On September 13th, 1940, the King and Queen narrowly escaped death when a bomb landed near them in a Buckingham Palace courtyard. What if they had been hit and killed; are the British people demoralized or even more motivated to fight?
WI: George VI/Queen Mother killed in air raid
- Thread starter Snowstalker
- Start date
Elizabeth is now Queen, a Regent is appointed until she becomes of age and the British are now really pissed.
Willmatron
Banned
Now the British might push for a quicker invasion of Germany and it lead to avoiding the Soviets from getting east europe.
JRScott
Banned
I'm assuming that Elizabeth and Margaret also died at Buckingham Palace?
If they survive then Elizabeth is Queen and Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester is Regent.
If however they are dead as well then Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester is now King.
There will be even greater outrage at the Germans over the attack. However they really lack the resources to gain revenge, though they would probably be bombings of various German leadership homes and offices.
Henry unlike most royal family members of the time served in the Army not the Navy. It could mean a greater emphasis over Army (including air assets) than Naval ones.
If they survive then Elizabeth is Queen and Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester is Regent.
If however they are dead as well then Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester is now King.
There will be even greater outrage at the Germans over the attack. However they really lack the resources to gain revenge, though they would probably be bombings of various German leadership homes and offices.
Henry unlike most royal family members of the time served in the Army not the Navy. It could mean a greater emphasis over Army (including air assets) than Naval ones.
the Princesses were removed North when the Blitz started, the near death of the King and Queen had to do with a window, the bomb landed in the garden and if the window had been closed it would have blow inward and cut the King and Queen to bits, likely killing or badly hurting both, however the window was open, thus saving the Monarchs
Nothing happens. Maybe a few more patriotic posters. Elizabeth becomes Queen earlier, but once again, no effect on the actual war. Now if someone important died, say someone with an actual impact on the war effort other then morale, which might actually be better after the death of a monarch, it might change some things. But the king and Queen? No.
this is one of the most annoying things about this site, people always ALWAYS dismiss the emotional and cultural impact of things.
No, I just can't imagine anyone really being impacted by the death of two insignificant figureheads. That was my biggest problem with Kings Speech, it wasn't inspiring in the least. "Ooh he lost his stutter, surely this will win the war for the British". Frankly the idea that the death of George the Fourth and his wife, would have any real major effect on the British War effort, is insulting to the strength and will of the aBritish who actually won the war. The members of the armed forces and the workers.
George the IV had been dead for 110 years by 1940
and bloody for fucking course they'd still win the war
but how will they see post-war Germans? even 45 years after the war ended many British leaders where very cool to the idea of German reunification, now what if Germany killed the King? or the Queen's late 1990s troubles with taxes and public funds etc, now what if the first popular image of their queen was a teen war orphan? these things matter and have a deep and hard to quantify effect
Cook
Banned
In 1940 the King and Queen were far from insignificant; while lacking direct political power, King George VI had a considerable amount of what these days would be regarded as soft power. Moreover, in a Britain that was extremely stratified and class conscious, the king was a powerful unifying figure; something Churchill made maximum use of, having the king and queen tour the East End regularly after air raids and he was privately relieved when Buckingham Palace was bombed because it emphasised that ‘we’re all in this together’ message. Presumably in this scenario it would be a case of be careful what you wish for.
I suspect the effect on the nation would be one of great shock. Not to those fighting the Battle of Britain; it is clear from all accounts that those actually involved in the fighting were too busy with their work to concern themselves much with serious news in their rest time, but for the civilians not taking part in the fighting and already under the strain of nightly bombing raids, the news would come as a great blow. What material impact the deaths of the royal couple would have would then depend on how it is handled; Chamberlain’s government had sought to shield the British public from bad news, while Churchill believed that the people’s fears and doubts were always worse than the real news and wherever possible gave the unvarnished truth.
I suspect the terrible nature of the Nazi bombing would be emphasised, as would the fact that George VI had died defiant, never leaving his post and remaining in London despite the people urging him to relocate somewhere safer; ‘the king died at his post for Britain’ would be the catch cry and posters of ‘for King and Country’ would be put up, urging workers to do their utmost for the war effort.
The time when the king’s death would be felt would be later in the war. After overcoming the initial shock of the fall of France, British morale didn’t decline while the threat of invasion persisted in the public mind (long after any possibility of invasion had vanished), but from 1943 Britain was in a very real sense suffering from battle fatigue and the decline in morale was both significant and damaging, both in the fighting forces and on the home front. This would have added to that fatigue, leading to reduced productivity and enthusiasm to see the war through.
A great deal would depend on the composure of Elisabeth and her performance; given that she was making radio broadcasts to the British nation in 1940 when she was only 14 years old, I suspect that she would have been a very effective tool for propaganda.
Who would be Elisabeth's regent until she turned eighteen is an interesting question; it of course could not be her uncle Edward, so that means Henry, Duke of Gloucester would be regent. That would be ‘a spot of good luck’; Henry was reasonably intelligent and stable, was a good public speaker, had the common touch and was publicly popular. He was a colonel in the British army and had been with the B.E.F. in northern France. In effect, he’d have been perfect for the role.
The progress of the war was dictated by the growth of Britain’s industrial capacity and, more importantly, that of the United States; it could not be accelerated beyond what it already was.
The idea that the British would give up just because the King and the immediate royal family is killed by a bomb is borderline ASB.
It changes little. The thing about having a Royal Family is that there is always another inbred to replace losses. Look at King Ralph
.Churchill gets to make another rallying speech. He ends it with the "King is Dead. God save the King".
By September 13th the Battle of Britain is entering its final days and the King's death has no impact on the outcome.
The death of the King becomes a unifying event. "Even the King laid down his life for his country" etc.
The Queen had said that after being bombed she could look the East End in the face. Imagine how the new Royal Family would look if they had replaced a killed King.
A while back I came across an article exploring the consiquences of this (though I can't remember where/when).
The author believed that the US could well have entered the war early as a result of this... though personally, I'm not sure about that.
The author believed that the US could well have entered the war early as a result of this... though personally, I'm not sure about that.
maybe, in 1939 George VI and Queen Elizabeth went to Hyde Park and spent a lot of time with FDR and Eleanor, who were very fond of the younger royal couple, there are a few pictures of FDR driving them around Hyde Park in his hand controlled car with a big grin on his face, I think their deaths would very much piss off FDR but idk if there's anything FDR can do pre-Pearl Harbor to bring the US into the European war, however might make the Morgenthau Plan (or something like it) more entrenched in FDR's (to say nothing of Churchill's) mind
It would certainly firm up anti Nazi public opinion in the US....
The IRA supposedly never seriously targeted Elizabeth II and backed off killing Charles and Diana in the early 80s because they were aware how badly it would play in America.
I think the assassination of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth has consequences beyond the War, rather than during it. I think British relations with Germany for the decades that followed would be even more complicated. Germans already complain that Britain is obsessed by the war..
It’s interesting to think that if Elizabeth II became Queen in September 1940 she would have reigned for approximately 72 years, 1 month and 22 days and would be fast approaching Louis XIV of France’s record of 72 years and 110 days as the longest reigning of European Kings/Queen.
The Queen and Princess Margaret would have probably been raised by their grandmother Queen Mary. The new Queen would have probably not married Prince Philip and the current Royal family would be very different in appearance.
It’s very possible that the Queen would be even more deified in this alternative scenario than she already is.
The IRA supposedly never seriously targeted Elizabeth II and backed off killing Charles and Diana in the early 80s because they were aware how badly it would play in America.
I think the assassination of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth has consequences beyond the War, rather than during it. I think British relations with Germany for the decades that followed would be even more complicated. Germans already complain that Britain is obsessed by the war..
It’s interesting to think that if Elizabeth II became Queen in September 1940 she would have reigned for approximately 72 years, 1 month and 22 days and would be fast approaching Louis XIV of France’s record of 72 years and 110 days as the longest reigning of European Kings/Queen.
The Queen and Princess Margaret would have probably been raised by their grandmother Queen Mary. The new Queen would have probably not married Prince Philip and the current Royal family would be very different in appearance.
It’s very possible that the Queen would be even more deified in this alternative scenario than she already is.
libbrit
Banned
The abiding British reason to fight the war becomes revenge, harsh and swift. Such an event IMO would seriously backfire on the Germans-British spies would be in Germany in force and any remaining reserve when it comes to targetting leaders goes out the window. Hitler, Himmler, Goering-all are in serious danger.
Direct military impact? Probably not much, but covert operations go through the roof
Direct military impact? Probably not much, but covert operations go through the roof
Last edited:
Alex Richards
Donor
The only thing I'll say is that this sort of a line isn't true in todays Britain, and certainly wouldn't have been true then. Don't project your own views onto the past situation, they're completely different to what we know were the prevailing ones.
Earlier and more widespread support for stuff like Anthropoid perhaps?
If the Nazi reaction is similar, that could have some very interesting divisive effects on post war perceptions of Britain and the west.
no, they met in 1939 and she fell in love with him than and they wrote back and forth through the war, I don't know the Queen so I can't say if she's the type who wishes to be alone in times of pain or reaches out and pulls loved ones in, but I think this would make them closer not end their relationship, likely they'd be married ether when she turns 18 or the war ends, which ever comes first