I would like to suggest that Seattle and the metroplex there were a recent addition to the Republic, and I would also suggest that Victoria had skirmishes, if not war, with the warlords in Spokane. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing what you come up with! Louisiannan 16:04, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about the Republic of San Juan. Mitro 17:18, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
and I would expect a fair amount of unrest among the refugees, short of an extensive police state/martial law for the first 5 years until things were settled. Louisiannan 17:50, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Trying to figure out some ideas to incorporate the warlords in Spokane during the construction of Fort Bennett in Mt Vernon in 1996, but the Navajo nation article implies they were mostly wiped out after 1993. Ideas? --Oerwinde 23:02, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting about San Juan. Will be mostly concerned with consolidating power and reclaiming BC until early 2000, after San Juan's establishment.

According to already established canon, Canada makes contact with Vancouver Island in 1995. I'm altering the Canada page to make room for your republic. --DarthEinstein 19:35, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

oh man, I must have missed that.

The City of Kelowna survived as a citystate? That is good news, as I have family in Kelowna. --Yankovic270 17:28, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

I was planning for it and the Okanagan region to join Victoria around mid to late 2010, while Kamloops will remain independant. Resentment from Victoria taking so long to send aid. Whether or not Prince George eventually takes control is up in the air.--Oerwinde 18:31, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
Well, it makes sense that they survived, I don't see why the Soviets would nuke these cities and contact would be hard after Doomsday because of the mountains. Oerwinde, why don't you create a separate article about the Okanagan Confederation? They are a separate political entity from Victoria. --DarthEinstein 23:43, September 15, 2009 (UTC)


Considering that the MSP had contact with the Pacific nations as early as 1991, it seems odd that it took Victoria until the 21st century to make contact with them when they are in the relatively same place as the MSP and Alaska. I think contact would have happened earlier for Victoria, most likely sometimes in the 90s, maybe even when the USS Benjamin Franklin went on its world voyage. Mitro 13:05, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

-Well, reading the MSP article, it seemed they didn't have much of a presense until they actually formed in 2006, so I figured official contact shouldn't be made until then. I should change it so official relations were established in 2007. --Oerwinde 18:32, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Contact and official diplomatic relations are two different things. The cities of the soon to be MSP had contact and even some trade with the Pacific nations but there was no official diplomatic relations until the MSP was formed. Victoria on the other hand has a stable and united government much earlier. There is no reason why the ANZC would ignore them until 2007, especially with their presence in Alaska starting when it became an associated state. Mitro 19:02, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully fixed. Very thankful for the feedback, theres so much already established and a lot to read so I miss a lot. Hence why this is a work in progress.--Oerwinde 20:33, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being willing to "play by the rules". QSS and QAA aren't always the most straightforward things, but I think you're getting the hang of it quite well. Louisiannan 22:20, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'd think there would be contact with the NAU by now - especially with the Canadian part. SouthWriter 20:38, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to have the Premier do a tour negotiating the reconstruction of the CP railway with provisional Canada, and strengthening ties with the ANZC but with King Andrew arriving in Victoria that would be rather rude.Oerwinde 20:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


How did Victoria react to contact with New Britain? Mitro 14:18, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

They would react positively. Knowing which monarch the Lieutenant Governor was representing would be good. I'm not sure when I would have them make contact. They're literally on the other side of the world.--Oerwinde 18:58, September 19, 2009 (UTC)


Why woulf the military operate an old carrier and a missile submarine? it does not make sence!--HAD 10:05, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

The nuclear subs do more than just carry nukes, they can be used for recon as well as being able to go places ships can't. The Canadian military was heavily reliant on their american allies, with them gone the remnants need to defend themselves. I don't think a single Sub and Carrier is that bad.--Oerwinde 18:03, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

true about the sub, but carriers are useless without there air groups. if the carrier is heavily damaged, what about the planes? are any still flyable?--HAD 09:59, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

All the planes were destroyed, but there were some at the Whidby Island Naval Air Station.--Oerwinde 10:12, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Are they carrier Capable?, ie not maritime patrol aircraft. --HAD 12:56, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Whidby Island mostly had A-6 Intruders and EA-6B Prowlers. Which by the pictures on wikipedia of them parked on Aircraft Carriers, I would think are carrier capable. --Oerwinde 18:17, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

They are indeed. Victoria keeps it carrier then! --HAD 08:32, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

what was the name of that carrier predoomsday?Wingman1 19:20, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

If I remember right from the little research I did, I believe it was the Kitty Hawk. I think it was in drydock at that time.Oerwinde 08:41, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

By the way, given that the Kitty Hawk survived Doomsday, doesn't that also mean that Victoria has access to the Ajax (AR-6), Albany (CG-10), Bainbridge (CGN-25), Bennington (CV-20), Bon Homme Richard (CV-31), Chicago (CG-11), Hornet (CV-12), Long Beach (CGN-9), Missouri (BB-63), Newport News (CA-148), Oriskany (CV-34), Saint Paul (CA-73), and Truxtun (CGN-35) given that they were all at Puget Sound at the same time as well? Maybe overhauling them is a longer term project for Victoria. In regards to the Resurrection's air wing, maybe they use fighters built by the Commonwealth (F-14 Tomcats, F/A-18 Hornets, A-6 Intruders, EA-6B Prowlers, etc...). Judge King 12:32, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

No. If you'd bother to read the article, you'd see that in a fluke, it was carried out to sea by waves from the blasts, and beached itself on the other side of the sound. Those other ships, are without question, destroyed. Lordganon 13:23, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

My bad, by the way, what do you think of my idea about Victoria purchasing fighters from the Commonwealth? Judge King 17:22, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Victoria has its own aerospace industry. Viking AirOerwinde 19:32, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oerwinde, is it possible that Viking Air may develop a variant of one of their fighter jets for usage aboard their carrier?  After all, the VA101 Lokis were based on a few surviving CF-188 Hornets.  Canadian Hornets retained the folding wings and arrestor hooks of the original F/A-18s (useful in smaller airfields in Northern Canada.) so those could be developed for a new naval fighter jet.  With contact with the outside world, they might be able to find a source for turbofans and better avionics.  For AEW aircraft, Viking Air could say develop a shorter version of the old DHC-5 Buffalo with folding wings as a replacement for the E-2 Hawkeye.   I'm also curious as to what other vessels might be operated by Victoria.  Just my 2 cents :) Mikelima777 (talk) 01:25, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Considering that naval version of the F-18 were used on carriers, it stands that modern versions based of the Hornets could be as well.

Any version of the Buffalo really wouldn't be an upgrade over the Hawkeyes. They'd be better off just building new versions of that.

Lordganon (talk) 06:54, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

The Resurrection is mostly a mobile aid station, so the aircraft stationed on board is mostly of use in rescue an humanitarian aid. Cargo and SAR helicopters, recon aircraft, etc. At the time it was refitted that seemed like the best use for it with the coastal communities throughout the pacific northwest reeling from the collapse of the US and such. If Victoria is going to build their own aircraft carriers, they will likely be more like amphibious assault ships and such. Much smaller and multi-use. Oerwinde (talk) 10:13, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I added a section about the current small arms of the Victorian military, as well as the uniforms? I'm planning on modeling the new uniforms off of turn of the century British uniforms, to reflect the Commonwealth's "Britishness".CPoLofVancouver (talk) 17:29, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Sure, though I think the uniforms would be based more on Canadian Forces uniforms, as thats what they would have been using at Doomsday, and there wouldn't be a lot of reason to change drasticly. Adopting some more British flair for the officers or dress uniforms might work though.Oerwinde (talk) 20:47, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
But I was thinking of having the Minister of Defense using contact with New Britain as an excuse to revamp & replace the uniforms; by the late 1990s, the old uniforms would be getting quite ratty. The Ground Command uniforms would be dark green, the Naval Command's sea blue, & the Air Command's orange. The weaponry would stay the same though. CPoLofVancouver (talk) 17:56, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I like the idea of orange uniforms. But for the more british thing you could make it a more recent thing, maybe a push by the MoD for a Commonwealth-wide homogenization of style amongst the remaining commonwealth realms.Oerwinde (talk) 08:55, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about that, but then I realized that there are Commonwealth realms Victoria would have had very little (if at all) contact with. Plus, colours suitable for the Pacific Northwest probably wouldn't be suitable for a place like New Britain. CPoLofVancouver (talk) 04:31, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
Well there are really only 5 actual nations that make up the Commonwealth ATL(The others are just former crown dependencies). Victoria, Canada, New Britain, Fiji, and Botswana, Botswana is the only one that there might be little contact with. And I would think dress uniforms would be the really standardized ones, since combat uniforms are going to vary depending on where the troops are stationed.Oerwinde (talk) 09:09, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Orange uniforms, never a good idea.

Standardizing those uniforms would be more or less impossible. As you note, different environments. The NA states would need more woodland colors, while NB would need something more grassland/savanna like. Dress uniforms is one thing, but anything else would not be. Even the dress uniforms would probably be the same cuts, but different shades/colors.

Would not be so quick to say that it is only those guys, Oer. Still rather undecided about a lot of countries, like the ANZC, and many of the ECF members recognize the crown too.

Lordganon (talk) 13:00, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

I know, I need a different colour than orange. 

Also, I want to note that kevlar armour & helmets would still be standard issue, with the armour being fitted over the uniform & the helmets being similar to the M3 helmets used by the Canadian Forces at Doomsday.

CPoLofVancouver (talk) 03:16, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Kevlar? I doubt it. They used the M1, not a "M3." Which is made of manganese steel. The Canadian states would probably all use this helmet still. Lordganon (talk) 09:33, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right; it is the M1 helmet that was used. I don't know where M3 came from. Also, I realize that the way I wrote it made it seem I meant kevlar helmets, but I really only meant kevlar armour. CPoLofVancouver (talk) 18:46, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

"I doubt it" as in no kevlar in anything is likely. DD, remember. Lordganon (talk) 11:20, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're talking about a highly industralized nation, not a tiny little city state. Plus, Victoria would have had plenty left over from the pre-DD Canadian military. Remember that Kevlar vests had been around since at least the mid-70s, with Kevlar being invented in 71.CPoLofVancouver (talk) 00:52, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

If not Kevlar, then some sort of advanced flak jacketCPoLofVancouver (talk) 00:58, February 13, 2015 (UTC)


Hawaii probably also has diplomatic relations with Victoria. Hawaii still prides itself as Australia-New Zealand's link to the American mainland, so any interaction with the ANZC woul probably pass through Hawaii, anyway. Benkarnell 04:02, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed--Oerwinde 05:42, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


I'm not so sure about this one... it is, after all, centered on the one thing on Canada's west coast likely to draw a nuclear strike. I think its a safe assumption that 1.1 million people in British Columbia survive Doomsday and the following winter, but most of them are far away from the island. The largest urbanized area in the province is NOT going to be a place where people will not starve. Most will flee in search of food and die trying to find it. If we have a country starting here, shouldn't it be located to the north along the coast and only recently have expanded that far south?--Loughery111 18:22, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, having read more of the history page, we can accept a much lower population but the same geographic center. A state with a starting base of 60,000 is not going to reach 1.1 million in 25 years. And Victoria is the last place refugees will head for. They're going to be headed away from population centers, assuming they've been destroyed, and towards the plains provinces looking for farmland and food. Coincidentally that takes them straight away from the coast and towards the UAR. So we have two options, in my mind. First, we have a state, centered further north and inland, with about the current population. Or, alternatively, we have the current state, where it is, but with a population of 300,000, maximum.--Loughery111 18:26, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

The greater Victoria area alone has a population of over 300k And much of Vancouver Island is agricultural land. With focused agricultural development as well as fishing and incorporated washington territory there is enough food supply. The 1.1 million isn't just the BC territory. BC territory is more like 600-700k total.
The North/Inland state is here: 18:52, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the area can't support that many people in the long run. I'm saying that in the immediate aftermath of Doomsday there was little chance they would have gotten a large enough population base to justify the current numbers. Even if we assume everyone who lived there and made it there lived, that's still only 360,000. They definitely won't get significant migration for a long time, because no one is going to go towards a destroyed, irradiated Vancouver from inland. So natural population growth is all that this state likely gets to boost its numbers. Thus, there are two real options if you're looking for realism: either we keep the same state with a smaller population (half million or thereabouts), as well as the northern state with a smaller population (another half million), or we have one larger northern state (1 million). There certainly won't be three states totaling half the province's pre-Doomsday population in British Columbia. At best, maybe a fifth survived, and they might be back up to a quarter or a third now.--Loughery111 20:27, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, based on your assumption of a 5th of BC surviving and it being up to a quarter or a 3rd now, we have the combined populations of the BC parts of Victoria, the Okanagan, and New Caledonia totaling around a million. Pre DD pop of BC was 2.8 million, about half of which lived in metro Vancouver, not everyone in metro Vancouver will die from the nuclear strike, but most will, so lets say total surviving population of 1.6 million in BC. The total population of the 3 territories account for about a million, leaving nearly 600k to die from fallout, starvation, etc. The numbers aren't unrealistic. 2/3rds of BC's pre-DD population is gone. The Republic of Victoria's population includes 3-400k from Washington state.--Oerwinde 22:19, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... between this and the other two states there are what, about 1.4 million people here again? I guess its possible, it just seems unlikely that that many people would have survived the collapse in infrastructure. If we tack on 350,000 in Washington, I still say the population is more likely to be 700,000, not 1.1 million. It just seems impossible for natural population growth to account for much larger, and I really do think people won't migrate towards a place they know has had at least one nuclear strike nearby.--Loughery111 03:18, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm just starting to get frustrated. You're completely ignoring everything I've said.--Oerwinde 03:27, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, the OTL population of Vancouver Island is 740k, Since I can't find the stats, I'm assuming a Pre-DD pop of about 450-500k Add to that the population of the northern coast of BC, which is around 2-300k, as well as refugees from the metro vancouver area, which I was being conservative with about 100k, likely there would be more, that leaves a population of native BC residents at about 700-900k, of which I took the smaller number to account for radiation deaths in refugees, unrest, starvation, etc. Vancouver Island is quite self sufficient when it comes to food, its finished goods that it would lack, so starvation deaths would be few. The numbers I've used for population haven't even taken into account population growth. I could realistically raise the population to take into account refugees from southern Washington, asia, spokane, etc. but didn't want to wank my country.--Oerwinde 04:00, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to see what you mean. Someone earlier said the population for the island at that point was 300,000. And I didn't realize they established control over the coast that quickly? If their initial population base was 700,000, then I can see the present population being reasonable. If it was 350,000, then I can't see more than 750,000 counting Washington. Can we figure out which it was to begin with?--Loughery111 04:18, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

I had been working from a total population base of 600,000 following Doomsday and resultant starvation, and using that to figure population distribution and growth. If Victoria has 700,000 survivors itself, and the inland republics another 200,000 between them, that changes things quite a bit. Sorry about that.--Loughery111 04:22, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
So google is useless for finding demographic stats below the state level, but using Canada's overall growth to regress the island back to 1983 I'm arriving at a population of 550,000. If we assume that some people die, but refugees balance that out, and tack on 150,000 survivors from the coast, we have 700,000, to which we can add 125,000 or thereabouts for population growth, and 300,000 for Washington... which gets us almost exactly to where you started at. Stupid argument, GIGO proven yet again. Sorry.--Loughery111 04:28, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
No problem, if we didn't have people questioning this stuff we'd have a Republic of Superior with 7 million people and an army large enough to reconquer the continental US.--Oerwinde 07:32, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
True. I can see a higher population there than what is currently assigned, maybe even twice as high. But there's no way 7 million people survived in that area. Also no way they have that huge an army. Too many people are farming, given the quality of the land. Anyway that's a debate for a different page. One which I'm currently working on, on said page. I think we have the demographics here nailed down well, but now I'm beginning to question the MSP's, since it's so low.--Loughery111 14:51, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


why does Victoria call its self a "republic"? republics don't have to be democracies, but they ain't constitutional monarchies either.--HAD 15:52, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think of it at the time. Assumed any government where the people elect representatives to form the government was referred to as a republic.Oerwinde 18:28, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

i think "commonwealth" would be better and more accurate. HAD 19:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but its all over the place already. I'll change it when they adopt the federal system.Oerwinde 19:51, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
make it "federated commonwealth of Victoria", cos its super accurate then!HAD 20:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that, or Commonwealth Federation or Victorian Federal Commonwealth or whatnot. Federated Commonwealth sounds good.Oerwinde 09:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

i thought of the other two before offering the one i did. the others don't roll off the toung thAT well. --HAD 09:08, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I thought of Commonwealth Federation of Victoria, after you suggested the change to Commonwealth, but I agree Federated Commonwealth sounds better. Victorian Federal Commonwealth also sounds good, but it sounds more like an organization rather than a country. Federated Commonwealth it is. Not that it really matters as everyone will just refer to it as Victoria.Oerwinde 09:32, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

yeah.--HAD 11:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

is the change in system due soon, Oerwinde? --HAD 11:02, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

If people are just going to call it Victoria i think it should be called Victoria Owen1983 12:38, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the official name(Republic of Victoria-Federated Commonwealth of Victoria). also, i'm going to edit the article to show that the army bases have now been built and that the army has now received training . is this okay, Oer. --HAD 14:01, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

someone will also have to edit the map now that the Washington protectorate has become a fully integral part of Victoria. --HAD 16:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

The election is next Wednesday, I should have mentioned it in the news probably. The federal system won't be fully in place until probably the 2015 election, but next week will be the date its officially adopted.Oerwinde 19:24, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
It's a funny debate, since "commonwealth" is just the Anglo-Saxon translation of the Latin "republic", and plenty of languages make no distinction between the two. But you're right, to a patriotic Canadian (or any subject of HMtQ), "republic" probably sounds scandalously American; commonwealth safely leaves room for a theoretical monarch. St Lawrence and Saguenay are also "republics", but they sort of pride themselves on bucking the British/Canadian system; Victoria, definitely not (just look at its flag!). Benkarnell 22:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Well, on looking up "Republic" its specifically a representative government where the head of state is not a monarch. So Victoria is not a Republic. I didn't do my research. Oerwinde 09:20, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

hence my point. republics aren't monarchies. commonwealths can have monarchs as their heads of state (Australia, New Zealand, etc)--HAD 10:57, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Dominion" be more appropriate for a Canadian survivor state? Because Canada's official name is not the "Commonwealth of Canada", but the Dominion of Canada.

Supersonic91 18:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

True, but Canada had been phasing out use of the title since the 1950s. Most people nowadays don't even realise its the official name.(Such as myself, I had to look it up as its not even on the Canada wiki page.)Oerwinde 19:58, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

can someone edit the page so that it reads "the flag of the...". there aren't any "the"s in the flag description. Also, Canada is not a Dominion anymore, but a Commonwealth Realm. HAD 15:30, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I think their official title nowadays is just "Canada", no "Something of". But I think that Commonwealth is a perfectly British thing for Victoria to call themselves, wot. Benkarnell 15:54, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Its still officially the Dominion of Canada, they've just been phasing out use of the title to distance itself from the idea of British rule. Its not used anymore but its still on the constitution and such.Oerwinde 17:52, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's never been the Dominion of Canada - simply Canada. "Dominion of Canada" was never actually on any of the BNA Act, or the Constitution items in the 80's - and I have actually read the things too, mind. "Dominion" is actually a title given to the Canadian Government by the Crown, and its use was sanctioned by the Constitution Act of 1871. People just started calling it the "Dominion of Canada" in lieu of a name, since in most government documents it was substituted for "nation," including the 1871 Act.

Have a look at

Lordganon 14:31, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Olympia, Washington

How did the capital of the state of Washington end up under Victorian control? Most likely it would have maintained control over at least part of the state. Why did you have one state government collapse in this article and in the Oregon article it remained in control? Arstarpool 17:41, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Because Washington was much more heavily hit. Olympia would have received many more refugees than Salem due to both nearby Seattle, Tacoma, and Bremerton being hit. Walla Walla, and several other places in eastern washington would also have been hit, so Olympia was cut off from most of its resources. It didn't collapse entirely, it maintained a presence in the area around the Olympia metro district, but due to refugees and lack of resources was unable to expand beyond that.Oerwinde 17:50, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

And I know this is unrelated, but did you ever iron out how part of Oregon went to the MSP? Arstarpool 19:04, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

It was a pretty weak explaination, but I had the state government pull law enforcement and national guard from the south in order to keep order around Salem with the refugees and such. The resulting lack of order in the south resulted in roving gangs and several towns began fortifying themselves. After that I didn't mention much because I figured the MSP history picked up from there.Oerwinde 07:21, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Washington-Monarchy Issue

This is something that I was thinking of. American's aren't a very monarchical loving people as you may know. Me personally, I like the idea of the leaders of country for centuries getting honorary monarchical titles, like Monaco or what not but I don't believe in a monarchy for America. There are a few, and I mean like a rare few, like a dozen people for every million who would want a monarchy in the Sates but if we had a monarchy it would probably be a descendant of Washington or a home-grown American Monarchy IMHO. But in 83DD with the abolition of the Washington Protectorate, the three Washington Provinces would pretty much be forced to follow the British Monarchy. Now I understand that the Canadians aren't like totally about the monarchy in OTL but still, its just something that came to my attention. Arstar 20:25, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Could you rephrase the last line of that? It kinda says half of two completely different things. If you mean that Canadians don't really support the idea of monarchy, in otl 36% support it, 30% oppose it, and the remainder offer no opinion - and would support it in a referendum (and if you take Quebec out of this, the number would have a majority in favor of the monarchy). And it would have been more in favor in the 80's.

I think the reception royalty gets in the US is very loving - you need only watch the crowds that show up for that. And Monaco is not an honorary monarchy.

There's more people than you think who like the idea of a monarchy for the USA - google it, you might be surprised. Several blogs, etc. do exist calling for this. There was even an American organization, the Constantian Society, dedicated to it, though they seem to have become inactive after the death of their leader in 1999.

And while the idea that the USA should become a monarchy is supported by few, there's also a large number involved in fan clubs for monarchy, etc. Such people would be much more inclined than most towards being under a monarch.

When the USA gets a monarch, it will be like with Rome - someone will seize control.

This is really one of my biggest issues with the overall timeline. Every time a proposal for an American survivor state with a monarch is proposed, it gets shot down for having one. Yet, it would have happened in at least some cases.

Lordganon 16:34, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is LG that pro-monarch Americans are an incredibly small minority. Simply showing evidence of supporters does not mean its likely in American history that it will happen. Even the idea of a Washington monarchy is actually more of an urban legend. Finally, just seeing how monarchies are protrayed in the history books that American children read shows that the average mainstream American is not for it. Sure when a royal comes into town they might get a warm reception, but it is nothing different from what Johnny Depp or some other celebrity might get.
Those are some of the reasons why I at least oppose the idea of a European monarchy arising in the former states. It just does not go along with our culture, even after a nuclear war. American versions of monarchy, however, are not that hard to believe though. Some dictator comes to power and his son or brother succeeds him (not that different from OTL North Korea or Cuba). He (or she) might not be called King or Queen, but they might have titles like "President-General" or "President-for-life" or "Governor", etc. There nobals have similar American titles and instead of knights we just have grandoise titles given out to supporters (like "Patriot of Survivorstan").
That is my biggest issue with the proposals for monarchies in America, to many people try to impose another cultures ideas on a people who have been raised to believe they are bad. It will take a few generations for Americans to learn to accept the idea of a hereditay dictatorship. Hell, one of my biggest issues with the TL is the fact that we have more democracies than dictatoriships in post-Doomsday America.
Personally I have no issue with Victoria's government and it's American territory. Doomsday would cause some survivors to accept whatever help they can get. Besides, the Victorian monarchy is symbolic, its not like they are listening to whatever New Britain tells them. Though there might be a "Victorian Republican Party" who proposes doing away with the system, I doubt they are anything more than a minor political party. Mitro 18:33, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the American electoral system, and years under the Victorian constitutional monarchy would show little difference between it and a republic in practice. An elected Lieutenant General would likely be a decent compromise in order to appease republican dissenters.--Oerwinde 19:02, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

LG no offense but what got into you to say "when America gets a monarch"? Or did you mean that if we get one?

This is my opinion but it is most likely a fact that the United States of America, under the current constitution and populace will never get a monarch, regardless of any support. What you say about us is untrue, yeah if the Queen of England comes or even the Duke of Luxembourg we well be receptive and inviting of them, but that doesn't mean we are "loving". By far we aren't. The Queen is an exception because we have more or less good relations with the UK, which is our mother nation but we will never join the Commonwealth or even give the Queen a castle or honorary title and even than our relations with the UK are mostly with the Prime Minister and not to the Crown.

But my argument is that no matter how its put Victoria is a Commonwealth member with non-monarchial supporters. If the Washington Protectorate still existed than maybe they wouldn't have to recognize the Crown (even the slightest bit of allegiance would be too much for some people in Washington) but I'm not here to dictate, just cooperate, but I find it weird that the people of the associate themselves at all with the monarchy. Its a bigger change than you think, I.E. in daily conversation "The guys got more cash than the King!".

The Canadian users here state often that "they are different from the Americans", and to quote an LG statement: "We like ourselves close to them (reference to Americans), but as far away as possible", and you guys (not just here too, on other wikis and abroad) have made other statements that you don't wont to become American and the monarchy makes you different. But you forget that we Americans would want to become the slightest bit Canadian like you don't want to become American, and I feel that fully incorporating the Washington Protectorate would forcibly impose the Canadian/Victorian lifestyle on the American/Washingtonian people and would overstep the lifestyle boundaries that exist. You guys argued at Superior's consumption of Canadian lands, but its okay for Canada to annex part of Washington and make it a Commonwealth member? I'm sorry but the more old archives I'm reading I'm seeing that you guys don't see that we are nationalist too, and we like being different from you guys and we like our republic and lifestyle.

PS: I think my comment might have offended, if I did sorry I just got worked up on nationalism :P

PPS: Also, wouldn't there be a "Washington Independence Party"? Or was the protectorate division secretly a movement to make independent movements for Washington State much more difficult? Arstar 04:10, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I know they are small in number - just wanted to point out that there were a lot more than Arstar seemed to think, and to remind of the support visiting royals tend to get.

I've no doubt that's the main reasons the things are rejected, but my point was more so how it was done. When I get around to going back to the USA for my projects, I'll be making one, even. A dictator calling themselves a king, but still.

Arstar, what I meant was that the USA will eventually go the way of Rome, with the republic turning into an empire.

You just described what I meant by "loving" as well. No signs telling them to leave, etc.

No need to apologize, but I'd change that to "republicanism" if I were you. You guys tend to think of the two as the same, lol.

With superior the issue was the annexation of territory that had "no people" when it would have had cities, towns, etc. and the assumption that the governments there would roll over and join. It's not the case here.

Victoria had held a long relationship with the protectorate, since the late 80s/early 90s, and even then, the referendum barely passed in 2009. Nothing was forced - it was merely decided to strengthen a previous relationship, at the will of the inhabitants. Besides, I'm sure that those in opposition would create some sort of independence party.

The most offending part of all that is the semi-accusations :p

Lordganon 04:35, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, you're arguing about nothing. Canada isn't a monarchy, and neither is Victoria. In theory both of them are, but in reality the monarch exercises very little power. The most that the monarch can do constitutionally is temporarily wield the power of the Governor General. Both of these countries are fully functioning democracies, if not presidential ones like the US. Of course we realize that the US is nationalist.

The thing is, Washington state would probably join Victoria and be glad of it. Victoria brought them security, stability and pulled them out of near-anarchy. There'd be some support of independence, but not because the people reject the idea of being a part of a formerly Canadian state or being a de-jure monarchy... whose monarch probably hasn't even contacted Victoria yet, and has pretty much no power (the monarch can't technically assume the power of a post that doesn't exist in Victoria, their provincial version isn't the same thing). There would be some monarchs that arise in the US, but these would either be under the titles you mentioned or just a dictator trying to assume an appearance of a legitimate government. Michael Douglas 22:21, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the king was just visiting Victoria a couple of months ago.

Lordganon 22:24, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

I read an article recently on the pros of Constitutional Monarchy and one point that was brought up was the Monarch is essentially a democratic safeguard. If an elected government attempts to legally assume dictatorial powers similarly to Hitler or any other Republican Dictatorships, the monarch can dissolve the government and force an election. In a republic, this would require a majority vote in the legislative assembly. The checks and balances provided by a Constitutional monarchy actually results in a more stable, more democratic system. I'm sure this kind of thing would be heavily circulated in the Washington territories to build support for the monarchy.Oerwinde 08:40, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say they would leave Victoria because of the monarchy, but as long as there were American-Generation Washingtonians alive in Washington they'd be unhappy. You'd see these Americans not singing any songs with respect to the monarchy (God Save the King?), they basically wouldn't be participating in a lot of the monarchial activities.

Another thing I noticed is that Victoria is a "heavily British" state as it is written somewhere on the article. Again these changes would take a while to implement into Washington state.

Also remember that there'd always be the resurged American nationalism, since there's only a mild gap between the United States and Victoria, but that wouldn't happen for a while. Arstar 19:38, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that all of Washington state was involved. The Pasco Free State and the rogue Spokane-led "state" had little to nothing to do with the rise of Victoria. In the end, in fact, the US state of Lincoln (northern Idaho) absorbed eastern Washington. SouthWriter 20:19, November 26, 2010 (UTC)


Hey Oerwinde

First off, I want to say thanks for creating post-apocalyptic British Columbian nations; it's nice to see us British Columbians included and not ignored in the greater world.

I'm an anthropology student, and one of my main interests are the Salish peoples of BC, especially the Coast Salish. I asked my professor (he's an expert on these peoples) about how soft cedar bark textiles could be, and what other materials the Coastal Salish used for clothing, and he told me how cedar cloth can be softer than cotton, and that they also used mountain goat wool, dog hair, nettle fibers, Indian hemp, and various other materials.

Now, obviously in a post-Doomsday world, BC wouldn't have access to cotton, as it's too cold here. So, I was wondering if I could write a section on clothing in Victoria in my free time, with the basis being textiles of the Salish.

CRPofVancouver (talk) 19:49, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Access to cotton would really only be down for a couple of years, at most - Australia and Brazil are two of the biggest producers of it. Add wool from the ANZC to that.

Could see such cloth having a bit of a resurgence, though.

Lordganon (talk) 05:36, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

I can't see cedar bark being very widespread. Maybe as a luxury fibre? I'm just thinking the labour of harvesting the bark would be pretty intensive that large-scale production would be limited. I could see a bigger wool and hemp industry though. Hemp especially, as far as I know its easy to grow and has a lot of uses. Either way, go for it.Oerwinde (talk) 08:07, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

True, Hemp would be a lot more of a crop atl. Lordganon (talk) 09:45, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll have to got on that.

CRPofVancouver (talk) 19:39, December 10, 2013 (UTC)


On this page it says that the city has 104,000 people. On the cities page it says it has 305,000 people. One of them is wrong, but I don't know which one. Daeseunglim (talk)

The 104000 is the city proper, the 305000 would be the greater metropolitan area. Oerwinde (talk) 04:56, May 19, 2015 (UTC)

...So, basically what I said to you before, Dae. Lordganon (talk) 11:30, May 19, 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that first post, lol, then forgot to delete this one. Sorry!! Daeseunglim (talk)


Could someone put a link to here , and correct any bits about it which are wrong Bryce3 (talk) 18:05, March 6, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.