elected by something like the Electoral College; George P-C is no doubt a viable candidate in 1799.
That would be silly. Elective monarchies tended to get very messy or dominated by a single family; evidence for this was already present in the HRE/Austria. More likely (especially if you've only got a figurehead monarchy) new monarchs will just have to be "confirmed" by the Senate as an equivalent to the coronation ceremony. That way, the Congress reserves the right to abolish the monarchy, which would probably make the Founders more comfortable since this would potentially head-off monarchical tyranny.
but my money's on King Thomas I Jefferson.
That is just right-out, even if it does become an elective monarchy. Jefferson was rabidly anti-monarchist. For Chrissake, the man stopped delivering the State of the Union in person because he felt that it was too monarchist (and also because he had a poor speaking voice). No, the second the US agrees to have a monarch, Jefferson's going to catch the first ship over to France and stay there. On the plus side, this has lots of potential butterflies for both the USA and France and her Revolution.

I don't think there's a meaningful difference between "President-for-life" and "Elected King", personally, but some probably will. Although there's a very suitable title for such a person in English history, maligned as it often is: Lord Protector.
You'll probably just get "King." Everybody expected it and it's really the only title that's legitimate without sounding pretentious (as opposed to emperor or caesar or something). Remember, the vast majority of the American populace (and a good many of the Founders) didn't have a problem with monarchy at all; they were just pissed at the British. Most people actually expected Washington to become king, so king he'll likely be ITTL.

And yes, Lord Protector is probably more appropriate for a republic, but as you said, it's far too maligned. Everybody but everybody saw that title as inherently corrupt and tyrannical since it was occupied by both Cromwell and Richard III (who were and, rightly or wrongly, still are considered the two greatest English villains in English history).
 
You seem to have very little faith in the republican principles of the Founders. Washington was not some dictator who mandated what was or wasn't in the Constitution, and there's no reason he would become this just because they offer him the crown.


You're quite right about my faith. As you say, few of the Founders were opposed to monarchy in principle, they simply had only one viable candidate - GW - and he didn't want the job. But aren't we positing a change, albeit a subtle one hopefully, in GW's character here? OTL he was practically deified between the end of the War and the end of his first term, yet exercised remarkable restraint; TTL's Washington, not so restrained. He appears to have said virtually nothing during the Constitutional Convention; anything he expressly requests, though, he's going to get.

If anything, the Founders are going to make the monarchy as powerless as they can and have it basically serve as a figurehead role (which is really all they wanted from GW: he only led the charge to make the executive branch more powerful than the legislative after he was in office).

If GW accepts a crown before the Constitutional Convention, they're not exactly arguing from a position of strength. "As powerless as they can" is going to be "as restrained as King George wishes to be, which on balance is probably a lot like the OTL Presidency".

Basically I see the United States (IMO they would keep the name, making no reference to the monarchy at all) as being based off of the Dutch system at the time: powerless monarchy (with perhaps some say in military and foreign policy affairs), powerful legislature, judicial branch, and probably an executive branch to make sure the monarchy doesn't meddle too much in the government, though the presidency will still likely become the strongest office in the land.

If there's a Monarch, what conceivable purpose does a President serve? Although we probably don't see a Cabinet separate from the Congress with a Monarch - Speaker of the House as PM, much like the British model.


No evidence for this whatsoever. There is no parallel to OTL because there was never talk of making the presidency hereditary.


This way lies duelling sources and attempted proof of negatives :) Although if there was no talk of it, doesn't that support my idea?

That would be silly. Elective monarchies tended to get very messy or dominated by a single family; evidence for this was already present in the HRE/Austria. More likely (especially if you've only got a figurehead monarchy) new monarchs will just have to be "confirmed" by the Senate as an equivalent to the coronation ceremony. That way, the Congress reserves the right to abolish the monarchy, which would probably make the Founders more comfortable since this would potentially head-off monarchical tyranny.

Another interesting idea. I personally think that an elective monarchy would have been perfectly acceptable to the founders despite the example of the HRE as a sop to the Republican sympathisers, who might not feel that impeachment (deposition, here) or an up-or-down vote from the Senate on the succession is enough. If they accept Senate confirmation as adequate, though, that might work too. It is messy and frequently family-dominated...hardly deal-breakers in the Early Republic.

That is just right-out, even if it does become an elective monarchy. Jefferson was rabidly anti-monarchist. For Chrissake, the man stopped delivering the State of the Union in person because he felt that it was too monarchist (and also because he had a poor speaking voice). No, the second the US agrees to have a monarch, Jefferson's going to catch the first ship over to France and stay there. On the plus side, this has lots of potential butterflies for both the USA and France and her Revolution.

That's a fascinating idea, although I'm not wholly convinced - Jefferson had a lot of rhetoric that he failed to suit actions to (to put it politely. I take a very dim view of the man). Could be interesting, though.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
If GW accepts a crown before the Constitutional Convention, they're not exactly arguing from a position of strength. "As powerless as they can" is going to be "as restrained as King George wishes to be, which on balance is probably a lot like the OTL Presidency".
Quite right. But I don't think they'd offer him the crown before the convention. I think the idea would develop/pick up steam/what have you during the convention. So the Founders get to frame what they want and then throw in an article telling Georgie-boy what he can or can't do. IIRC, GW had very little say in what powers the Constitution awarded to the presidency IOTL; he just sort of sat there looking pretty most of the time, occasionally uttering support for the Federalists.
If there's a Monarch, what conceivable purpose does a President serve? Although we probably don't see a Cabinet separate from the Congress with a Monarch - Speaker of the House as PM, much like the British model.
The same role most monarchs serve today; powerless figureheads who are a living symbol of the country's unity. GW, though, will probably want more of a say in foreign policy and the military. After he dies though, and GWPC takes over, I'd expect the monarchy to try and sort of fade into the (administrative) background, copying Victoria in her "the Monarchy must stay above politics" leanings.

And like I said, a president neutralizes the effect that the monarch has on the administration because that position's already filled by a (frankly) more legitimate person with regards to governance. I don't see the US adopting the British parliamentary system just because it has a king; they were quite determined to try things their own way and precedence for an American system had already been more or less established during the ARW.
Although if there was no talk of it, doesn't that support my idea?
No. Just because Congress doesn't talk about why we shouldn't let a 5-year-old take on the duties of a chief magistrate doesn't mean they agree with it. A young monarch, on the other hand, usually just has to sit there looking pretty and attending state functions, not dictate policy.
Another interesting idea. I personally think that an elective monarchy would have been perfectly acceptable to the founders despite the example of the HRE as a sop to the Republican sympathisers, who might not feel that impeachment (deposition, here) or an up-or-down vote from the Senate on the succession is enough. If they accept Senate confirmation as adequate, though, that might work too. It is messy and frequently family-dominated...hardly deal-breakers in the Early Republic.
Again, this probably wouldn't be a problem if the monarchy and the executive branch weren't seperated, but I'm proposing that they would be. Besides, elective monarchy (as opposed to magistrate) was a bit of a noxious idea and was associated with petty politicking, corruption, and tyranny on the part of overamibtious people. And besides, these are Americans we're talking about, good Englishmen until only a couple years prior. To them, the Crown ought not to get involved in any sort of election.
That's a fascinating idea, although I'm not wholly convinced - Jefferson had a lot of rhetoric that he failed to suit actions to (to put it politely. I take a very dim view of the man). Could be interesting, though.
I'm also not the biggest Jefferson fan, and I tend to see him as rather pedantic, thin-skinned, and long-winded. That being said, anti-monarchism and revolution/republicanism are two things he was actually passionate enough about to take action on. While I agree that he could have waffled on whether to stay or go, I think that he'd ultimately go join his salon friends on the other side of the Atlantic and try to stop the French Revolution from being "betrayed" like the American one had been.
 

Blair152

Banned
Maybe this kingdom will have a Roman or HRE system where a new king is elected by a sort of an electoral college.
I'll bite. Maybe the monarch would be like the Pope, who's elected by the
College of Cardinals, who knows? Of course, if you want the WORST example
of an elected kingship, look no further than Poland. Polish kings were elected by the Diet. When the Diet couldn't come to a decision on whom the next king should be, it was called "the exploding Diet."
 

Blair152

Banned
Heh, I did that last night too, though not in detail.

One mistake: there shouldn't be any "Robert I". Succession passes to sons of younger brothers before it passes to youngest brothers. Otherwise good stuff.

I like that Robert E. Lee would have been Prince Consort or something like that. :p
Not unless you have what European monarchies like Britain have: Primogenitor.
 

Blair152

Banned
First off, this seems vaguely familiar to me because the last time I was here,
and you can use the Search function to see if it's still here, I had a post called WI Congress Asked the Youngest Son Frederick the Great to be King?
I was informed that it was Frederick William III, not Frederick the Great.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Of course, if you want the WORST example
of an elected kingship, look no further than Poland. Polish kings were elected by the Diet. When the Diet couldn't come to a decision on whom the next king should be, it was called "the exploding Diet."
Exactly. While Poland probably is the worst example of this, it is a potent (and, relative to the time period) recent one. Electing monarchs has a bad habit of destabilizing countries and delegitimizing the entire institution of a monarchy by politicizing it. Choosing presidents and chief magistrates through popular election, however, is a stricly political matter, so that can pan out whichever way without really wounding the basic structure of the state.

Monarchs are there to provide the image of stability and continuity; presidents and prime ministers are not.
 
Umm....I already addressed that. This topic's a specialty of mine, so I thought I might add to the whole thing and see what others think.

Fair enough; and I've found your comments interesting and informative. Thanks. I contemplated many of these points as I developed the early parts of my Course of Human Events ["monarchy in America"] TL.
 
Top