DBWI : 240 years of New Albion decree

[Yuelang]

Alright, today is 240 years after the Decree of New Albion by King George III the Wise, who granted British Colony in North America equal status, "as equal as scotland", as well as having equal representative seats in British Parliament.

Of course, we all know that this, as well as New Albion's phenomenal growth in 19th and 20th Century let the power base of the British Empire being moved to North America, sealed by King Edward VII's descision to move the Royal Residence to New London (formerly known as Ottawa), while the Parliement having moved their place to Boston several decades earlier at the time of Queen Victoria.

Yeah, with the King resides in his Albion Palace in North America, and the title of heir presumtive changed from mere "Prince of Wales" into "Prince of Britannia". Things are clearly shifting to North American favour, and in later part of 20th century, the English independence movement whose infamous for their English Liberation Army (who try to make an independent Republic of England), marked the time with their terror bombing campaign, kidnapping, and mortar attacks. Forcing the Imperial Irish and Highlander divisions to be garrisoned in England to quell the Rebellion...

Oh wait, what if King George the Wise is not as wise as our OTL and not intervene when the London Parliement try to abuse his North American subjects? How will the history changed if the North American rebellion not defused by the historical agreement between King George III and the man who later known as Duke George of the House of Washington, Duke of Virginia?

 

[CarribeanViking]

A large part of the problem, and the reason we nearly had a second civil war, is the fallout from the first; if you look closely, the American activists were spouting what were not a kick in the backside off the Leveller doctrines that his predecessor Charles I had been executed under.

They were a century behind the times in terms of political discourse, to the extent that Parliament (as then was) not only did not but apparently could not take them seriously. Metropolitan politics at that time were essentially entirely post ideological, spoils based; any talk of real change was empty rhetoric, pure electoral theatre and recognized as such by almost all concerned.

So when the Americans showed up talking about points of principle, nobody in the old country believed they could possibly actually mean anything so patently absurd, and they must be up to something- that there was a normal sort of a scheme or a scam at the bottom of it.

Nobody except someone himself painfully sincere, slightly detached from reality anyway, and thoroughly fed up with parliament- George III. This was also the time of the "India Question", Parliament demanding it's cut from what was being done in the name of the Crown, separation of powers issues that were leading to a crisis in the unwritten constitution anyway;

Largely forgotten as a result of the American issue, the way that played out had already set the king thoroughly against his own establishment, and it is not nearly emphasized enough IMO, how much that crisis shaped the political battlefield and how much Indian money lubricated the American (in the event, non-) revolution.

The small earthquake recorded in Cambridge in 1780 probably was caused by Cromwell spinning in his grave, at the spectacle of a King attacking Parliament with the principles of Levelling Republicanism; but without the existing bad blood, it would not have played out that way.

 

[Yuelang]

But yeah, while to the ultraconservatives, and the other foreign monarchs, George III was nicknamed as "the Mad", when looked back with hindsight, his very own act of using Royal decree to stand with the Americans are the biggest factor that turned him into patron saint of enlightened Monarch, who willing to stand up against tyrany of Oligarchy on behalf of his people, no matter how far or insignificant. Of course, this also ironically preserve a big set of Royal Prerogatives and Vetoes (compared to the other constitution bound monarchs), presumably to be used on behalf of the people when Parliement rule grew oppressive...

That's why he now are known as "The Wise", it's as if he's someone who could really think in long term instead of preserving short term appeasement.

Of course, to the Old Englishmen, this very act was seen as the start of how the Monarch forsake them, how they are the one who brought the Empire to greatness, and the Monarch choose to side with people an ocean away in another continent. Of course this happened in a course of a century, but still...

Ironic isn't, that the originally republican and democratic leaning Americans end up as monarchist (but still democratic) in a course of a century, while the king's power base for several centuries, Old England, end up as a hotbed of radical republicanism.