DBWI: Queen Victoria

What if on the 24th day of May 1819, Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld gave birth to a girl rather than a boy. What would Britain and the world at large look like with "Victoria" (or whatever alternate name is given to the girl) on the throne? From what I know, the claims Hannover would have been lost due to the salic laws. What else would have been altered under the reign of "Victoria"?

OOC: For this scenario, let us presume that "Victor" reigned from roughly the same time as Victoria's coronation to near the time of her OTL death.
 

Deleted member 97083

Queen Victoria would be an unstoppable ruler. Britain would conquer 1/4 of the world and the entire 19th century would be named after Victoria.

...okay, that was obviously a joke. British monarchs had very limited power in this period and momentum of the British state was shaped by Parliament rather than the indirect influence of the sovereign.

On a more serious note, the only real changes would be that those cities in Canada and Australia named "Edwards", "King Edward Island", etc. would be named Victoria instead.
 
Queen Victoria would be an unstoppable ruler. Britain would conquer 1/4 of the world and the entire 19th century would be named after Victoria.

So basically not so different from OTL minus the name changes? (IMO I think "Edwardian" era sounds cooler than "Victorian").
 

Deleted member 97083

So basically not so different from OTL minus the name changes? (IMO I think "Edwardian" era sounds cooler than "Victorian").
Well, Britain only conquered 1/6 of the world because from the middle of the 19th century, they focused on indirect economic influence and gunboat diplomacy over annexation of territory. They had India, South Africa, Australia, and Canada already, what else could they need? Of course you could say the British dominated 1/4 or 1/3 of the world with their finance and industry.

Map-painting and scrambling for territory in Africa was left to the more ridiculous leaders like that pompous colonialist Otto von Bismarck, only tempered by the sane Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Victoria would live longer than Edward due to being born later, but probably not long enough to get more than 2-3 decades named after her rule. There was an Edwardian decade, but I don't think there would be a full Victorian century.
 
Queen Victoria would be an unstoppable ruler. Britain would conquer 1/4 of the world and the entire 19th century would be named after Victoria.

...okay, that was obviously a joke. British monarchs had very limited power in this period and momentum of the British state was shaped by Parliament rather than the indirect influence of the sovereign.
Well you say that as a joke but the fact that Britain and Hannover would no longer be linked could have had an enormous impact on British foreign policy. Parliament had been trying to move away from continental affairs for a while but the union with Hannover kept Britain tethered to Europe, especially once German nationalism became a prominent force. This led to a greater expansion and modernisation of the British Army, to better fight European armies, which came at the expense of the navy and colonial affairs.

Without Hannover it is entirely possible that the British Empire would have been better able to focus on colonial expansion instead of being tied down fighting France, Prussia and Austria every decade.
 
Without Hannover it is entirely possible that the British Empire would have been better able to focus on colonial expansion instead of being tied down fighting France, Prussia and Austria every decade.

Why would the British Empire even want to expand? It already conquered 1/6 of the world and, well, that's enormous. Britain isn't stupid enough to create an empire even larger than the Mongol one when they can just economically dominate countries like Argentina.
 
Queen Victoria would be an unstoppable ruler. Britain would conquer 1/4 of the world and the entire 19th century would be named after Victoria.

...okay, that was obviously a joke. British monarchs had very limited power in this period and momentum of the British state was shaped by Parliament rather than the indirect influence of the sovereign.

On a more serious note, the only real changes would be that those cities in Canada and Australia named "Edwards", "King Edward Island", etc. would be named Victoria instead.
Will she even be called Victoria when she accedes to the throne?The King's personal name was Victor,not Edward.He only adopted the name of Edward upon accession to the throne.I presume that in the event of a Queen Victoria,she would make her regnal name something English--like Elizabeth.
 
Will she even be called Victoria when she accedes to the throne?The King's personal name was Victor,not Edward.He only adopted the name of Edward upon accession to the throne.I presume that in the event of a Queen Victoria,she would make her regnal name something English--like Elizabeth.

Elizabeth makes sense from the standpoint of copying an iconic queen. But if she chose a different name for political reasons she might want to avoid Elizabeth due to the English Reformation. Edward was a supporter of Catholic emancipation, and I'm assuming Victoria would have been the same.

One change you might see is a shift to more conservative sexual mores. The Hanover men cheated on their wives and infected them with STDs that destroyed their fertility, which is why they were always in danger if not producing a legitimate heir. The wives were deeply resentful of this behavior, especially Queen Caroline. With a woman as England's figurehead, you might see a cultural shift.
 
Without Hannover it is entirely possible that the British Empire would have been better able to focus on colonial expansion instead of being tied down fighting France, Prussia and Austria every decade.

Of course without Hannover, Edward or rather "Victoria" wouldn't have his met his dearest friend, that being his second wife Elisabeth of Wittebach (and considering she was also being courted by Franz Joseph of Austria you could have some huge butterflies there).

Without her, I don't think we'd have had a consort who, as an ex Catholic could do so much to bridge the gap that was opening with the Irish (first Royal to learn Gaelic!) in light of the potato famine and later with her informal ways, make such a positive impression during the royal visit to India.

That is not even counting her influence on fashion and mores that defined the Edwardian era.
 
Last edited:
Of course although a daughter might have carried haemphilia she would not have had it. The Queen would have reined more than the 7 years George V managed
 
Top