View Single Post
  #2833  
Old May 12th, 2013, 03:00 PM
Brainbin Brainbin is online now
Kingpin of the Cultural Cartel
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The British Empire
Posts: 1000 or more
Thank you all for your very lovely responses to my most recent update! And now, as always, for my replies to your responses...

Quote:
Originally Posted by vultan View Post
Wow, this was a very interesting update! (And I say that as a Republican in all senses of the word.)
Thank you, vultan! (And I'll leave it at that.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vultan
Although... with all the support Iran has been getting from the West in this world, why wasn't the Shah invited? It would have given the Iranian monarchy (and thus the shaky government there) a small but much-needed boost in sense of legitimacy.
Excellent question! Actually, the Shah was invited, but for various reasons (some of which I will get into in a later update) he could not attend, and neither could his son, Crown Prince Reza. However, the Shahbanu and their other children did attend the ceremony, representing Iran. In general, though, you can assume that most royals/imperials throughout the world did attend, such as Constantine III of Ethiopia, the Crown Prince and Princess of Japan, and the Crown Prince and Princess of Jordan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevep
Interesting, I never realised that Camilla's ex was Catholic, although that would definitely have caused problems for a relationship with Anne. Similarly that the two had never briefly been an item.
What attracted me to the potential for their pairing is that the two of them remain close friends to this very day - that kind of strong friendship is often the foundation for a lasting marriage. But no, they never could have happened IOTL, what with the Troubles; I strongly suspect that's why they broke up. I knew that him converting to the Church of England would be untrue to his devoutly Catholic character, so I decided to have him compromise by agreeing to raise his children as Protestants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevep
Charles might never meet Camilla but I wouldn't rule out he looks for a bit on the side as OTL, although it sounds like Amanda might be less unset if that occurs.
Agreed on all counts. He'd hardly be the first adulterous royal. Although something I've noticed about many of the Windsors IOTL is how stubbornly monogamous they are: George V was devoted to Mary of Teck; Edward VIII, as soon as he became attached to Mrs Simpson, never wavered despite his philandering past; George VI was of course quite adorably in love with Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, even refusing to marry another; Elizabeth II has always cared deeply for her sometimes-embarrassing husband, Prince Philip; and of course Prince Charles has only ever had eyes for Camilla. There are exceptions, of course (most notably Edward VII, and of course Princess Anne IOTL), but compare them to the Hanovers and it's quite a revelation. ITTL, Prince Charles will likely resemble Edward VII in the course of conducting his affairs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevep
Seems ironic hearing "the more Europhilic Tories" but then back in the 70's they were more friendly to the EU than Labour. Given the continued economic and energy problems and the fact North sea oil is coming on by the end of the decade I can see Britain being less interested in being a member of the EEC/EU.
Along with, the existence of other options in the CTA, and Mitterrand's fatal faux pas in bringing up the possibility of a monetary union. But yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vultan View Post
Cold War politics, man...
Tell me about it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltaran View Post
Without marrying Charles, she's just another minor aristocrat, so unless you want to match her up with Andrew or Edward then she's never going to make any major headlines.
We can only hope. But recall that, IOTL, that young lady belonged to a rather trendy group of people who made headlines all on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltaran
I knew about Mountbatten introducing Philip to the Queen, but I didn't know he'd tried matchmaking for Charles as well.
Yes! And apparently it had been brewing for a number of years, as well, with considerable interest on the part of Prince Charles. I also note that Lady Amanda has remained married to her first husband IOTL, with whom she has three sons. This seems to indicate to me that she's not the divorcing type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER View Post
Fascinating.
Thank you for your... succinct analysis, Mr. Spock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orville_third View Post
First, will [You-Know-Who] be noted for anything ITTL? (Perhaps she could make a mark in an unexpected way.)
It would be very difficult for her to make a mark in an unexpected way, considering the tabloid rumours that swirled around her during her lifetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orville_third
Second, did Princess Anne still get involved in the 1978 Christmas tape? (You HAVE to do something on those tapes. Even the Muppets got in on one! (BFBS, I think.) Alas, my favorite classic Doctor and companion won't be in their famous bits.)
I don't see why she wouldn't appear. Though I really don't think there's that much to say about them other than that they exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator View Post
Very much enjoying this timeline! I suppose I must "blame Thande," as I found this timeline (and this site) via TV Tropes.
Excellent, excellent. My master plan has worked perfectly But in all seriousness, welcome aboard, Spectator! Not only to this thread, but to the entire forum as well!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I must thank you in that my metropolitan area is doing much better in this timeline -- not only are there still Cleveland Barons in the NHL (I fell in love with hockey at one of their last games IOTL; I'm presuming they don't merge with the North Stars ITTL), but the "Rust Belt" is currently the "Foundry" as well.
So you're from Cleveland! Well, it's my pleasure to have given your city a renewed lease on life. Mind you, since there's still a thriving manufacturing sector there ITTL, I can't guarantee that 1969 would be the last time that the Cuyahoga River caught on fire However, since environmentalism is even more robust in the early 1970s, I'm sure that would result in Cleveland becoming a testbed for more sustainable industry. To answer your question, both the Minnesota North Stars and the Cleveland Barons remain intact ITTL. The Barons are actually developing a pretty decent rivalry with both the Penguins and the formerly-WHA Cincinnati Stingers (in fact, since there are so many Midwestern teams, it's really helping to "grow the game" - if you'll pardon that anachronistic and somewhat odious term - in that region in this era).

Out of curiosity, which team do you root for IOTL? Did you switch to the Penguins after the Barons left? Or did you stubbornly hold out until the Blue Jackets arrived?

But Cleveland is also a border city, and therefore you were able to receive the Canadian networks on antenna. This means that, ITTL, you'd be able to watch The Final Frontier via the original CBC broadcasts in 1971. (What station did you get in Cleveland, anyway? Was it CBET from Windsor, or CFPL from London, or another station entirely?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I'm guessing there are two factors in the continued viability (or at least, the lessened decline) of this area: lack of relations with China means that jobs aren't being shipped there, and I suspect that the American Party makes the South iffy enough that manufacturers aren't rushing to move plants there to take advantage of cheaper "right-to-work" labor.
Those are both eminently logical suppositions. Though I should note that not all of the South is doing so poorly. In fact, one traditionally industrial state which actually voted for Wallace in 1968 (Tennessee) is doing quite well, though that's mostly because the AIP hasn't really taken hold there - since that state is unique in having a solid and established bloc of Republican voters who are able to come up the middle as Democratic support collapses, and prevent the Americans from winning statewide office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
That said, I wonder what the state of labor relations is ITTL? With Reagan becoming President earlier, does the PATCO strike happen? And do the 1980 SAG/AFTRA strike and Emmy boycott happen? Or do the financial implications of a certain lawsuit ITTL pre-empt that?
Excellent questions, all. (Your PATCO question immediately grabbed the attention of one of my consultants, in fact.) I will be discussing labour relations with regards to the SAG and the other Hollywood unions ITTL (I pretty much have to), though I will neither confirm nor deny whether a certain lawsuit has anything to do with the outcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flubber View Post
We all should be thanking you repeatedly. This time line is one of the few active ones which make this site worth visiting.
Oh, go on (In all seriousness, I think the quality of active timelines on this site is better than ever. And I'm not just saying that because I write one of them )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flubber
Silly joke? Perish the thought. The easter egg in question is a great example of the care, intelligence, and craftmanship which you've lavished on this time line from the beginning. Just think about it, this time line is good enough to have it's own inside jokes...
I've often thought of this timeline as something of a world-building exercise, so I very much appreciate these sentiments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flubber
Again, thank you for sharing your work with us.
It's my pleasure, especially whenever I receive responses like yours

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Teufel View Post
I'm missing something. What caused The Troubles IOTL, and what butterflied them away ITTL?
What caused the Troubles. Now there's a loaded question. Should I start with the Norman Invasion of Ireland, or just the Ulster Plantations? Suffice it to say, the answer is very complicated. If - and that's a massive if - one single event could be said to have crystallized the Troubles, it's the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972 (the Troubles are usually dated from the late 1960s, but this was the Point of No Return). ITTL, that's butterflied due to the Labour Government having been narrowly returned in 1970, and Wilson (by sheer dumb luck) choosing a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who just so happens to do a great job in his position, and mitigates the Troubles. I mean, things aren't great in Northern Ireland after that, but most of the Nationalists still have faith in the British Army to keep the peace as (relatively) neutral arbiters of justice.

I discuss the butterflying of the Troubles and the situation in Northern Ireland in somewhat more detail in this post.
__________________
The Turtledove Award-Winning That Wacky Redhead: Big Dreams Have Big Consequences!

Find out more on the Alternate History Wiki or TV Tropes
Reply With Quote