AH scenario that allows Britain to keep its American colonies and all the others

I've sometimes mulled over an AH scenario: In 1707, instead of dissolving the Kingdom of Scotland and creating the United Kingdom, they decide to create an Empire of the British Isles with Anne as Empress (yes, a Protestant Empress, why not?), and a new Imperial Parliament representing all the kingdoms, its members nominated by each kingdom's parliament (including Ireland's), which remain in existence. (You will understand how such a federal settlement appears to be an obvious no-brainer to an American.) While they're at it, they admit members from the overseas colonies (also from such constitutionally separate Crown dependencies as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands), because why not? That forestalls any "no taxation without representation" complaints: Only the Imperial Parliament has authority to tax the colonies, and they are represented in it. There would also be an Imperial Army and Imperial Navy, separate from the royal armies and navies and the colonial forces, and recruiting its personnel from them. The English, Scottish and Irish parliaments handle internal government, the Imperial Government handles foreign policy and military matters, and has sole auhtority to regulate trade both between kingdoms and colonies of the Empire, and with foreign countries.

It also sets a precedent for the future growth of the Empire -- any new colony has to have seats in the Imperial Parliament as a matter of course. Initially, of course, all such members would be white men, elected only by white men. Nationalist rumblings might be expressed, not as demands for independence, but for expansion of the franchise to nonwhites. (In Ireland, as demands for Catholic enfranchisement, both WRT the Dublin Parliament and the Imperial Parliament).

With this arrangement, the British Empire might well survive to this day in some form, that is, the form of a global crowned federal republic, with large numbers of Africans and Indians involved in its Parliament and government. And it would even still include a mostly satisfied Ireland.

Could this have worked?

In the above I did not consider the House of Lords -- the Brits of 1707 would assume a parliament had to have one. But, the peerages of the kingdoms could elect representative members to the Imperial Lords -- colonial peerages might be created -- and eventually, American Indian chiefs, and Indian Indian princes, might also be admitted.

I'm not sure why a Protestant empress would be weird. From 1876, British coinage bore the head of Queen Victoria and the inscription Victoria Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regina Fidei Defensor Indiae Imperatrix, meaning 'Victoria, by the Grace of God Queen of the Britains, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India'.

It's an interesting concept and I think it might do well, especially if writers considered the social stresses inherent in it. Racism was less in the UK than in the USA, but it certainly existed and there was a fair bit of pushback for complete independence (check out the Statute of Westminster, c. 1926, only under which full and complete independence was given to the dominions). And the House of Lords had to be forced to limit its own power with threats of the government in 1910 creating a wave of new peers which would flood the House with government supporters.

All that said, I think it has a lot going for it in terms of potential. Good luck.

TarnishedPenny said:

I'm not sure why a Protestant empress would be weird.

Click to expand...

Only because there had never been one before. The title was associated with the uber-Catholic HRE, and, more recently, with Eastern Orthodox Russia.

George III once considered taking the title of Emperor, but decided it sounded too . . . continental.

pecksniff said:

Only because there had never been one before. The title was associated with the uber-Catholic HRE, and, more recently, with Eastern Orthodox Russia.

George III once considered taking the title of Emperor, but decided it sounded too . . . continental.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see your point. I was 300 years ahead of myself.

TarnishedPenny said:

Ah, I see your point. I was 300 years ahead of myself.

Click to expand...

The title is useful for the imagined purpose because an empire is traditionally a form of state that can have kingdoms as constituent units -- there were several in the HRE. So England, Scotland and Ireland could be united under the British Empire while retaining their traditional royal dignity.

Then there's the question of whether there would have been a British Empire in Africa and Asia, if the Brits kept America and were preoccupied with its development. Probably something along those lines -- there was already a British presence in India at the time of the Revolution.

Also: No American Revolution means no French Revolution, at least not at the time and in the form it took in our timeline. It was only the financial crisis resulting from bankrolling the American colonists that forced Louis XVI to call an Estates General. And no French Revolution means no Napoleonic Wars -- so maybe Britain never gets a pretext to snag South Africa from the Dutch.

Also, the example of the British Empire being organized as a federation presents a challenge to other colonial powers: Their colonies might start demanding something similar. Spain and France wouldn't like that!