I'm working on worldbuilding for rpg setting where the democratic experiment never took place in the colonies. Whether it was the creation of landed titles before the Revolution or afterwards America more closely resembles England's political and social structure.
Would it be better to stick with titles used in the UK (Baron, Earl, Duke, etc) or something that reflects something more American like the southern use of the title Colonel?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Assuming America still gained its independence from the British, it would make sense to use different titles, but have the structure be the same. For instance, an Earl could be a governor, Duke could be sheriff, etc.
Pick a very specific divergence point. Extrapolate from there.
Benedict Arnold doesn't turn traitor, for example. He's got battle scars, leadership skills and reasons to hate most of the rest of the leadership. Not too much of a stretch to say he could have won a civil war that broke out shortly after Britain signed a peace treaty. Drew in power for himself from there.
Call the king Benedict in the same way Caesar became Kaiser and Czar.
Or take Roman titles. Duke and count came from Dux and Comes. Any decent empire tries to emulate the Romans, these days. And any monarchy that doesn't want to have an empire isn't worth it's salt.
I like the UK/European titles applied to American places idea (which was also adopted in Japan during the restoration, oddly enough, but with Chinese names), partly because it's useful for diplomacy, and partly because it just sounds cool to have things like the Baron of Brooklyn
Though this user has some good points as well - emulating the Roman Empire is a longstanding tradition, and the US certainly borrowed enough Roman symbols, including plenty of fasces, so borrowing roman or roman-based titles could work
(Incidentally Benedict Arnold was one of the Rebels best generals for a while - which is why there's a monument to his foot somewhere)
King > Marshal > ? > Baron > Sheriff
King = America
Marshal = State
? = State district
Baron = counties or boroughs
Sheriff = Honorary title or oversee a town
Seriff is more of an office than a title? Distinction between the two can be blurry at times, though.
>? = State district
Governor?
Or have Governor for state, since the current colonial governors, if they were revolutionaries, would likely keep their position, and already have Governor as their title.
Then make the state district holder be the Marshal.
Sheriff seems a bit weird as a title of any sort - at least on it's own, as it has only ever been the position of an official, a legal one.
In some places they've been judicial titles, but that's still a far cry from any nobility
For what it's worth George Washington thought that the President should be referred to as "your majesty."
Imperial Wizard, Grand Dragon, etc.
I think the leg is one of the most amusing monuments in history. Arnold turned traitor because he felt like nobody appreciated his hard work and sacrifice. He got shot twice in the leg that got immortalized in that monument. He bankrupted himself. He had credit stolen for victories he won. It's why I mentioned him. He's got ambition, power, and deep grudges. Perfect candidate to raise himself to dictator.
It seems weird to create an aristocracy from whole cloth at this point of history. If they wanted an independent monarchy, I would expect the Americans to import a willing scion of one of the noble houses of Europe.
That'd reduce independence - you've got to realise just how tenuous the connections can get if you find yourself needing a monarch - George I, for example was only something like a 2nd cousin (there were many closer relatives, but they were all Catholic) - and just how much people will be willing to stretch to be the "rightful" claimant to the throne.
Much better just to make a new nobility up from war heroes and landowners and such, rather than run a risk of some European earl with ambitions trying to become king a couple of centuries down the line
If America is a colletion/federation of states ("Bund" in the German sense) united in and by the crown, it would take just a few outside territories, like Hawaii, to justify the title of "Emperor", having a "King" for each State.
I realise this is a less likely alt-history version, the Commonwealth being used to having a big "king", rather than an Emperor, but it could work and make sense.
In a French absolutist sense, it makes sense
en.wikipedia.org
But I realise my post, coming from a filthy continental, entails first a Germanic/Mediterranean tradition (Emperor) and then a French tradition that are a bit alien to the whole Anglo world.
Might just be my British tradition's sense, but having lots of kings and princes kinda devalues them to me - though admittedly in the Brit system, especially later on, being a duke basically meant you were either a prince, a royal bastard or a huge war hero. America might relax that a bit as it grew, but too much and other powers probably wouldn't recognise a duke as a duke.
Also everyone always forgets Marquis for some reason.
>implying we wouldn't go full HRE mode and have a Prince-elector of each state who would vote on the succession of a non hereditary Imperial throne in DC
King = America, elected from Princes
Prince = States, inherited (Prince of New York)
Baron = State Districts, inherited
Marshal = Counties, inherited or awarded for service (Marshal of Manhattan)
I can see the colonies wanting to be able to have stronger self rule and create princes like Germany had. Whenever the king died they'd elect someone amongst themselves to take the throne, ensuring there wouldn't be a dictator.
Could see this creating interesting alliances and power blocs as princes jockeyed to be the next king.
Well you could always go with a miltary kingdom, with all the ranks from highest general/commandant/whatever and go down from there
An american kingdom would probably help out louie during the franch revolution whoch may change things
Also
King= king
Governer= state
Mayor= city
Sheriff= towns
Yeah, even England used to have Sheriffs. At least in Nottingham.
America would be more likely to go French style (At least cosmetically) than British at that point. France and 'Murica were buddies.
Sure, it's an office of some antiquity. But being a sherriff or marshal is a job you hold in addition to being a knight or earl of somewhere.
The development of democracy in America started with the necessity of independent self governing settlements (usually under private charters) and was contextualized throughout the 17th and 18th centuries by the Enlightenment. By the Revolution, its too late change this. Pretty much no one was interested in instituting an aristocracy, publicly or privately. The constitutional writers toyed with having a king as an executive, but this was more like a president for life than an actual dynast, and was heavily constrained by checks and balances. This would have been true of any invited king as well.
Any of sort of aristocratic America would require structural changes very early on - maybe the Crown starts selling land in America to pay off its debts, creating a landed nobility in the colonies? But this would simply mean the extension of British nobility, not a truly American one.
Another possibility is of a partial revolution. There were very real concerns the southern states would go along with the northern ones due to different economic focuses (and slavery). What if the revolution succeeds in the north, but fails in the South, and an aristocracy grows out of the plantations owners?
Just some suggestions.
>AU where America had representation all along and didn't revolt
swiggy.