DBWI: A world without Queen Elizabeth II (1820-1893)

After the death of Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales in 1817 the sons of George III rushed to get married and produce an heir for Britain. Of course we all know the winner was the future William IV, who welcomed daughter Elizabeth in 1820.

Elizabeth, known as the mother-in-law of Europe (both for her plethora of daughters who made high matches with other royal houses in Europe and her typical Hanoverian meddling in politics) is a divisive figure for historians, with some regaling her for her stalwart personality and vivacious persona while others argue her need for control in political and family life posed a major risk to the monarchy.

If Elizabeth hadn't lived long enough to start the second Elizabethan age, how would history be affected? The next in line to the throne (presuming this is before Liz has her kids) is "poor cousin Vicky," the daughter of the Duke of Kent best known for her miserable and childless marriage to her cousin Ernest of Saxe Coburg Gotha and the rumor she once tried to start an affair with his younger brother.

So, what would be the possible ramifications of this "Victorian" age?
 
Yes, without Elizabeth II we would not see the British buying Luzon and Sabah from the Spanish.

And that'd probably also butterfly the Peruvian protectorate, as well as the Kingdom of the Cape, along with so many other interesting, and yet also important events of the 19th Century as far as things relating to the British Empire go. (Not to mention that, in regards to North America in particular, it would be interesting to see if Canada still goes maverick in 1867 as per OTL or if they become a British Dominion for a while, perhaps to as late as the late 1940s or even to the present day: As I recall, Elizabeth II IOTL didn't see the need for Britain to keep all of Canada under lock and key, and under her direct request, London allowed them independence in exchange for letting the British keep much of Rupert's Land and the Maritime Colonies, for fear of the U.S. trying to take advantage of any further unrest that might have occurred then; though Canada would eventually annex both, as well as British Columbia later on, all thru a series of popular referendums.....but how much of that would have happened if Vicky had been queen instead? Or even, goodness forbid, Ernest as king?)
 
And that'd probably also butterfly the Peruvian protectorate, as well as the Kingdom of the Cape, along with so many other interesting, and yet also important events of the 19th Century as far as things relating to the British Empire go. (Not to mention that, in regards to North America in particular, it would be interesting to see if Canada still goes maverick in 1867 as per OTL or if they become a British Dominion for a while, perhaps to as late as the late 1940s or even to the present day: As I recall, Elizabeth II IOTL didn't see the need for Britain to keep all of Canada under lock and key, and under her direct request, London allowed them independence in exchange for letting the British keep much of Rupert's Land and the Maritime Colonies, for fear of the U.S. trying to take advantage of any further unrest that might have occurred then; though Canada would eventually annex both, as well as British Columbia later on, all thru a series of popular referendums.....but how much of that would have happened if Vicky had been queen instead? Or even, goodness forbid, Ernest as king?)

The throne likely does go to Ernest Augustus, or at least his line, given that "sad Vicky" never had kids. The Duke of Edinburgh may not have been beloved, but at least he did his job in securing the line of succession.

To prevent the Cumberlands from taking the throne you need to somehow get Vicky kids. Rumor has it Duke Ernest gave her an STD that made her sterile (OOC: this happened to Ernest's OTL wife) so maybe try to butterfly that away? Obviously though it depends on when Liz dies and if Vicky and Ernest are already hitched. If they aren't then Queen Victoria likely either marries Liz's betrothed or she somehow manages to use her position as heir to insist on marrying Ernest's bachelor brother Franz Albrecht (who she apparently fell for after arriving in Coburg to marry Ernest IOTL but by then the ink was already dry so to speak).
 
Maybe the whole idea just tumbles down and England becomes republic. It was Queen Betty's that shored up the monarchy.
 
Britain probably wouldn't still be a world power. Victoria didn't have the strength of mind and personality to set policy in the way that Elizabeth II did.

Then again, a lot of OTL unpleasantness could have also been avoided; again, due to Victoria being in power instead of Liz II.
 
Yeah, but what happens in Europe? Messing with any one royal family has massive ramifications for every other one in Europe, especially with how dramatically different Britain’s foreign policy would be.

The only thing I’d bet on staying the same was the Anglo-German alliance forming in the late 19th century—blood is thicker than water and all that.
 
The throne likely does go to Ernest Augustus, or at least his line, given that "sad Vicky" never had kids. The Duke of Edinburgh may not have been beloved, but at least he did his job in securing the line of succession.

To prevent the Cumberlands from taking the throne you need to somehow get Vicky kids. Rumor has it Duke Ernest gave her an STD that made her sterile (OOC: this happened to Ernest's OTL wife) so maybe try to butterfly that away? Obviously though it depends on when Liz dies and if Vicky and Ernest are already hitched. If they aren't then Queen Victoria likely either marries Liz's betrothed or she somehow manages to use her position as heir to insist on marrying Ernest's bachelor brother Franz Albrecht (who she apparently fell for after arriving in Coburg to marry Ernest IOTL but by then the ink was already dry so to speak).

Ah, I'd forgotten about that.

Britain probably wouldn't still be a world power. Victoria didn't have the strength of mind and personality to set policy in the way that Elizabeth II did.

Then again, a lot of OTL unpleasantness could have also been avoided; again, due to Victoria being in power instead of Liz II.

Perhaps so. Elizabeth II was a good queen overall, I feel, but yes, I agree that she could have also done more to curb the excesses of Imperial rule; e.g. the Sepoy massacres in 1883-84, the Ovamboland problem, the mishandling of the Cape Town riots in 1874, and so on and so forth(and I need not mention that short-lived mess that was the Dominion of Australasia; what were the Tories thinking? It's a bit part of the reason why Australia eventually left the Empire altogether just like Canada did).

Yeah, but what happens in Europe? Messing with any one royal family has massive ramifications for every other one in Europe, especially with how dramatically different Britain’s foreign policy would be.

The only thing I’d bet on staying the same was the Anglo-German alliance forming in the late 19th century—blood is thicker than water and all that.

Quite possible, yes. Though how long it would actually last is a matter of deep debate, I'd say. Even IOTL it became frayed for a bit after the Great Depression(Germany blamed both the British & American governments for most of it, after all)and only recovered as quickly as it did to face the growing threat of Napoleon IV and his restored French Empire in the latter half of the 1930s.....(though I suppose we can all be thankful that Frederick IV & George VII kept their heads cool, or Napoleon might have been able to dominate most of Europe in the last World War!)
 
Quite possible, yes. Though how long it would actually last is a matter of deep debate, I'd say. Even IOTL it became frayed for a bit after the Great Depression(Germany blamed both the British & American governments for most of it, after all)and only recovered as quickly as it did to face the growing threat of Napoleon IV and his restored French Empire in the latter half of the 1930s.....(though I suppose we can all be thankful that Frederick IV & George VII kept their heads cool, or Napoleon might have been able to dominate most of Europe in the last World War!)

Well the fact that the Emperor was George's beloved Uncle Fritz (the Empress was George's aunt Adelaide) helped everyone as Frederick was known as the evenhanded autocrat. Heck, he was so levelheaded that he kept up friendly relations with new Kingdom of Finland despite the fact that King Johannes eloped with a pretty girl with no money and only tenuous royal connections while his sister, Princess Pauline, was on her way to Helsinki.

Of course, this was remedied by the promise that the next King of Finland married a German princess, hence the almost immediate marriage of Crown Prince Eero to Princess Irene after the prince finished his military training in 1942, and the swift marriage of Pauline to the wealthy Grand Duke Dimitri of Russia who offered "sweet Lina" an independent and luxurious lifestyle. However imagine if the Emperor had been some reactionary hot head starting wars and causing diplomatic incidents over such a snub.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
rhaps so. Elizabeth II was a good queen overall, I feel, but yes, I agree that she could have also done more to curb the excesses of Imperial rule; e.g. the Sepoy massacres in 1883-84, the Ovamboland problem, the mishandling of the Cape Town riots in 1874, and so on and so forth(and I need not mention that short-lived mess that was the Dominion of Australasia; what were the Tories thinking? It's a bit part of the reason why Australia eventually left the Empire altogether just like Canada did
Thankfully she eventually backed Gladstone and Chamberlain since 1885, thus allowing the Liberals to return to power. The mess was already done, but the Libs did much to solve them. If the Tories were left unchecked, Britain would also lose Ireland
 
And that'd probably also butterfly the Peruvian protectorate, as well as the Kingdom of the Cape, along with so many other interesting, and yet also important events of the 19th Century as far as things relating to the British Empire go. (Not to mention that, in regards to North America in particular, it would be interesting to see if Canada still goes maverick in 1867 as per OTL or if they become a British Dominion for a while, perhaps to as late as the late 1940s or even to the present day: As I recall, Elizabeth II IOTL didn't see the need for Britain to keep all of Canada under lock and key, and under her direct request, London allowed them independence in exchange for letting the British keep much of Rupert's Land and the Maritime Colonies, for fear of the U.S. trying to take advantage of any further unrest that might have occurred then; though Canada would eventually annex both, as well as British Columbia later on, all thru a series of popular referendums.....but how much of that would have happened if Vicky had been queen instead? Or even, goodness forbid, Ernest as king?)
Of course Luzon and Sabah are now nations of their own under commonwealth, it is good that they were not kept during the Spanish-American war wherein the Americans got Micronesia from spain since Americans are coveting Luzon as well although the Visayas and Mindanao were acquired by the Germans later on.
 
Well the fact that the Emperor was George's beloved Uncle Fritz (the Empress was George's aunt Adelaide) helped everyone as Frederick was known as the evenhanded autocrat. Heck, he was so levelheaded that he kept up friendly relations with new Kingdom of Finland despite the fact that King Johannes eloped with a pretty girl with no money and only tenuous royal connections while his sister, Princess Pauline, was on her way to Helsinki.

Of course, this was remedied by the promise that the next King of Finland married a German princess, hence the almost immediate marriage of Crown Prince Eero to Princess Irene after the prince finished his military training in 1942, and the swift marriage of Pauline to the wealthy Grand Duke Dimitri of Russia who offered "sweet Lina" an independent and luxurious lifestyle. However imagine if the Emperor had been some reactionary hot head starting wars and causing diplomatic incidents over such a snub.

That's also true. Frederick IV should also, I believe, be commended for not disbanding the French nation (as well as Spain and Italy) after WWII as a number of elements in his government insisted.....this, it could be argued, would prove crucial more than anything else, in making the western half of Europe, at least, a largely peaceful area of the world for the next 70 years to follow.(though the 1953 collapse of Austria-Hungary certainly did complicate things particularly for eastern Europe)

Thankfully she eventually backed Gladstone and Chamberlain since 1885, thus allowing the Liberals to return to power. The mess was already done, but the Libs did much to solve them. If the Tories were left unchecked, Britain would also lose Ireland

Perhaps so. After all, it was Gladstone's reforms that made sure that Ireland never left the Imperial-and later Commonwealth-realm; he was quite aware of what had already happened to Canada.....and what was going to happen to Australasia too, and why.

Of course Luzon and Sabah are now nations of their own, it is good that they were not kept during the Spanish-American war wherein the Americans got Micronesia from spain since Americans are coveting Luzon as well although the Visayas and Mindanao were acquired by the Germans.

Of course, let's not forget that German rule ended relatively early(in Feb. 1912, just before the outbreak of World War I, so just over 15 years); unfortunately, we do need to remember that there was a fair bit of brutality going on over there dealing with the pro-independence rebels, many of whom were starting to receive covert backing from both Japan and China from 1908 onwards. (So yeah, there's a fairly powerful reason why Visayas in particular was home to so much anti-German sentiment up until the 1950s, sadly). On the other hand, though, the Germans did learn some important lessons from the mistakes made in the Philippine territories-there is a reason, after all, why the handful of now former German colonies in Africa-as well as Antioch in the Middle East-in particular generally had better luck after independence than many of the French & British ex-colonies, save perhaps Franco-Italian Lebanon, Nigeria and a few other places.)
 
Of course, let's not forget that German rule ended relatively early(in Feb. 1912, just before the outbreak of World War I, so just over 15 years); unfortunately, we do need to remember that there was a fair bit of brutality going on over there dealing with the pro-independence rebels, many of whom were starting to receive covert backing from both Japan and China from 1908 onwards. (So yeah, there's a fairly powerful reason why Visayas in particular was home to so much anti-German sentiment up until the 1950s, sadly). On the other hand, though, the Germans did learn some important lessons from the mistakes made in the Philippine territories-there is a reason, after all, why the handful of now former German colonies in Africa-as well as Antioch in the Middle East-in particular generally had better luck after independence than many of the French & British ex-colonies, save perhaps Franco-Italian Lebanon, Nigeria and a few other places.)
That is better than a Manila based imperialism since Luzon is very much entrenched in promoting the Tagalog dialect of Balagtas and being anglophile, although visayas and mindanao are very much pro-spanish and have Spanish as official language.
 
Queen Elizabeth II was strongly against slavery. Without her on the throne would there have been a Confederate arms embargo and would British "observers" have been stationed with Union Army? I doubt the British have sold the Union their latest artillery pieces.
Could the South have succeeded in their bid for independence or would they still have lost but later date than Lee's surrender in Atlanta in March 17, 1864.
The exchange wasn't all one sided, the British learned a lot about logistics and Army mobility from the Americans which would serve them well in future conflicts.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Queen Elizabeth II was strongly against slavery. Without her on the throne would there have been a Confederate arms embargo and would British "observers" have been stationed with Union Army? I doubt the British have sold the Union their latest artillery pieces.
Could the South have succeeded in their bid for independence or would they still have lost but later date than Lee's surrender in Atlanta in March 17, 1864.
The exchange wasn't all one sided, the British learned a lot about logistics and Army mobility from the Americans which would serve them well in future conflicts.
Well, the North would have won anyway due to superior population and industrial strength.

But without the Queeb, the Anglo-American relation would neved be a proxy-alliance one. The Liberal government even sent men to advise the Reconstructionn, whose priority afterward shifted from punishing the South to building a solid black middle class.
 
Top