Status
Not open for further replies.
RNG gave me two children for George, the older a male, the younger the female.
Pretty good, I mean, he's the king after all. Married to some "acceptable" woman.

Given the theories that he may have been gay and Wallis a beard and that he didn't particularly want the throne, the marriage may be childless and his nephew (the counterpart to Elizabeth) will eventually inherit anyway. In OTL Edward VIII died in 1972. The stress of being king may see him go a few years earlier.
 
Considering barely a majority of U.S. States at the present are right-to-work states, and considering that unions will be stronger when there are zero right-to-work states, it will be difficult to assemble a 3/4 majority to pass an amendment to that effect.
Let's hope the unions don't squander the goodwill of the American people.
 
Let's hope we don't go down that road.
Most Continental European unions didn't/haven't gone down that road, so hopefully American unions won't either. The specific circumstances that led to events such as the Winter of Discontent probably won't appear in America, although it should be noted that what served as the impetus for Taft-Hartley (the strike wave of 1945-1946) could certainly still happen ITTL and would probably serve as an excuse for Robert Taft to attempt to pass anti-union legislation in Congress. However, it's unlikely that even the parts of Taft-Hartley that don't violate the pro-union amendment will be passed since the Southern Democrats (who were stridently anti-union) are replaced by the Commonwealthers, who are pro-union (or at least for unions that are Commonwealth-affiliated, which most Southern unions surely are). There is no TTL equivalent of the Conservative Coalition; all conservative elements are in the conservative faction of the Republican Party or the Americans, and those parties (this number even including the pro-union Liberal Republicans) don't come even close to controlling a majority in either house. Plus, the filibuster makes antiunion legislation very difficult to pass; the left or Liberal Republicans would surely filibuster any antiunion legislation and I can't see the Conservative Republicans+the Americans controlling a two-thirds majority in the Senate anytime soon. This isn't even mentioning the incredible difficulty in repealing the pro-union amendment and the pro-union elements are probably strong enough at any given time to prevent ratifying said amendment. Union density was already at 30% in 1936 (even before the Labor Protection Act was passed by Congress, which unless I'm mistaken was a more expansive version of the Wagner Act) and it's bound to have increased exponentially during the past 9 years thanks to the Labor Protection Act, which should equate to more public support for unions since more Americans will feel the beneficial effects unions are having on their lives (mainly their wages but other things as well), especially in the South since the Commonwealth Party is pro-union whereas most Southern Democrats were anti-union and were good at preventing unions from organizing.
 
I'll get to the rest later.

Yes, the PFL, Socialists, and Commonwealth have numerous union groups officially aligned with them. On a much smaller scale, the GOP even does too.
So even if American party politics stay as weird, the question of why America, unlike pretty much every other Western democracy, never developed a labor party won't arise, I suppose.

Also, can you clarify exactly what the official name of the Progressive Party is? You use the abbreviation "PFL" a lot, but I thought that "Progressive Farmer-Labor Party" was just the name of a handful of state affiliates in the Midwest. Was I mistaken, or do people still use the abbreviation colloquially at the national level because the Midwest is such a Progressive stronghold or what?
 
Given the theories that he may have been gay and Wallis a beard and that he didn't particularly want the throne, the marriage may be childless and his nephew (the counterpart to Elizabeth) will eventually inherit anyway. In OTL Edward VIII died in 1972. The stress of being king may see him go a few years earlier.

Sorry to go back to this subject again, but looking into it, it looks like Edward didn't want to be king, or at least didn't want the responsibilities that came with it. But, even if he went along and married someone "acceptable" he is probably still running around with mistresses and being irresponsible enough that the government hates him. He probably came to the throne give or take a few months of where he did our timeline, but I don't think he would last until 1944. Given his fascist sympathies he would be an albatross around his government's neck for trying to stay out of the Fascist-Communist War. His government would want rid of him and he ultimately resents being saddled with the responsibility anyway. Prince Albert may still end up George VI in this timeline, and his son, let's name him William, will certainly be king after him.
 

Bulldoggus

Banned
Firstly, I wanted to thank EJ. This thread prompted me to stop lurking, get an account, and to make some suggestions- in doing so I've found a great community.
Merry/Happy Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza! May Spiro Claus give you all lots of great presents!
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top