WI: The Revolution Jumps the Pond?

Wanting ideas because i was thinking of doing a TL along these lines, namely, what if the American Revolution spreads to Britain and the rest of the Empire? IOTL, British citizens were taxed just as much if not more than Americans and some of Britains largest cities still did not have representation in Parliament and there was a large sect of thinkers and politicians who were sympathetic to the colonists plight aswell as a lot of unrest and rioting (i.e the Gordon Riots).

So what would it take for the revolution to jump the pond? And what happens if it succeeds? Do we end up with a United States of Great Britain and North America? What about the British Empire? And what happens when a French Revolution analogue comes around?
 
There are differences though. Britons paid something like 5x more taxes than Americans but that was the way it had always been and - just like in the present day - when told that taxes were rising the British reaction was generally to make an insulting comment about the government and then forget that there was ever s problem. Representation was barely a problem as Britain did have MPs, just not in certain areas, and to be frank the ones with a vote tended to live in the rural seats which had disproportionately high representation and were often the same people who opposed giving up-and-coming cities any votes as they thought it ruined the natural voting demographics which gave them most influence. The average working class man fell into one of two categories - those who didn't care about politics anyway and those who wanted something more radical, a la the Chartists, who wouldn't have supported such an extension of the American Revolution because it didn't go far enough.

I can't see this happening really - the reason British people supported the rebels was because they thought it was natural to extend British democracy and culture to America - they didn't want to join the rebellion because they thought the rebellion was about making the colonies more like the mother country. The idea of extending the rebellion was therefore nonsensical - why fight the government because you want the government to become more like the government?
 
I don't think you can do this in the late 1760s, when the American situation was heating up, because the British were high on patriotic fervour after winning the Seven Years War. But if you can delay the American Revolution by a couple of decades I think it's possible. There was a lot of concern by the 1780s that nabobs returning from India were importing corrupt, tyrannical rule, and George III was certainly throwing himself about in parliament.

Defeat in the ARW caused George to back off parliament a bit, but if you delay it somehow, he might not learn his lesson. The peak of revolutionary fever in the UK was in the mid-1790s, but this could be brought forward if there was contagion across the Atlantic. Certainly Charles Fox was keen on getting rid of the monarchy. Pitt wasn't, but perhaps the Radicals could claim he was after his death and appropriate his popularity.

Also, the United States of Britannia seems the obvious name.
 
Also, you could maybe make more of John Wilkes, with the Government acting too rashly in clamping down on him. Also, if you knock off George IV early, you prevent his alliance with Fox, and might make Fox more openly anti-monarchist.
 
The American Revolution was more a war of regional secession than a conventional revolution. The 13 Colonies in 1776 had fairly mature governments and institutions of their own, accustomed to operating with a high degree of autonomy from the King and Parliament, and it was already commonplace to, say, think of yourself as a Massachusettsan first and an Briton second. When the central government back in London started trying to increasingly assert its de jure authority over the Colonies in areas where they Colonies were used to being allowed to do as they pleased, it triggered resentment and political confrontation that eventually broke out into open rebellion.

To the extent the American Revolution was an ideological revolution rather than simply a fight over regional autonomy, the institutional environment was different enough in Britain proper that it'd be tricky to make the revolution spread. There was indeed a robust faction in Britain in ideological agreement with the American patriots/rebels: it's no coincidence that the terms "Whigs" and "Tories" were used on both sides of the Atlantic, in America to refer to the rebel and loyalist factions, and in Britain to refer to the two major political parties in Parliament. But that's what made the revolution unlikely to spread: British Whigs had full access to the political process and could hope to achieve their goals by winning a majority in the House of Commons and withholding supply (refusing to authorize taxes and spending) until the King acquiesced, while the American Whigs had no remedy but revolution.

Your best shot would probably be to arrange a different political situation in Britain: somehow replace George III with a King who's actively spoiling for a fight with Parliamentary Whigs, and give the Whigs a strong majority in Commons when the ATL equivalent of the Olive Branch Petition arrives. Have *George refuse the petition as per OTL, but have Commons try to compel him to accept it by withholding supply, and have *George interpret this as active support for rebellion and respond by dissolving Parliament and arresting Whig leaders for treason.

It'd be pretty tricky to make this happen, I think: with the examples of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, Parliamentary Supremacy's pretty firmly established by this point, and I have a hard time imagining am British King in 1776 repeating the kind of ham-fisted confrontation with Parliament that got Charles I beheaded and James II chased out of the country. And if he did, I'd have a hard time imagining him lasting five minutes before being forced to step down in favor of the next person in the line of succession who's willing to play ball with Parliament.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
The American Revolution was more a war of regional secession than a conventional revolution. The 13 Colonies in 1776 had fairly mature governments and institutions of their own, accustomed to operating with a high degree of autonomy from the King and Parliament, and it was already commonplace to, say, think of yourself as a Massachusettsan first and an Briton second. When the central government back in London started trying to increasingly assert its de jure authority over the Colonies in areas where they Colonies were used to being allowed to do as they pleased, it triggered resentment and political confrontation that eventually broke out into open rebellion.

To the extent the American Revolution was an ideological revolution rather than simply a fight over regional autonomy, the institutional environment was different enough in Britain proper that it'd be tricky to make the revolution spread. There was indeed a robust faction in Britain in ideological agreement with the American patriots/rebels: it's no coincidence that the terms "Whigs" and "Tories" were used on both sides of the Atlantic, in America to refer to the rebel and loyalist factions, and in Britain to refer to the two major political parties in Parliament. But that's what made the revolution unlikely to spread: British Whigs had full access to the political process and could hope to achieve their goals by winning a majority in the House of Commons and withholding supply (refusing to authorize taxes and spending) until the King acquiesced, while the American Whigs had no remedy but revolution.

This is only partially true. Every single colony except Rhode Island experienced an internal civil war/revolution immediately before the start of the Revolution proper, when the old colonial regime was thrown out and replaced with Patriot governments. It wasn't just about colonial autonomy, but also the growth of ideas about self-government in general.
 
You would probably need a reason that affect equaly all subjects rather then something in one region that simply influence the rest. It could, for example, be a very unpopular war against X that pump more and more resources. If you combine large number of death (especialy if they are desperate enough to introduce conscription) with increase demands on foodstuff from the countryside to feed to cities (where shipyards and barracks are centered) which reduce next year's harvest leading to a famine, you have the recipe for for revolts to pop up all over the empire.

All they need next is to unify their efforts.
 
You could certainly see a Revolution jump the Channel, considering there was great agitation during the 1790s with common Britons screaming "No war! No Pitt! No King! Bread, give us bread!"

The late Hannoverians were not that loved in some sectors, even George III, mocked as a simple man who still followed a strict protocol; Queen Charlotte, a bored and dowdy mother who refused to be left alone and so kept her six daughters, of whom only one, Charlotte, the Princess Royal had married before 1816 (which was in 1797 -- and already thirty one, quite old for the age a princess had her first marriage). The Dukes are too numerous to write about, except they were reviled as debauched rakes, deeply in thousands of pounds of debt and continuously pressing Parliament to raise their allowances.

The great majority lived openly with their mistresses, considering marriage only as a way to increase their allownaces. George III had fifty-six grandchildren in 1813, IIRC: only one of them was legitimate, the Princess Charlotte of Wales. The public was pretty disgusted, especially the grave abuse George IV endured. He locked himself up in Windsor and his days were spent sending equerries to bribe the newspapers to trone down their abuse.

Even the sisters were not without scandal; they resented being attached to their overbearing mother and enduring hours of sewing. At least two (Princess Sophia and Elizabeth as well, if I'm not mistake). The monarchy was deeply upopular and into the 1830s was being viewed as a moribund institution of Old Tories who resisted change. George IV had opposed Catholic Emancipation and as Regent was loyal to the Tories, despite his younger whig leanings. William IV often acted the same, refusing to countenance the Reform Act and being strictly Tory. Just as Charlotte in 1817 was viewed of hope for the Whigs, so was Victoria twenty years later.

So a revolution is not impossible (I hate when people think it is impervious of any government change. IMO, OTL was something that happened by a slim change. Victoria's father was behind three other brothers; two estranged from their wives by one who had a young wife who could've easily had one of her children survive). Victoria's ascension was almost an accident and the fluke of history.

But any wouldn't be influenced by the American Revolution, at least directly. It'd have aspects of it, of course, but I think a revolution would take two steps depending on the period. One in the 1790s, influenced by France, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man as well as American Constitution and writers such as Paine. One Revolution in the 1830s though, would be much more influenced by romanticism. The or the disturbances of 1830 within Italy, France (the July Revolution), Belgium (The Belgian Revolution) would be much more romantic in it's outlook.

There have been several discussions, though, regarding a possible revolution in the 1830s. It essentially puts Cumberland on the throne, that ultra-Tory Duke who voted against the Catholic Relief Act and had power over the orange lodges. Surprisingly, he had no issues with the Reform Act of 1832, as he figured it'd give the Protestants a larger voice, as he believed more Protestants than Catholic.

Anyway. I believe an 1830 revolution is more likely. More romantic and likely inspired by events in Belgium and France. Cumberland is not completely necessary, as all these dodgy old sons of George III's were Tory Grandees except those listed above, like Sussex and Cambridge. Cumberland is a regular reviled fire eater, but many forget William IV opposed the reform act and that it could restrict his power, appointed his own Prime Minister in 1834 despite the seat allocatement. Even George IV was meddelsome, going from supporting Catholic Relief to being totally against it as he could support it while he was merely Prince Regent, but being King meant taking an oath to uphold the Church of England.

So, I think had any of the last Hannoverian Kings been bumbling fools, or had Cumberland ended up successor, it'd be a difficult time. Even if George IV and William IV had lived longer, it's give them more time to be meddlesome and difficult. Add in serious issues with public health or food supply, mix in a terrible political scandal or ruinuous war, and you have the ingredient to a revolution in Britain. ;)
 
I think a "revolution" in Britain would be started in parliament. I don't think you need another King: you just need to make George III indulge his worse aspects more.

The more I think about this, the more I think John Wilkes is a good place to do this. If you have the King pressure the Lord Chief Justice into ignoring parliamentary privilege, that will make people like Pitt and Burke more ardent and populist, upset moderates, and swell the ranks of the Whigs in parliament. That could then set off a vicious circular divide between the King's friends and the Whigs, with antagonistic parliamentary battles, more seditious writings out in the country.

When George's heavy handedness in America starts, the British populace could interpret it through the monarchical tyranny dynamic. George, realising his power could be on the wane, brings in a minority Tory government to back him. The Whig majority starts passing laws, against the wishes of the Government, to bring in MPs from the colonies to swell their own ranks, but these are repeatedly defeated by the Lords. Furious and brutal criticism comes from radicals in the Commons, and PM Lord North, believing they have stepped over an unspoken line, has them arrested.

Popular outrage explodes, and there are riots in the streets of London and Boston alike. Pamphlets are published by individuals like Thomas Paine, who insist Kings will always cause tyranny. In the Commons, the young Charles Fox leads a minority faction calling for the recreation of a Republic. Huge intellectual vibrancy begins in the American colonies calling for a federal empire.

George, fearful for his future, dismisses North and appoints Lord Bathurst in his stead, to bitter criticism in the Commons. Bathurst tries to make some concessions, but demands all MPs repeat their oath to the crown in exchange. Many agreed, but Fox and his faction refuses, and he is arrested and put on trial for treason, under threat of the death sentence.

Popular discontent takes to a new unprecedented level with many calling for the overthrow of the King. In the British parliament, many Whigs, including those like Burke oppose this, but events are getting out of their control. The colonial regimes are overthrown by popular assemblies in the American colonies, and there is organisation to do this in the mother land. In one incident, British troops are ordered to shoot on crowds in Manchester, but many know people in the crowd and refuse. In despair, soldiers from George's domains in Hannover and brought over who can be trusted to follow orders, and several massacres happen in major cities. A mob marches on Buckingham Palace, and George III flees London.

The Bathurst government collapses, and William Pitt is appointed PM. With Parliament fearful for its own overthrow, he declares new elections will be called, hoping that the limited franchise will prevent too much radicalism. Charles Fox is released from prison and allowed to stand. Despite Pitt's hopes, the new Commons is radical indeed and Fox's followers are the greatest faction, but there is no overall majority. Fox manages to get a declarated passed stating George III has abdicated position and that a constitutional convention needs to be called to decide his replacement, if there should be one.

The Lords blocks bill after bill coming through, until it is threatened that new Lords will be appointed to overwhelm them if they do not comply. Eventually the Convetion Bill is passed, with a broad franchise that removes rotten boroughs and includes representatives from Britain, Ireland and the American and West Indian domains (Hannover and India are deliberately excluded, due to their perceived reactionary tendencies). A combination of the influx of representatives from America and the middle classes strengthens Fox's hand dramatically, and he has a majority in the new Convention. A new constitution is drawn up, declaring the people sovereign, abolishing the Monarchy and the Lords, and creating a federal parliamentary republic of equal polities. The United Commonwealth of Britannia is declared.
 
Last edited:
Defeat in the ARW caused George to back off parliament a bit, but if you delay it somehow, he might not learn his lesson. The peak of revolutionary fever in the UK was in the mid-1790s, but this could be brought forward if there was contagion across the Atlantic. Certainly Charles Fox was keen on getting rid of the monarchy. Pitt wasn't, but perhaps the Radicals could claim he was after his death and appropriate his popularity.

I would actually go the other way. Have the Revolution nipped in the bud, with Jefferson as an emigre in Paris writing of Revolution. The victory would only encourage George III's worst tendencies, IMO, while at the same time leading to rot at home. (The Revolution was a good shakeup for the Royal Navy).

Hrm. I think this is necessary, but not sufficient. Thoughts?
 
Top