British family on a European Throne

King in name, not so much in practice.

But that aside, the Hohenzollerns are far from a major house at this point, so why would marrying one help him?

I'm sorry I meant Hohenstaufen. Realistically I think it's going to be difficult for any scion of the British royal family to hold onto a European throne. There are very real reasons why it didn't happen.
 
I'm sorry I meant Hohenstaufen. Realistically I think it's going to be difficult for any scion of the British royal family to hold onto a European throne. There are very real reasons why it didn't happen.

Not sure i buy this statement ... neither French nor German houses had problems getting on different thrones, some families were more successful than others but none of that was because they wern't British
 
Not sure i buy this statement ... neither French nor German houses had problems getting on different thrones, some families were more successful than others but none of that was because they wern't British

IMO its a question of location. Those families were also primarily based on the continent. If a younger son of France calls for reinforcements they can come pretty fast. England is much farther away from say Sicily, Castille or Burgundy. Sometimes English had continental possessions when thrones were up for grabs but it's not the same as being primarily based on the continent.

Another possibility is Edward IV living a few years longer and his oldest son marrying Anne of Brittany (as was originally planned). Not a crown, but still something.
 
I'm sorry I meant Hohenstaufen. Realistically I think it's going to be difficult for any scion of the British royal family to hold onto a European throne. There are very real reasons why it didn't happen.

Ah, of course.

But are any Hohenstaufens available? They seem to have all been married by Richard's time.
 
The government of Albania, at one point before Zog took over, expressed interest in acquiring a British gentleman (preferably of private means) as constitutional monarch.
The British government, unhappy about potential entanglements, let it be known that they were against the idea. If they hadn't done so?
 
Plantagenet princeling marries Anne of Brittany. Maybe Richard of York? Or even Henry Tudor.


George of Clarence marries Mary of Burgundy is another option.
 
The government of Albania, at one point before Zog took over, expressed interest in acquiring a British gentleman (preferably of private means) as constitutional monarch.
The British government, unhappy about potential entanglements, let it be known that they were against the idea. If they hadn't done so?
Wasn't it CB Fry?
 
With a PoD after Bosworth create a scenario while a family originating in Great Britain* winds up on a Continental European throne. Bonus points if it's a non-Royal family.

*So yes to Tudors and Stuarts** no to Hanoverians.

**I know they came from Normandy originally but they are British enough.

The children of William and Kate have (or will have) significantly more actual British ancestry then any English, British, or UK sovereign since 1066 (not sure about the early Scots). Just have a younger son of theirs marry a crown princess of another country.
 
The children of William and Kate have (or will have) significantly more actual British ancestry then any English, British, or UK sovereign since 1066 (not sure about the early Scots). Just have a younger son of theirs marry a crown princess of another country.

Hmm, well I would have thought many of the mid range monarchs were pretty regularly married to "local" families.
 
The children of William and Kate have (or will have) significantly more actual British ancestry then any English, British, or UK sovereign since 1066 (not sure about the early Scots). Just have a younger son of theirs marry a crown princess of another country.

True, but this is the pre-1900s forum, of course...
 
The Howard Dukes of Norfolk remained Catholic.

Wonder if this could be turned into such a scenario...

Maybe a different kinda French Revolution, the Roy fled to Britain of all places, and in a long exile the grown up son wed a local catholic noble... Dunno if even possible and logical.

OR it's even pushed by British crown as a compromise of help. Throw him a 'local papist' girl for something in return.
 
The children of William and Kate have (or will have) significantly more actual British ancestry then any English, British, or UK sovereign since 1066 (not sure about the early Scots).

Hmm. Prince George's British ancestors:

  • Mother - Kate Middleton (1/2)
  • Grandmother - Diana Spencer (1/4)
  • Great-great-grandmother - Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1/16)
  • Great(15)-grandfather - Henry Stuart (1/131,072)
which is 13/16.

James I & VI's British ancestors:

  • Father - Henry Darnley (1/2)
  • Great-grandmother - Margaret Tudor (1/8)
  • Great-great-great-grandfather - James II (1/32)
which is 21/32. (Margaret is on both sides, but counts separately on the maternal side.)

Elizabeth I's British ancestors:

  • Mother - Anne Boleyn (1/2)
  • Grandmother - Elizabeth of York (11/64 - see Edward V below)
  • Great-grandmother - Margaret Beaufort (1/16)
  • Great-great-grandfather - Owen Tudor (1/32)
which is 49/64. (Not quite enough.)

Edward V's British ancestors:

  • Grandfather - Richard Woodville (1/4)
  • Grandmother - Cecily Neville (1/4)
  • Great-grandmother - Anne Mortimer (1/8)
  • Great-great-grandfather - Edmund of York (1/16)
which is 11/16. (Surprisingly low; but Elizabeth Woodville's mother was from Luxemburg.)

I guess it's true.
 
The children of William and Kate have (or will have) significantly more actual British ancestry then any English, British, or UK sovereign since 1066 (not sure about the early Scots). Just have a younger son of theirs marry a crown princess of another country.
Too bad they'll be Oldenburgs patrilineally.
 

katchen

Banned
It would be a stretch, but say, if John Cabot, in addition to his American voyages, voyaged to the Barents Sea (leading to it being called the Cabot Sea?:rolleyes:) and reached Archangelsk, Vologda and Moscow (or maybe at this point it's still Novgorod), opening up lucrative trade relations (wool for furs?) between Russia and England ITTL. Then, when Henry VIII has his problems with the Pope, instead of splitting off the Church in England from the Catholic Church and making it completely independent---Henry adopts Eastern Orthodoxy, which at least has a major following in parts of Europe and which offers the ruler a larger measure of control over the Church than Catholicism does. In that case, we can see something similar to the Ivangorod TL in which Elizabeth may become Empress of Russia upon Ivan the Terrible's death. Or another English princess or duchess married to Fyodor, thus preventing Russia's "Time of Troubles".
 
So instead of something that isn't remotely revolutionary, Henry goes contrary to his own beliefs and to those of his subjects, because trade between England and Russia is stronger than OTL.

Really?

Why? Just why?
 
Top