Plans For An American Empire TL
- Thread starter jennysnooper87
- Start date
Lafayette is nice, but why not just have a TL were the US just forces a Liberal constitution? If a terrified kid or king whos people just kicked them out, and parents just got beheaded were told they had to sign away absolutist authority, I'm pretty sure they would.
From a family that supports absolutism? I don't think so. I would suggest other possible candidates.
Sounds tempting. I'll see what everyone else thinks.
I was hoping to do a TL inspired by @Lord Grattan's TL "The Course of Human Events".
Then Lafayette is the best choice, or as a way to make detente with England, you might offer the crown to a son of George?
Who would he marry to secure the succession line for future heirs?
Ahhh, I remember that one but couldn't recall the name. Didn't Georges brother take the throne?
Yes, that was Edward, the first monarch of the Continental Provinces of Albion.
I think the discussion is a bit disjointed because the concept of an American monarchy is open to interpretation. The way I see it, there's four main possibilities
1. A straightforward monarchy with a King who reigns for life and whose crown is automatically bequeathed to his male-line heir upon death. This is most likely to come about between 1776 and 1787, as an alternative to the instability of the Articles of Confederation. With a later POD, the idea of republicanism would be too ingrained in the American conscience, and one of the other options would be far more plausible. While the other options would have a monarch who serves as chief executive, this could only really come about with a Constitutional Monarchy where an elected leader serves as head of government.
2. A monarchy-in-all-but-name, a la Augustus and Cromwell. The chief executive is officially elected, but it just so happens that he is reelected until he dies and the person who succeeds him is always his male-line heir. This could happen at pretty much any time in early America. All that you need is for a strongman to take control of America during a time of crisis and for him to groom his son as his heir.
3. An elective monarchy, wherein the king is chosen by the Congress, an Electoral College, or some similar method. The problem here is that the only real difference between an elective monarchy and a republic is the terminology, and given America's stigma against monarchy, there's no reason for them to call their elected leader a "king," which leads to option 4.
4. An elective monarchy-in-all-but-name. Something like Hamilton's proposed Constitution, with an elected ruler who reigns for life. This isn't fully implausible, but it would require a crisis large enough for Americans to consent to a life leader. This ruler would have a nonmonarchal title like "president" or "governor" but he could still have all the pomp that surrounds a king; for example, John Adams proposed that the POTUS be addressed "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties."
1. A straightforward monarchy with a King who reigns for life and whose crown is automatically bequeathed to his male-line heir upon death. This is most likely to come about between 1776 and 1787, as an alternative to the instability of the Articles of Confederation. With a later POD, the idea of republicanism would be too ingrained in the American conscience, and one of the other options would be far more plausible. While the other options would have a monarch who serves as chief executive, this could only really come about with a Constitutional Monarchy where an elected leader serves as head of government.
2. A monarchy-in-all-but-name, a la Augustus and Cromwell. The chief executive is officially elected, but it just so happens that he is reelected until he dies and the person who succeeds him is always his male-line heir. This could happen at pretty much any time in early America. All that you need is for a strongman to take control of America during a time of crisis and for him to groom his son as his heir.
3. An elective monarchy, wherein the king is chosen by the Congress, an Electoral College, or some similar method. The problem here is that the only real difference between an elective monarchy and a republic is the terminology, and given America's stigma against monarchy, there's no reason for them to call their elected leader a "king," which leads to option 4.
4. An elective monarchy-in-all-but-name. Something like Hamilton's proposed Constitution, with an elected ruler who reigns for life. This isn't fully implausible, but it would require a crisis large enough for Americans to consent to a life leader. This ruler would have a nonmonarchal title like "president" or "governor" but he could still have all the pomp that surrounds a king; for example, John Adams proposed that the POTUS be addressed "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties."
The biggest problem with a French king is sectarianism. Up until the mid-1900s, a large section of Americans were paranoid of Catholics.
One of the main arguments that America needed a monarch or someone with similar standing was that the powers of European powers wouldn't respect a country ruled by normal citizens. This was a major issue after the Revolution, particularly during the dispute with Spain over the Mississippi River. IOTL, the two countries negotiated the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty, but it failed to meet the necessary unanimous support in the Congress of Confederation. This convinced people that a stronger federal government was necessary, but if negotiations had fallen apart altogether, maybe people would come to the mindset that Europe would only negotiate with the US if it had a respectable king in charge?
You do bring up a few good points. I'm particularly drawn to the first option because that's the POD I wanted to go with.
The US is already a very successful empire. Simply make them even more successful in terms of territorial acquisitions and foreign policy than OTL, but in truth the US was already insanely lucky that they ever became so large/powerful.
Otto von Bismarck once said: "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America."
Valid point, but I always thought any king of America would be a king by the people not a king by providence. Rather if you look at it another way, its better that he be a quiet catholic so that Mexicans can integrate better, or Mexico.... but I don't know what OP has in mind.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Well, he did end up supporting Constiutional Monarchy in France, so maybe he would be a good candidate. Especially if the Franco-American friendship is stronger in this timeline
Then it's settled. I think I've got most of the elements within the TL fleshed out in my head right now, so let me know if the following ideas are correct:
- A POD set sometime between 1776 and 1787, preferably the former (ideas for POD would be appreciated)
- A stronger Franco-American friendship, leading up to Marquis de Lafayette becoming the first king of the United States
- A constitutional monarchy with a bicameral system, probably with some recognizable American political institutions like the Senate and House of Congress thrown in for good measure; the monarch's role as head of state is mostly ceremonial and he may or may not have the same duties/responsibilities as the OTL president of the United States
- Treatment of Native Americans (once we get to that point in time) is slightly better than IOTL, so chances are that events like the Trail of Tears may never happen or occur differently
Last edited:
It'd be interesting to see an American monarch get sworn in like presidents do. 
Again, an element I'd like to borrow from @Lord Grattan's TL.
Again, an element I'd like to borrow from @Lord Grattan's TL.Almost a replica of @Schnozzberry 's Death of a republic, I'm looking forward to what you come up with.
Yeah, although I do plan to add a few elements from "The Course of Human Events" so as to make it clearly distinct from @Schnozzberry. I may consider asking him for help.