Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
KRJ

Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #1 
Assuming a House of Washington in absentia (a big assumption, I know, but work with me for the sake of discussion )  who would you consider the legitimate pretender since Washington had no biological offspring?  A decendant of Washington's stepson George Custis?  Or a decendant of Washington's eldest brother Augustine (currently an elderly gentleman in Texas, I believe)?

I say the George Custis line: it's probably what George Washington would have wanted; it's probably what Martha Washington would have wanted; what the Washingtons would have wanted would likely have had enormous influence and impact due to their gravitas; and what we think of as the normal European rules of ascension have sometimes not applied in young monarchies - David was not Saul's son, for example.

Thoughts?

__________________
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
bator

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #2 
i would prefer his biological heir. yes i know abour sauland david, but firstly after all david was his son in law, and secondly it was God's decision to overthrow saul and invest david, so i dont think the cases can be compared. but what do you think the american coat of arms and royal crown would have looked like, if washington had become king george the first of america?
KRJ

Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bator
i would prefer his biological heir.


Fair enough.  But I wouldn't because I suspect he, his wife, and any American people who supported them at that time wouldn't.

Quote:
yes i know abour sauland david, but firstly after all david was his son in law, and secondly it was God's decision to overthrow saul and invest david, so i dont think the cases can be compared.


But are there other cases in newly established monarchies where the line of acsension took a generation or two to sort itself out before a normal hereditary line was established?  I admit I can't think of any offhand but surely there must be some.

Quote:
but what do you think the american coat of arms and royal crown would have looked like, if washington had become king george the first of america?


I'm not sure because I know little about heraldry.  I imagine the Washington family's existing coat-of-arms: 





I don't know about a crown.

__________________
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #4 
From a sort of essay on the evolution of the Spanish kingdoms I did here:

"The first post-Conquest realm was Asturias, founded by Pelayo who was elected its Prince around 718 and began the Reconquista. He was a Visigothic noble, said to be descended from elected kings of that people, though the sources we have for this date from over 150 years after his death so we cannot say we know it for sure. His daughter Ermesinda married Alfonso, son of Peter, Duke of Cantabria, who was also said to have a lineage from elected Visigothic kings. After Pelayo’s son and successor Favila died young Alfonso became King of Asturias, the Beni Alfons line being named for him. But not for the most part descended from him or indeed Pelayo, the inheritance after assorted dynastic vicissitudes going to the line of his brother Fruela. So the other name Pérez (for Peter, as in Peter of Cantabria) is perhaps the better one for the line."

That would be sort of analogous. Perhaps more so would be the election 400 years ago of Michael I, the first Romanov Tsar, in part because he was the great-nephew of Ivan IV's first wife and thus a first cousin once removed of Feodor I, last Tsar of the Moscow Rurikid line. Any connection would do, even if the affinity was not through descent from the royal line itself. The question of who is the dynastic heir of George Washington is though about as academic as a question could be, I think. The Queen is incidentally Washington's second cousin six times removed, being descended from his great-grandfather Augustine Warner. As a blood relative with experience in the position, 60 years of it, perhaps she should be considered. The US would just have to ask to become a Commonwealth Realm, which is what it would be now were it not for the revolution, I'm sure it would be welcomed. No, that was not a serious suggestion, in case anyone worries.
bator

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #5 
are you sure that america would have been a dominion had it not been for the revolution? i imagine that the revolution triggered the making of dominions with own parliaments to prevent further revolutions in other places. but i might be wrong of course.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #6 
No, I'm not sure. I tend to feel that matters would have taken that course absent the rebellion, with one Kingdom of America, not a separate US and Canada, but I don't really know how the whole Dominions idea came about so can't assert this with any confidence. Maybe I'll spend some time looking into it and see what I can find out.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #7 
The American colonies had more liberty and autonomy than the French or Spanish colonies, they had elected assemblies that were more democratic than most of the world had enjoyed. Bermuda's legislature dates to 1620, a year after the formation of Virginia's legislature. Self-government in Canada and Australia came in the mid-19th century.

But there was also the short-lived Kingdom of Corsica in union with Great Britain between 1794 and 1796, whose constitution resembled that of the self-governing colonies and dominions subsequent.
hubertgaston

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 798
Reply with quote  #8 
I read that emissaries of the Federalist Party had met the last Stuart claimant (Henry Benedict) during the years 1790, with George Washington's agreement, to offer him the Crown of the United States.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #9 
That would seem surprising. Toleration of Catholicism in Canada was one of the complaints of the revolutionaries. And to say that the British government would have objected is putting it very mildly, the Treaty of Paris would have been torn up and they would have gone to war. Finally, Cardinal York was of course a vowed celibate with no immediate heirs, whom would they have expected to succeed him? Maybe it happened, stupider things have (for example, the 1704 Scottish Act of Security provided that Scotland would have a Protestant heir to Queen Anne different to England's, when in practical terms there was only one Protestant heir available), but it doesn't seem likely.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 298
Reply with quote  #10 
Not to mention that from what I know of George Washington, I struggle to see him giving such an endeavour his blessing. A Kingdom of America under a Catholic Cardinal-King from the House of Stuart? Sounds fanciful to me, but it certainly makes for an intriguing alternate history scenario.


__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Sounds fanciful to me, but it certainly makes for an intriguing alternate history scenario.




My thoughts exactly!!! That would make an excellent read...

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
hubertgaston

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 798
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
Not to mention that from what I know of George Washington, I struggle to see him giving such an endeavour his blessing. A Kingdom of America under a Catholic Cardinal-King from the House of Stuart? Sounds fanciful to me, but it certainly makes for an intriguing alternate history scenario.


This fact is mentioned in:

Georges Washington, Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation ... And Other Important Writings, Editions Sourcebooks inc., 2007.

VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 298
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubertgaston
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
Not to mention that from what I know of George Washington, I struggle to see him giving such an endeavour his blessing. A Kingdom of America under a Catholic Cardinal-King from the House of Stuart? Sounds fanciful to me, but it certainly makes for an intriguing alternate history scenario.
<br><br><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en">This fact is mentioned in:</span></span><br><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Georges Washington,<em> Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation</em> <em>... And Other Important Writings</em>, Editions </span><span style="line-height: 150%; color: #231f20;" lang="EN">Sourcebooks inc., 2007.</span></span></p>

Really? Hmm. Do you know why the Cardinal refused the offer?

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,538
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubertgaston
I read that emissaries of the Federalist Party had met the last Stuart claimant (Henry Benedict) during the years 1790, with George Washington's agreement, to offer him the Crown of the United States.


You know, in 50+ years of reading about monarchism, the history of the US, etc. I've never heard this. Now, having heard it, I can only give a great belly laugh. For God's sake, the Catholic Church was illegal in 11 of the 13 rebellious colonies and they're going to ask a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church to be their King?? I know Washington grew hemp, but I wasn't aware he smoked it.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #15 
Despite the quoted source, I still think the offer very improbable. As for why if made it was refused, I don't think Cardinal York had any desire to reign anywhere, he wished only to remain in Rome and follow his vocation. He did make a nominal claim and even touched for the King's Evil, the last person ever to do so (the last actual monarch who did was Queen Anne, who touched Samuel Johnson for this purpose as a boy -- it didn't work). However he did nothing to pursue the claim, and having lost most of the revenues from his numerous benefices due to the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, he accepted a large pension from George III. Hardly the act of a man striving to overthrow a usurping dynasty, even if he justified it to himself as a right he was claiming as opposed to charity he was receiving. Sixty-five years old when this very strange offer is supposed to have been made, if it was I shouldn't think he gave it a moment's consideration.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.