Alternate timelines/ universes and why?

[consortium11]

I don't have any problem with england being the power that it had before the colonies began to seperate and the empire falters. That it maintained it's hold and expanded it into other parts of the worldcan be explained fairly easily. That France has an empiror who descends from Neopolean and Texas is still a republic to itself is less so. I don't even care that the Confederate States of America is not only solidly in it's own independence from the United States and reliable ocean going steam ships exist in the world of 1855. That's all fine... but the question of why stands up here and begs to be asked.

As examples. What prompts the Confederacy to break off from the United states at least 15 years earlier in time? Why is the 1st president of Texas represented more as a king in exile than a president who lost an election? Why did Neopolean NOT get defeated and exiled and allow for his son to take the throne of France? WHY are there American refugees flooding London?

I haven't read the book/series so I can't comment on the exact details but it isn't actually alt-history at all that Napoleon's descendents became emperor of France. Napoleon II (his son) was briefly Emperor of France before going into exile and if he'd lived past 20 (and a tuberculosis outbreak) there's a good chance he could have taken the place of Napoleon III. In fact if the book's set in 1855 it's entirely historically accurate to have a member of the Napoleon family as Emperor of France: Napoleon III (Napoleon's nephew) had been President of Republic since 1848 and became Emperor in 1852 after a coup d'etat in late 1851, ruling till 1870. If something in the alt-history would have impacted on the rise of Prussia then he'd have likely remained emperor for longer, Napoléon, Prince Imperial wouldn't have been killed by the Zulu's and France could have had an Emperor from the Napoleonic family for a lot longer.

[Inkidu]

Actually some distant relatives of either Napoleon or the French royal family were in Mexico and sort of took over as the royal family of Mexico. It's a bit iffy, but basically that's what started the Revolution-a-palooza that would sweep Mexico from the late 19th Century to mid 20th.

So if Mexico never lost its empire, and Texas never gained its independence there could be an Emperor of Texas. :\ 

[consortium11]

Actually some distant relatives of either Napoleon or the French royal family were in Mexico and sort of took over as the royal family of Mexico. It's a bit iffy, but basically that's what started the Revolution-a-palooza that would sweep Mexico from the late 19th Century to mid 20th.

So if Mexico never lost its empire, and Texas never gained its independence there could be an Emperor of Texas. :\

Do you mean Maximilian I? His aunt was Napoleon's second wife and the mother of Napoleon II and there were rumors that he was actually Napoleon II's illegitimate son (although widely dismissed by historians). He was the first (and last) Emperor of the second Mexican empire, largely installed by his older brother (the Emperor of Austria) and Napoleon III.

The Napoleon's did have a brief claim on the Kingdom of Holland through Louis Bonaparte and his son.

[Inkidu]

I think that's it. :\