Absolute primogeniture in Britain before WWI.

Nobody really had anything against Queen Victoria. So let's say the law is changed and now the firstborn child of the Queen is first in line for the throne. What happens next?
 
Nobody really had anything against Queen Victoria. So let's say the law is changed and now the firstborn child of the Queen is first in line for the throne. What happens next?

Well, I don't think it would precisely because of the possibility of a Personal Union with Britain. Probably the rule would be that marrying into a foreign Royal family (possibly just the immediate succession?) would exclude you from the succession to avoid that.
 
Nobody really had anything against Queen Victoria. So let's say the law is changed and now the firstborn child of the Queen is first in line for the throne. What happens next?

During her reign people did, at times, have a lot against Queen Victoria. She was sometimes seen as too influenced by the not always popular Prince Albert, and then when he died, her prolonged mourning was the subject of disapproval and seen as constitutionally dangerous. Widows were expected to mourn but not to such an unseemly extent.
 
During her reign people did, at times, have a lot against Queen Victoria. She was sometimes seen as too influenced by the not always popular Prince Albert, and then when he died, her prolonged mourning was the subject of disapproval and seen as constitutionally dangerous. Widows were expected to mourn but not to such an unseemly extent.

Also her knighting of anyone who built a momument to said unpopular dead hubby was an issue.


Apparently in person and too her children and grandchildren she was something of a bitch so maybe its for the best she distanced herself from day to day matters and high society...
 
Nobody really had anything against Queen Victoria. So let's say the law is changed and now the firstborn child of the Queen is first in line for the throne. What happens next?

Its ASB I'm afraid, completely at odds with British society at the time.

Women had very few rights at the time of the birth of the Princess Royal and certainly no one would have advocated that a woman's right to inherit the crown should be superior to her brothers!

Victoria may have been a woman but she was no advocate for women's rights, it is unlikely she would have advocated that her eldest daughter should take precedence over her sons. Her reaction to the birth of the Princess Royal was to proclaim that it would be a boy next time!

Equally, Victoria's ministers were all men, predominantly from the upper classes, women could not inherit noble titles and few benefited from their wealth of their father, everything was supposed to go to the eldest son.

Your talking about shaking up the whole British social structure.

Its worth noting that it wasn't until the 1880s that a married woman was even legally allowed to own property. Until that time, anything "owned" by a woman, was legally in fact treated as her husband's property.
 
Its ASB I'm afraid, completely at odds with British society at the time.

Women had very few rights at the time of the birth of the Princess Royal and certainly no one would have advocated that a woman's right to inherit the crown should be superior to her brothers!

Victoria may have been a woman but she was no advocate for women's rights, it is unlikely she would have advocated that her eldest daughter should take precedence over her sons. Her reaction to the birth of the Princess Royal was to proclaim that it would be a boy next time!

Equally, Victoria's ministers were all men, predominantly from the upper classes, women could not inherit noble titles and few benefited from their wealth of their father, everything was supposed to go to the eldest son.

Your talking about shaking up the whole British social structure.

Its worth noting that it wasn't until the 1880s that a married woman was even legally allowed to own property. Until that time, anything "owned" by a woman, was legally in fact treated as her husband's property.

Yup. This.
 
Top