An "Indian" on the Throne of England?

hey, all. before i go to sleep, an idea has been bouncing around in my head recently. this stemmed from an idea about Arthur Wellesley becoming Governor of India following a failure at Waterloo, but that itself is beside the point

suppose that a dynastic house arises in British India, a prince (or patriarch) of which eventually marries into royalty and becomes the King of England. first and foremost, what does everyone think is the plausibility of this in and of itself?

secondly, what if this jure uxoris king had a good degree of Indian heritage both in his ethnicity and in his lifestyle (perhaps preferring to call England a raj rather than a kingdom for instance) and physically reflected that? (the men of his family would have started as Englishmen but intermarried with local nobility as political marriages and continued on with that to this one's generation) whatever needs to be done in order for his heritage to be overlooked in a (potentially) less-tolerant world is done. ideally, this would take place during the Victorian Era and the marriage would more be one of convenience, or just for the added status since said prince/patriarch would probably be fabulously wealthy
 
In a word No. Maybe this would be possible today but not in the Victorian era. The most u could do would be for an Indian princess to marry a minor member of the British Royal House, and even then its difficult.
 
How would England react if, say, one of the younger sons of George III tried to move to India for military/administrative service?

If they were assigned there, not bad I'd imagine. I mean the future William IV was in the navy and Queen Victoria's father served in Canada so it wouldn't be two much of a stretch. The problem, however is the Royal Marriages act. Would George III give one of his son's permission to marry an Indian, even if she was royal? I doubt it.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How would England react if, say, one of the younger sons of George III tried to move to India for military/administrative service?

The would mourn his death after just a few years to tropical diseases. You could make a fortune in India, but the death rates among whites was very high.
 
Incidentally, how many non-royal high level Britishers in India did make the step of marrying openly Indian wives? (Not counting people like ancestors of prime minister Liverpool, who married a Bombay Portuguese who may have been partly Indian descent.)
 
in the victorian period no, today yes, but even then theyd have to convert to anglican, and it doubtful their child would be brought up with traditional indian heritage..

if however a space bat or aphrodite interviened, then even then, both would be applicable to the new monarchs spouse/descendent, plus you wouldnt see the uk becoming a raj....the monarchy would be slaughtered in public opinion, outsed most likly (mabye ending up like the tsars) if they tried to make it go that way
 
in the victorian period no, today yes, but even then theyd have to convert to anglican, and it doubtful their child would be brought up with traditional indian heritage..

if however a space bat or aphrodite interviened, then even then, both would be applicable to the new monarchs spouse/descendent, plus you wouldnt see the uk becoming a raj....the monarchy would be slaughtered in public opinion, outsed most likly (mabye ending up like the tsars) if they tried to make it go that way
my comparison of the Indian king in question is more that, due to his upbringing, he himself and himself only calls it a raj (since that term is more or less interchangeable with "kingdom")
 
my comparison of the Indian king in question is more that, due to his upbringing, he himself and himself only calls it a raj (since that term is more or less interchangeable with "kingdom")

still wouldnt happen less they did it in private...also its very unlikly they would even bother as they would be brought up british more than indian and thered be no point to using the term, especially these days...unless you have a pesawhar lancers scenario
 
my comparison of the Indian king in question is more that, due to his upbringing, he himself and himself only calls it a raj (since that term is more or less interchangeable with "kingdom")

Far more likely is that he would teach himself to say "Kingdom" for the purposes of not seeming like a foreigner to his subjects. Britain has had a lot of foreign monarchs, and generally they all cottoned onto the idea of acting like an Englishman in order to be accepted as one very quickly (frequently to the annoyance of their foreign subjects)
 
In the Victorian period no, today yes, but even then they'd have to convert to Anglican, and it's doubtful their child would be brought up with traditional Indian heritage.
During the Victorian period certainly not, earlier on though during Company rule wasn't marrying into the native population socially acceptable and almost encouraged? I seem to recall that it was only later when social attitudes started to change and the more freewheeling local set-up became more like back in the UK, IIRC when journey times started to decrease and missionaries and wives started being brought over from the home country.
 
During the Victorian period certainly not, earlier on though during Company rule wasn't marrying into the native population socially acceptable and almost encouraged? I seem to recall that it was only later when social attitudes started to change and the more freewheeling local set-up became more like back in the UK, IIRC when journey times started to decrease and missionaries and wives started being brought over from the home country.

thats the company though and people wanting to be in india, not the monarchy and people in the uk, which is mainly what the question was about
 
Could a british prince have been stationed in india and mattried a local princess? Yes, although its pretty darned unlikely. It would almost have to be a fourth son with no hope of succession. Royals very rarely married for love.

If such a guy did marry such a princess, and then his three older brothers self destructed (e.g. one dies, one has no children and the third converts to roman catholicism) you might MIGHT get an indian queen. But....

Remember that anyone seriously in the line of succession has to get the kings permission to marry. Thats very unlikely to be given to an indian marriage.
 
How would England react if, say, one of the younger sons of George III tried to move to India for military/administrative service?

British territory in India during the late 1700-early 1800's was governed by the East India Company. The only representatives of the British government we the Parliament-appointed Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, or Board of Control, who would 'counsel' the Company officials in India on their policies.

I don't see any royal family member being employed by the Company as their governor-general.
 
suppose that a dynastic house arises in British India, a prince (or patriarch) of which eventually marries into royalty and becomes the King of England. first and foremost, what does everyone think is the plausibility of this in and of itself?

Pretty close to zero. There were lots of native dynasties in India, but they almost never married whites. Doing so would violate their caste and religious laws.

Besides which, the British Crown descends by line of blood - the spouse of a royal scion has no claim to the Crown.

The most that could happen is that a remote descendant of the royal family married an Indian wife, and then a series of calamities swept away all the intervening heirs, so that a part-Indian child of that marriage inherited the Crown.

As for instance -

Say George III had only three sons (George IV, William IV, Edward of Kent) and no daughters.

Now, as OTL, George IV has one legitimate child, who dies without issue, and William IV has no legitimate issue. Edward of Kent dies before begetting Victoria. The heirs of George III end with William in 1837.

George's younger brother William (1743-1805) has two sons (*Frederick, 1767-1829; *George, 1779-1833).

*Frederick has two children (*Mary, 1796-1841, no surviving children; *Ernest, 1800-1838, no surviving children), but all three grandchildren died between 1834 and 1837. End of that line.

*George has two sons (*Arthur, 1806-1835; *Henry, 1809).

*Arthur had a daughter (*Charlotte, 1831-1836).

*Henry is the black sheep. As the younger son of a younger son of a younger son, he's apparently a long way from the Crown. He goes in the Army, is sent to India, and in 1833 marries an Indian princess, herself also a rebel against family and custom. They get around the Royal Marriages Act by applying to William IV for permission, which is of course denied, and then giving notice to the Privy Council and waiting a year. Unless both Houses of Parliament expressly disapprove in that year, the marriage is legal and valid.

Henry was far from the Crown at that time:

*Frederick (d. 1805)
**Ernest (1800-1838)
***Edgar (1829-1835)
**Mary (1794-1848)
***Albert (1820-1839)
***Anne (1817-1844)
*George (1779-1833)
**Arthur (1806-1835)
***Charlotte (1828-1837)
**Henry (1809-)

That is, 10th in line with eight alternate heirs ahead of him (not counting his father). So the matter was not urgent. Then with the illness and death of Henry's father in 1833, it was overlooked until too late.

Henry had a son in 1834. He returned to Britain with his wife and child in 1835. Some of the intervening heirs died off:

Elder brother *Arthur, 1835 (riding accident)
Senior cousin *Ernest's son *Edgar, 1835 (pneumonia)
*Arthur's daughter, his niece, *Charlotte, 1837 (diptheria)

William IV died in 1837, and was succeeded by his cousin once removed *Ernest.

Another heir died off:

Senior cousin *Ernest, 1838 (tuberculosis)

*Ernest was succeeded by his older sister *Mary, a widow of 41.

The last two alternate heirs died off:

Senior cousin *Mary's son *Albert, 1839 (infected shaving cut)
Senior cousin *Mary's daughter *Anne, 1847 (childbed)

As *Mary's senior surviving cousin *Henry became heir presumptive. Soon she died as well:

Senior cousin *Mary, 1851 (cancer)

The Crown descended to *Henry, making his half Indian son Prince of Wales...

You see what is required. Very unlikely that it would all fall into place.

secondly, what if this jure uxoris king...
That has only come close to happening once - with Phillip and Mary, and it was of no actual effect. William III had a royal claim of his own.

had a good degree of Indian heritage both in his ethnicity and in his lifestyle (perhaps preferring to call England a raj rather than a kingdom for instance) and physically reflected that?
Say what? Complete non-starter.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you are coming from it at the wrong angle, younger son of minor lord buys commission in army in early 1800's and goes to India. Local rajah decides the best way to seal a peace treaty is if the other party marries into the family.

The rajah has a younger daughter the officer does his duty the fact she looks alright and there is a dowry is just dandy. So a wedding then settle down to raise a family, his father dies, brother is now lord muck but with no children, brother dies pack up the family and back to claim a seat in the House of Lord.

Fast forward to the Indian Mutiny where the other part of the family are on the wrong side history and all killed. So now you have the son of Lord Muck who is half indian and the heir to kingdom. His son could then marry say a daughter of Victoria who would not object as it would cement the claim to being Empress of India without upsetting anything.
 
Top