What could have turned the UK into a dictatorship?
- Thread starter jjake101
- Start date
sophie
Break My Heart
A dictatorship in what sense?
At what point in the 19th century?
Your use of "UK" implies it would still be a Kingdom. So is it a dictatorship operating within the constitutional monarchy or did the monarchy just somehow abolish parliament.
At what point in the 19th century?
Your use of "UK" implies it would still be a Kingdom. So is it a dictatorship operating within the constitutional monarchy or did the monarchy just somehow abolish parliament.
Wellington keeps the job of Commander-in-Chief when he becomes PM? Does that count as a dictatorship?
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Anarchist bombthrowers kill Victoria and the British Army takes over Parliament?
Would an absolute monarchy qualify? Maybe George I (who in OTL declined the title of Emperor of Great Britain, I believe) was more interested in Britain, giving Parliament less room to manoeuvre and George III's long reign allowed him to strengthen power in the hands of the Crown.
If some of the other Hanoverian males had not died or shown little inclination to produce sons, Victoria may never have taken the throne and one of her ATL cousins proves to be a more forceful king and rules as the British Empire as an enlightened absolute monarch, in the fashion of Catherine the Great or Joseph II of Austria.
(Yes, it's complete tosh, but it was worth a stab for ten minutes.)
If some of the other Hanoverian males had not died or shown little inclination to produce sons, Victoria may never have taken the throne and one of her ATL cousins proves to be a more forceful king and rules as the British Empire as an enlightened absolute monarch, in the fashion of Catherine the Great or Joseph II of Austria.
(Yes, it's complete tosh, but it was worth a stab for ten minutes.)
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Home Rule Civil War?
Neither of those is nineteenth century
If the 'nineteenth century' thing isn't ironclad, you could generate a British Revolution in the 1770s without too much effort and then have some sort of British Napoleon take over, but that particular revolution's already been done so it wouldn't seem all that original. And then there's also the aforementioned Home Rule civil war.
Neither of those is nineteenth century
Oops. Well, even with my limited knowledge of Georgian history, I did think that generating a non-ASB Victorian dictatorship would take a century or so, but my POD does have the dubious advantage of generating an autocratic United Kingdom in the 19th Century.
mayor
Heart & Mind
If you wait a century you can use Thatcher 
Say wha?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Point of divergence could be set in the 19th century. Maybe Captain O'Shea's aunt leaves her estate in his hands, and as a result, absolutely nothing remarkable happens.Neither of those is nineteenth century
The grip that Gladstone had over his party, particularly while Home Rule was on the table, was notoriously weak; if he couldn't dominate his colleagues, I find it hard to believe he could have dominated the country. Likewise Disraeli, who was so conspicuous by his absence from most areas of government.
The OP is interested in something that could plausibly have happened, otherwise he wouldn't have started the thread. (Or he could just be trollin'. Who cares.) Those situations are not very plausible.
Similar threads
