Who is the King of America? (Discussion/Poll)
- Thread starter Benjideaula
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion poll
Worth noting that the "senior line" wouldn't really have a claim to the throne since George's father had no claim to it to pass on. Thus it would have been down to George's Will (or more likely whatever rules of succession the Kingdom of America had set forth, perhaps elective).
It's interesting though that little mention of Samuel's line - the actual senior line of George - is brought up either.
It's interesting though that little mention of Samuel's line - the actual senior line of George - is brought up either.
In other hand George I might live longer altough hardly many years longer than in OTL. But it is still quiet plausible that either George I's brother/nephew would become next king or then America would be elective monarchy. And monarch hardly would has much of power. Probably pretty same as British monarch. Or then Congress or some kind of council could elect new dynasty.
Kaze
Banned
How about this idea instead...George realizes there would be a succession crisis and to head off a potential civil war goes with "I choose John Adams instead - he has children at the moment, and grandchildren in the wings."
Throughout his lifetime Adams expressed controversial and shifting views regarding the virtues of monarchical and hereditary political institutions. Sometimes he was against it and sometimes he was for it, sometimes both at the same time.
Throughout his lifetime Adams expressed controversial and shifting views regarding the virtues of monarchical and hereditary political institutions. Sometimes he was against it and sometimes he was for it, sometimes both at the same time.
I think that if America would had became monarchy, monarch's power would be more limited than OTL POTUS. Hardly anyone wants almost absolute monarch who reigns rest of his life.
I'm not suggesting a absolute monarch. Queen Elizabeth II Is a symbolic monarch, and yet she has the power to suspend Parliament, to declare war, the power of royal assent and is free from prosecution under British law. http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/what-are-the-queens-powers-22069. As far as I know, the British monarch hasn't used their veto powers in over 300 years.
Who's to say the American monarch wouldn't have those powers? Unless he has some kind of authority, having an American monarch is a pointless endeavour.
wwbgdiaslt
Gone Fishin'
The refusal to give royal assent was last used in 1708 afaik, but was almost used by George V a century ago.
A English monarch contemplating denying his Irish subjects their right to government. Why am I not surprised? I'm guessing George V considered vetoing the Act because of the arguments it was causing in Parliament?
Now that would be an interesting timeline circa 1799-1800. George Washington having reigned over the United States Of America since the end of the Revolution as Good King George dies without having named an official heir. Contenders start to squabble over the succession. With no clear solution in sight they prepare bases of power and cults of personality. Trying to appeal to the masses touring the country side and with pamphlets and newspaper editorials. Their are even those that say King George didn't pick an heir on purpose as a sign that the nation should become a Republic. This leads to a heated argument in a tavern in say Baltimore. Men start shoving each other, drinks are spilled, spittoons knocked over. Soon it's a full blown brawl that draws in the neighborhood then the entire city. Militia is called in but different officers start siding with different factions. This marks the first battle of the War of Washingtonian Succession. European nations choose their candidates as well and start loaning and gifting cash, ships, guns, and troops in the hopes of reaping a return on their investment. I imagine the French take a special interest in civil war having just gone through an especially bloody one themselves.