Alternate British Monarchies
- Thread starter Justin Pickard
- Start date
I've expanded it a bit...
Prince George gorged himself to death shortly before the advent of the initial Regency Crisis, say roughly around 1786. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (b. 1763) succeeds his brother as the heir apparent; but the untimely death of the Prince of Wales, his eldest son and heir, leads to a sudden deterioration in George III's already somewhat tenuous grip on sanity, leaving him in a similar state as in OTL 1811.
In Parliament, Charles James Fox (Whig) and William Pitt (Tory) clashed over provisions for a regency. William Pitt defended the royal prerogative, and Prince Frederick’s right, as Regent, to exercise the powers normally associated with the monarch. Charles J. Fox headed a faction advocating a more moderate 'regency council', subject to the consent of parliament, and operating within parameters set out by parliament. Fox was happy to stand up for parliamentary power and supremacy, whilst Pitt’s defense of Prince Frederick and the royal prerogative somewhat undermined his parliamentary support.
After much parliamentary debate, late 1787 saw the Regency Bill passed by the Commons. It created a regency council composed of Frederick, the Prince Regent; the Lord Privy Seal; Lord President of the Council; and one figure nominated by Parliament. The council required at least a majority of three members of the council (one of which had to be the Prince Regent) in exercising all aspects of the Royal Prerogative, except for the dissolution of parliament, calling of elections, and creation of peers. Queen Charlotte would be responsible for the royal household and the king’s person.
The First Regency Council (178
:
-Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (Prince Regent)
-Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden (Lord President of the Council, 1784-94)
-Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford (Lord Privy Seal, 1784-94)
-William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (Former Prime Minister, Irish Peer)
Prince George gorged himself to death shortly before the advent of the initial Regency Crisis, say roughly around 1786. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (b. 1763) succeeds his brother as the heir apparent; but the untimely death of the Prince of Wales, his eldest son and heir, leads to a sudden deterioration in George III's already somewhat tenuous grip on sanity, leaving him in a similar state as in OTL 1811.
In Parliament, Charles James Fox (Whig) and William Pitt (Tory) clashed over provisions for a regency. William Pitt defended the royal prerogative, and Prince Frederick’s right, as Regent, to exercise the powers normally associated with the monarch. Charles J. Fox headed a faction advocating a more moderate 'regency council', subject to the consent of parliament, and operating within parameters set out by parliament. Fox was happy to stand up for parliamentary power and supremacy, whilst Pitt’s defense of Prince Frederick and the royal prerogative somewhat undermined his parliamentary support.
After much parliamentary debate, late 1787 saw the Regency Bill passed by the Commons. It created a regency council composed of Frederick, the Prince Regent; the Lord Privy Seal; Lord President of the Council; and one figure nominated by Parliament. The council required at least a majority of three members of the council (one of which had to be the Prince Regent) in exercising all aspects of the Royal Prerogative, except for the dissolution of parliament, calling of elections, and creation of peers. Queen Charlotte would be responsible for the royal household and the king’s person.
The First Regency Council (178
:-Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (Prince Regent)
-Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden (Lord President of the Council, 1784-94)
-Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford (Lord Privy Seal, 1784-94)
-William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (Former Prime Minister, Irish Peer)
Justin Pickard said:I've expanded it a bit...
Prince George gorged himself to death shortly before the advent of the initial Regency Crisis, say roughly around 1786. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (b. 1763) succeeds his brother as the heir apparent; but the untimely death of the Prince of Wales, his eldest son and heir, leads to a sudden deterioration in George III's already somewhat tenuous grip on sanity, leaving him in a similar state as in OTL 1811.
In Parliament, Charles James Fox (Whig) and William Pitt (Tory) clashed over provisions for a regency. William Pitt defended the royal prerogative, and Prince Frederick’s right, as Regent, to exercise the powers normally associated with the monarch. Charles J. Fox headed a faction advocating a more moderate 'regency council', subject to the consent of parliament, and operating within parameters set out by parliament. Fox was happy to stand up for parliamentary power and supremacy, whilst Pitt’s defense of Prince Frederick and the royal prerogative somewhat undermined his parliamentary support.
After much parliamentary debate, late 1787 saw the Regency Bill passed by the Commons. It created a regency council composed of Frederick, the Prince Regent; the Lord Privy Seal; Lord President of the Council; and one figure nominated by Parliament. The council required at least a majority of three members of the council (one of which had to be the Prince Regent) in exercising all aspects of the Royal Prerogative, except for the dissolution of parliament, calling of elections, and creation of peers. Queen Charlotte would be responsible for the royal household and the king’s person.
The First Regency Council (178
-Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (Prince Regent)
-Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden (Lord President of the Council, 1784-94)
-Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford (Lord Privy Seal, 1784-94)
-William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (Former Prime Minister, Irish Peer)
On the surface I could see this leading to huge clashes with the government
But is this based on reality ? Unfortunately I am in one of my ignorant spots and don't know ebough to make any useful comments. Was there a Regency Council later ? Did it get on OK with the government ?
Or is this new and my fears have some tiny basis in possibility ?
I have no idea... I don't even have that little knowledge in order for it to be a dangerous thing. I just have the no knowledge that embarasses one
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
In reality, this specific madness episode happened a bit later, and not as badly. Fox and Pitt took positions that were completely the opposite - as Fox suspected that George IV had liberal sympathies. A Regency Bill went through parliament, but invested fewer powers exclusively with George IV. By the time it looked as though the Regency would be officially declared, George III recovered to the extent of being able to function relatively normally. He had another - far more severe - episode in 1811, after which George IV became the de facto monarch.
Stafford is an inspired choice. A tad disappointed at the exclusion of Amherst and Cornwallis...I presume Amherst was too old, Cornwallis too recently defeated in the New World for your tastes? pity, but I shall make do.
Camden...will be interesting. I presume he's as good as the Whigs could do under the circumstances; he is a proponent of censorship but an absolute stickler for warrants, so I'm not sure how much trampling of civil rights we can get away with until he's gone. And of course, this regency can last over 30 years, and all of these men will die and need to be replaced before the end
I'm a little perplexed as to why no churchmen.
It's already clear, of course, that Prince Fred will have no legitimate offspring. Surely immense pressure is now placed on William to marry? The House of Hanover is sort of counting on him, and his elder brother surely has some suggestions...
Camden...will be interesting. I presume he's as good as the Whigs could do under the circumstances; he is a proponent of censorship but an absolute stickler for warrants, so I'm not sure how much trampling of civil rights we can get away with until he's gone. And of course, this regency can last over 30 years, and all of these men will die and need to be replaced before the end
I'm a little perplexed as to why no churchmen.
It's already clear, of course, that Prince Fred will have no legitimate offspring. Surely immense pressure is now placed on William to marry? The House of Hanover is sort of counting on him, and his elder brother surely has some suggestions...
Last edited:
Well, the urgency of 1817 isn't really there; Prince Fred is only 37 and in good health, and of course his brothers are younger. It's certain that he won't have legitimate offspring because he and the Princess loathe each other, live on opposite sides of London, and their staffs go to some lengths to prevent accidental encounters. But since it's thus a virtual certainty that the crown will pass at least to William, his extended bachelorhood will not be long tolerated.
ShawnEndresen said:
I figured they already had enough responsibilities in the New World to deal with...
Camden...will be interesting. I presume he's as good as the Whigs could do under the circumstances; he is a proponent of censorship but an absolute stickler for warrants, so I'm not sure how much trampling of civil rights we can get away with until he's gone. And of course, this regency can last over 30 years, and all of these men will die and need to be replaced before the end
Yup. We'll have a number of subsequent Regency Council's, constitutional crises and general haggling. Any ideas for future council 'torch-bearers' are most welcome.
I couldn't find anyone who I think Parliament would have been totally happy with. Perhaps the then Archbishop of Canterbury?
Caroline of Brunswick (OTL frigid wife of George IV) is his cousin and, to be fair, at this time the only real candidate I could fine. We could, I suppose leave things as per OTL for the time being and see what happens...
Unless we can bump off the Duchess of York in some way?
Grey Wolf said:
Certain. This doesn't seem to have been a good time for marraiages within the aristocracy. Furthermore, whilst George IV and Caroline managed somehow to produce Charlotte; Frederick and Fredericka didn't even manage that.
Justin Pickard said:
One might wish that genealogical sites like this one
http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Prussian_Royal_Family.htm
went back another generation or two
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
Or, indeed, http://www.royalist.info/execute/home. Lucky I still have my old college email address, in theory.
Justin Pickard said:
Thats curious, when I clicked on quote half this message wasn't showing
Wasn't there some army scandal in the early part of the next century that the Duke of York was blamed for but was really due to his wife ? I'd assumed they got on pretty well due to that. Also wasn't the Duchess of York around Victoria later ? Sheesh, I should read up on some of this or keep quiet !
Grey Wolf
A personal favorite of mine is that when the direct line of Stuart descent went extinct with the so-called Henry IX, the Stuart heir was Victor Emmanuel Savoy, King of Sardinia. From there it went to the Duke of Modena, then the Dukes of Bavaria.
It's very difficult to keep the succession so tidy like that if the Stuarts had actually stayed on the throne, though. Perhaps the Brits lose the Napoleonic Wars some time around 1810 and Napoleon -- for Lord only knows what reason -- decides to depose the Hanovers in favour of the Stuarts. It's a stretch, though, let me tell you.
For another weird off-branch of the royal house you can assume Henry VIII's will was followed to the letter and the descendants of Margaret Tudor were cut from the succession. James I doesn't get the throne when Elizabeth I dies, and instead it goes to the Stanleys. That line of descent runs down to the Abney-Hastingses these days, whose scion is an Australian scientist....
It's very difficult to keep the succession so tidy like that if the Stuarts had actually stayed on the throne, though. Perhaps the Brits lose the Napoleonic Wars some time around 1810 and Napoleon -- for Lord only knows what reason -- decides to depose the Hanovers in favour of the Stuarts. It's a stretch, though, let me tell you.
For another weird off-branch of the royal house you can assume Henry VIII's will was followed to the letter and the descendants of Margaret Tudor were cut from the succession. James I doesn't get the throne when Elizabeth I dies, and instead it goes to the Stanleys. That line of descent runs down to the Abney-Hastingses these days, whose scion is an Australian scientist....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallows_and_Amazons
I like this one...a Black Queen of Great Britain...
I like this one...a Black Queen of Great Britain...