How to be neutral (Part two)

[colonel Oink]

"I really like neutrals. In a game that represents one of the most ideological epochs of humanity, neutrals are extremely interesting guys."
Today is the United Kingdom. The tree shows the full action for neutrals. But it is tied to the personal life of one monarch, and a certain "party" that existed only on the pages of newspapers. So:
1. Default neutrals, what are they? Unlike Germany, parliamentary democracy and difficult times give us a choice.
2. Not our king! I am embarrassed that the preservation of the throne for Edward necessarily leads to the fall of power and the impossibility of returning to democracy. Yes, he was more active than his father and spoke negatively about Labor. But he was not opposed to the existing regime.
3. The good, the bad, the ugly.
The story with the "royal party" is clearly stretched. If we perceive the concept of "the king's party" as an association of prominent politicians in support of the monarch, then everything is in order. But the "party of the king" as a political party - how realistic is that?
4. Oh, are you a conservative too?
Conservatives are represented in the game as a democratic regime. And mostly, it was so. But there were "other" conservatives ... the National Liberal Party, the Social Credit Party, the British People's Party, all of these parties were also very conservative, but they professed different "expositions" of conservatism. What place could they have?
Please, express your position.

 

[Iskulya]

Your post is mostly incoherent rambling to me, honestly. You seem to be jumbling up a bunch of distinct and unrelated issues as if they were one thing.

Non-aligned doesn't mean "neutral", it means a grab-bag of ideologies and foreign policy orientations that don't fit into the other three categories, and even this sometimes is stretched. Finland is portrayed as non-aligned despite being a liberal democracy. This seems to basically be a convention to prevent them from joining the Allies, which would certainly happen through the games mechanics without additional scripting or mechanics to prevent it if Finland was portrayed as the liberal democracy it was.

The "democratic" ideology universally represents liberal democracy: all "democratic" countries/ideologies in the game are liberal democracies, but, as I mentioned, not all liberal democracies are actually represented as "democratic"(again, Finland!).

"Conservative" doesn't really mean anything concrete either. It's only a useful description in a very relative context. Ibn Saud was a conservative, and so was Winston Churchill. This doesn't mean they have anything in common, as the context of Churchill's conservativism was within a liberal democracy and within the context of a defense of individual freedoms, the free market, etc; while Ibn Saud's conservativism was in the context of a traditionalist absolute monarchy ruling over a mostly pastoral population.

You should open a history book about the King's Party. This wasn't something Paradox made up, but was something that was seen at the time as a (distant) possibility and the phrase "King's Party" was coined by contemporaries, not Paradox. The idea is that the government would resign to protest Edward's decision and that Edward would have to appoint a new government which would rule by decree, which actually was legal and such a government could have done so for several years without an election(IIRC). Given that the most prominent supporters of Edward were Churchill(a known arch-conservative who was militantly against organized labor and such), Lloyd George(well known for being sympathetic, or soft on the Axis) and Oswald Mosley(Founder of the British Union of Fascists, enough said!), and that the government would rule by decree, it's only logical to assume that this would be a somewhat authoritarian government, perhaps even one that would eventually liquidate British democracy. It could be indeed considered a flaw of the tree that it is not further developed and doesn't give the option of the government falling into a more fascistic or outright fascist dictatorship, or leading eventually to the restoration of parliamentary norms.

Was it likely that the King's Party ever could have come into being? Not at all. With that said, as far as the alternate history options in the game go it's definitely one of the less out there ones, and frankly, probably the best of the British alt-history paths. Personally I prefer the fascist branch simply because it's like the King's Party branch, but harder because you get no PP advisors and as such the loyalist uprisings in the dominions aren't a feasbile option; you won't have the PP to afford it.