British Royal Near-Misses

Not a WI, just thinking out loud.

This category is defined as people who would have ended up ruling Great Britain if they hadn't dropped dead of natural causes first. Because there were a lot of dead babies back in the day, candidates must have erached at least 10 years of age to qualify. I count four in the last 300 years. Going in reverse chronological order, we have:

1) Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (1864-1892). Eldest son of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) and firstborn grandson of Queen Victoria. His death opened the way for George V and his descendants. He seems to have been a bit sickly and ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray. Arguably the monarchy missed a bullet but OTOH it's not like George V and his sons were all that.

2) Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817). Only child of the Prince of Wales (later George IV). Queen Victoria's much older first cousin. Lively and vivacious. Died in childbirth; popular and widely mourned. She was married to a German prince named Leopold who later was chosen to be the first King of the Belgians. If she'd lived, fairly large knock-on effects on 19th century Britain -- we lose William IV and Victoria, replacing them with Leopold and Charlotte and their likely descendants.

3) Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707-1751). Son of George II, father of George III. Yes, there should have been a King Fred. Seems to have been a pretty typical Hanoverian, viz., grumpy, patron of the arts, did not get along with his parents. No change in the succession if he lives, but if he lasts into the 1760s and 1770s we may seem some differences in colonial and imperial policy.

4) William, Duke of Gloucester (1689-1700). Only child of Queen Anne to make it out of short pants. Died age 11, thus ending the last hope of the Stuart dynasty (in some form) keeping the throne. Huge knock-ons if he lives, as we've likely eliminated the Hanoverians altogether.

[rubs chin] Huh, I thought there were more. We can go back further, of course -- Arthur Tudor, the princes in the tower -- but that's not Great Britain. (And the Wars of the Roses complicate things a lot. Prince Edward of Lancaster? Edmund of York? No, some other time.)


Doug M.
 
2) is the most interesting one IMO, especially if Leopoldo still becomes the king of Belgium. Personal Union is likely as far as it goes though a United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Belgium would be... Unique to say the least.

4) comes a close second.
 
2) is the most interesting one IMO, especially if Leopoldo still becomes the king of Belgium.

I doubt it...Prince Consort to Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom is a much better job than king of the Belgians - Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha might get the gig instead ;)

4) comes a close second.

could a union of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Denmark been possible from that one - his father was George of Denmark....
 
I doubt it...Prince Consort to Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom is a much better job than king of the Belgians - Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha might get the gig instead ;)

No Leopold II!:cool:

could a union of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Denmark been possible from that one - his father was George of Denmark....

Not to mention Norway… and this would guarantee the Royal Navy access to Russian spar timber from Riga. We've got TLs featuring Albert, Charlotte and Frederick — somebody should do this.
 
What about James VI & I's eldest son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales who died at 18 in 1612. By all accounts he held quite Calvinist views and frequently argued with his father. He detested his father's favourite at the time, Robet Carr and called for Sir Walter Raleigh's release from the Tower.

He was very popular and outgoing and his early death occasioned national mouning.

How different the crisis of 1640 might have been had King Henry IX been monarch instead of Charles. I'm sure the Puritan's would have been a lot happier with Henry as King!

No Civil War.
No Protector Cromwell
No Restoration

And going back a hundred years how much different would English History have been if Prince Arthur had succeeded Henry VII instead of his younger brother Henry?

No break with Rome?
 
Well, I was counting non-kings of Britain, which would be "since the Act of Union". But Henry Frederick would have been King of both England and Scotland, so he probably should count too.

Things would certainly have been different under Henry IX. But like his brother Charles OTL, he'd still encounter serious problems with Parliament and with threading the religious divide. As to how he'd handle those problems... well, the Stuarts tended to be stubborn. And while James I and Charles II were intelligent men, in general the family seems not to have run to brains.


Doug M.
 
There's 'the other Frederick' - Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, who was heir presumptive to George IV until his own death in 1827, which allowed William IV to succeed. No real changes unless he has children.
 
A slightly longer shot might be Henry Duke of Gloucester, youngest son of Charles I. He was another firm Protestant, and if still alive in 1714 would presumably have reigned instead of George I. This would, however, require him to live longer than either of his brothers did.
 
Last edited:
Ah, good one.

Strictly speaking, he'd only have to outlive James II's popularity -- if Henry lasts until 1688 (he'd only be 48 at that point) he'd be able to take the place of William and Mary in a *Glorious Revolution.

(One could reasonably ask whether James, with a Protestant younger brother waiting in the wings, would be quite as feckless as iOTL. But if having hostile daughters, a hostile son-in-law, and a hostile bastard nephew all ready and willing to take his place didn't slow him down, one suspects that a younger brother wouldn't make much difference.)


Doug M.
 
Top