The American Monarchy

[Erc]

From what I can find, Pauline was married (to a Borghese) in November of '03, so she wouldn't have been eligible for George.  That said, Napoleon could have anticipated the offer and prevented her marriage into minor Italian royalty.

I quite like it so far...although it seems (at the moment) that there won't be the entire "Robert E. Lee is America's Prince Albert" that can crop up when discussing an American monarchy.

[Erc]

Interesting...I wonder how the rest of British North America plays out...the Maritimes can stay precariously in British hands, barring another war...but the Prairies would be deserted and would probably become Americanized in the long run in the manner of Texas [the region between Ontario and the Rockies will have no good connections with anything but the United States until the railroad comes through, and even then the British wouldn't have much of an interest in building one except from a sovereignty standpoint].

[Erc]

Great stuff...I'm curious about the far West, though.  Why does California join the rebels so soon, and what's going on out there militarily?

[Erc]

First James Garfield, now Tom Watson...we are getting spoiled with some high-quality politicians.

Although, as you mention, Watson's really young--33 in 1889?  I bet we'll be seeing him a lot over the next 35-odd years.

And Coxey as a major player in Parliament--nice touch, although perhaps a touch unstable.

[Erc]

Great update, as usual.

But I have to offer one small nitpick (as usual)...how can the Brits (and Canadians) be putting up such a determined defense in the Washington area...or anywhere in Canada, for that matter?  Britain has its own concerns in Europe (and IRL hadn't undergone major conscription before the war).  To add to that, Canada is essentially cut off from Britain & her allies...very little can realistically be arriving in the Pacific Coast ports (and even a weakened American Pacific fleet is probably more than enough match for the Russian Far East fleet and any Anglo-Canadian Northern Pacific fleet)--and any Churchill, MB equivalent is behind a couple thousand miles of American waters.  Which leaves Canada (and only Western & Central Canada, at that) essentially on its own against the entire U.S.  Understandably, with no Eastern Canada (and with Oregon Country), the rest of Canada is likely to be more populated than IRL...and America has divided its attention--but I don't see how they could reasonably expect to hold out against the U.S. for any appreciable length of time (barring a very significant pre-war Royal Army presence or very slow American mobilization).

[Erc]

When the Germans and Americans allied in the early 1900s, the British increased troops numbers in the Canadian colonies in anticipation of an eventual war. The American army is also rather small at this point (as conflicting policies from Liberal and Populist administrations has left it unprepared for war) and the American, without any experience at mobilization, are mobilizing slowly. Finally, the British government (and the residents of Oregon) know that an American conquest of the region will result in annexation (just like in Quebec and Ontario a hundred years earlier), so they're fighting tooth and nail over the province. The United States hasn't made a concentrated offensive effort to break the Columbia River lines quite yet, as Robert II and General Pershing are wary about a Mexican offensive, and as such have a sizable portion of the RAHF defending the southern border.

Makes sense.  Thanks for the elucidation.