Edward Oxford kills Queen Victoria

Now, Edward Oxford was the first of about eight people who try to killed Queen Victoria, failing like the rest would. However, on 10 June 1840, what if he was able to kill Victoria?
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Her uncle, Ernest Augustus I of the United Kingdom and of Hanover is what happens unless EA gave up his rights upon taking the Hanover throne.

If EA is out of the picture Augustus Fredrick is next. He dies in 1843 without an acceptable heir of his line as his children were outside the Royal Marriage Act. Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge is next then. He lived seven years after his brother. He had a son that outlived Victoria IOTL.
 
Her uncle, Ernest Augustus I of the United Kingdom and of Hanover is what happens unless EA gave up his rights upon taking the Hanover throne.

If EA is out of the picture Augustus Fredrick is next. He dies in 1843 without an acceptable heir of his line as his children were outside the Royal Marriage Act. Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge is next then. He lived seven years after his brother. He had a son that outlived Victoria IOTL.

If Ernest Augustus renounced his rights, the heir would be his son Crown Prince George, not the Duke of Sussex. Of course the question becomes whether or not the Crown Prince would be a fit ruler as he was blind. While OTL his father decided he was qualified to rule Hanover, that country and Britain are very different. Parliament might try to exclude him based on his disability. In that case the Cambridge line would be next in line.
 
Could it be possible that is Victoria is killed that the republican movement might gain momentum and soon enough have the monarchy overthrown?
 
Could it be possible that is Victoria is killed that the republican movement might gain momentum and soon enough have the monarchy overthrown?

What Republican movement :rolleyes:? The modern British republican movement didn't really exist until the 1860s, when Queen Victoria had withdrawn from public view after Prince Albert's death. No in the 1840s there was no chance of a Republic being formed, no matter who's on the throne.
 
What Republican movement :rolleyes:? The modern British republican movement didn't really exist until the 1860s, when Queen Victoria had withdrawn from public view after Prince Albert's death. No in the 1840s there was no chance of a Republic being formed, no matter who's on the throne.

I think thats a little extreme. There are Republican clubs throughout the 19th century in Britain - what you're talking about is popular Republicanism which, I agree, only took off in the 1860s.

Whilst I agree there is almost no chance of a Republic being formed, I don't think it should be ruled out entirely. Just very unlikely.
 
I think thats a little extreme. There are Republican clubs throughout the 19th century in Britain - what you're talking about is popular Republicanism which, I agree, only took off in the 1860s.

Whilst I agree there is almost no chance of a Republic being formed, I don't think it should be ruled out entirely. Just very unlikely.

I meant popular support. Upper and middle class clubs don't really count here. After the Great reform bill and the beginnings of more inclusive democracy I can't see the populace accepting such a radical change in government if they didn't support it. Plus the upper classes, the one's who's political support would be necessary to create a republic at this juncture, would have more to lose then gain if the monarchy was abolished. Not really ripe grounds for a revolution.
 
Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, never denounced his rights to the throne of Great Britain and was heir until the birth of his great-niece, Victoria, Princess Royal, while his son, Crown Prince George of Hanover, was heir to him.

So if Queen Victoria, dies while still being pregnant, King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is crowned as King Ernest Augustus I of Great Britain as well.

Regarding Crown Prince George's blindness, no where is it written that the head of state, has to be able of body and mind, King George III, ruled as king (yes under a regency) for twenty years while battling madness, so I can not see any politician denying their rightful king, his throne, based on the fact that he is blind.

George is 21 and unmarried, so they may well marry him off to his cousin, Princess Augusta of Cambridge, who had lived in Hanover during her father's time as Viceroy on behave of his brother King George IV.

Also in OTL George had learnt, from his father and from his maternal uncle, Prince Charles Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, one of the most influential men at the Prussian court, to take a very high and autocratic view of royal authority. During his 15-year reign, he engaged in frequent disputes with the Hanoverian parliament.

I believe that if anything this disability would make him, more of a hands on King then Britain had ever had.
 
As mentioned in an earlier post, Ernest decided that his son was fit to rule Hanover but there was still debate about it.

I can see it debated in Parliament in Britain, more so that Ernest's political enemies can annoy him. Ernest was a stickler for things being done correctly and constitutionally and if his son was next in line to the throne then he would see it through.

Ernest himself, while not blind, had always had poor eyesight and it was deteriorating further at this point. Poor eyesight had dogged the Hanoverian kings in their latter years. I don't think blindness would be a reason to exclude the next in line from the succession, especially since Prince George became was a very capable ruler of Hanover.

What the colonies make of a blind monarch is a different matter of course. George V's accession would be just a few years before the Indian Mutiny.
 
I don't see why George shouldn't still marry Marie of Saxe-Altenburg, but I suppose Augusta of Cambridge is also perfectly plausible. At any rate, I think he'd certainly succeed to the throne.

The issue that arises here is that Ernest Augustus (and his son, to a somewhat lesser extent) was an arch-reactionary who opposed Catholic Emancipation and was a "die-hard" who voted against the Reform Bill in the Lords. He'd also just spent the last three years destroying the Hanoverian constitution. He would have been an incredibly unpopular king, and might very well have taken actions that led to a constitutional crisis.
 
True, Ernest took immediate steps to adjourn the Houses of Parliament in Hanover and publicly revoke the Dahlmann constitution. He abolished it a few months later.

The public response to this in Britain was scathing and people expected a revolution in Hanover. Yet Hanover was one of the few monarchies not to see the monarch overthrown.

Chief of the reasons why Ernest abolished the constitution was the personal and constitutional snub he received in its formation. William IV did not consult Ernest at any point even though Ernest (and then Prince George) was the next in line to the throne of Hanover, while still consulting Ernest's other brothers. Ernest was a stickler for doing things correctly.

Without a doubt, Ernest becoming king of Britain would have resulted in a collective "Oh s**t". And then people would have got on with it. The constitutions of Hanover and Britain were vastly different so Ernest could not easily change anything. He could, as King, refuse to sign political bills and he probably would have done this. But this wasn't unusual - George III and George IV were incredibly indecisive. Probably a prime minister or two might have resigned, but this happened from time to time too. I'm sure Ernest would have had a fit at signing the repeal of the Corn Laws and there would have been crises, but revolution - no. The key was that the British middle and upper classes felt enfranchised after the Reform Bill and so there wasn't enough of a movement for a revolution to be likely. Even the working classes were usually not behind revolution - at the 1848 demonstration there was an approximate ratio of 1 'special' (working class volunteer) : 1.5 Chartists. In addition thousands of middle class civilians had registered as special constables, the police were more skilled and the Chartist ranks were riddled with informers. In addition Ernest, as a respected military leader, could call upon the support of the army, which had already shown utmost loyalty when putting down earlier uprisings (Newport happened even before the Oxford assassination attempt).

Put simply, the Chartist uprisings fizzled out because there never was any hope of success. It would have been bloody and brief. Ernest as King would have made no difference.
 
True, Ernest took immediate steps to adjourn the Houses of Parliament in Hanover and publicly revoke the Dahlmann constitution. He abolished it a few months later.

The public response to this in Britain was scathing and people expected a revolution in Hanover. Yet Hanover was one of the few monarchies not to see the monarch overthrown.

Hmm? What other countries saw their monarch overthrown in 1837? Hell, what other countries, besides France, saw their monarch overthrown in 1848? Ernest Augustus's ability not to be overthrown in that year seems substantially similar to the non-overthrowing of Frederick William IV of Prussia, Frederick Augustus II of Saxony, William I of Württemberg, Leopold of Baden, Frederick William of Electoral Hesse, and, well, pretty much every German ruler except the King of Bavaria, who got overthrown largely because he had a mistress hated by the rest of his family and ministers.

Chief of the reasons why Ernest abolished the constitution was the personal and constitutional snub he received in its formation. William IV did not consult Ernest at any point even though Ernest (and then Prince George) was the next in line to the throne of Hanover, while still consulting Ernest's other brothers. Ernest was a stickler for doing things correctly.

Without a doubt, Ernest becoming king of Britain would have resulted in a collective "Oh s**t". And then people would have got on with it. The constitutions of Hanover and Britain were vastly different so Ernest could not easily change anything. He could, as King, refuse to sign political bills and he probably would have done this. But this wasn't unusual - George III and George IV were incredibly indecisive. Probably a prime minister or two might have resigned, but this happened from time to time too. I'm sure Ernest would have had a fit at signing the repeal of the Corn Laws and there would have been crises, but revolution - no. The key was that the British middle and upper classes felt enfranchised after the Reform Bill and so there wasn't enough of a movement for a revolution to be likely. Even the working classes were usually not behind revolution - at the 1848 demonstration there was an approximate ratio of 1 'special' (working class volunteer) : 1.5 Chartists. In addition thousands of middle class civilians had registered as special constables, the police were more skilled and the Chartist ranks were riddled with informers. In addition Ernest, as a respected military leader, could call upon the support of the army, which had already shown utmost loyalty when putting down earlier uprisings (Newport happened even before the Oxford assassination attempt).

Put simply, the Chartist uprisings fizzled out because there never was any hope of success. It would have been bloody and brief. Ernest as King would have made no difference.

I rather agree that you're not going to get an actual revolution. The ruling classes are too strong. I do wonder, though, how ornery the new king will be. As a good Tory, he will certainly get rid of Melbourne straight out (Melbourne had only a very tenuous majority by 1840, anyway, and had only survived to that point because of Victoria's support). How would he get on with Peel? But how much is the new king going to rock the boat to try to increase royal power? Again, this is the guy who led the opposition to Catholic Emancipation and was an anti-Reform bill die-hard. It's hard to see him getting on board with just about any liberal measure proposed by either Whig or Tory ministers. It's hard to see Peel's cautious reformism appealing to him, and I have a hard time thinking he'd even be willing to deal with Russell at all.

I don't think you get a working class revolution, but it seems like King Ernest would alienate the political elites, as well. Do they just ignore him? Even post-Reform Bill, it seems like a politically motivated king still has enough power to make a ministry's position basically impossible. So whatever the situation in the OTL Chartist movement, in this scenario you're going to have a King who is openly despised by the Radicals, cordially detested by the Whig leaders, and viewed as a burden and a liability by the leading Tories, if not by the bulk of the party. That's more or less the kind of situation where revolutionary agitation can lead to, at the very least, the fall of a particular monarch.
 
Fair point about 'few', but Emperor Ferdinand was another notable casualty in 1848. Charles II of Palma and Leopold II of Tuscany (in 1849) also got deposed and I'm sure some others were as well, while revolutions forced political reform in other countries. My point was trying to say that Ernest managed to go from a dead-cert for revolution to seeing off Hanover's 'revolution' comfortably. Somehow, he seems to have ruled better than expected in Hanover or at least been a Hanoverian King in Hanover for a change.

Honestly, I don't see King Ernest getting on with any prime minister. I suspect the only person he thought fit to do the job was himself. He would tolerate Peel at first but hate him later, thinking Peel had sold out the Tories, but then nearly all the Tories hated Peel afterwards as well anyway. I agree that Melbourne would go very quickly - pushed or jumped, it could be a race between them. Russell, well he's a Whig.

I can see a political frostiness between Ernest and Parliament, sometimes developing into an impasse. I think Ernest would want to sit in cabinet. I can see prime ministers threatening to resign and actually resigning to force Ernest to sign bills. The problem Ernest would face is that at some point he is going to have to back down as he needs Parliament and he just hasn't got the support within his own faction.
 
Fair point about 'few', but Emperor Ferdinand was another notable casualty in 1848. Charles II of Palma and Leopold II of Tuscany (in 1849) also got deposed and I'm sure some others were as well, while revolutions forced political reform in other countries. My point was trying to say that Ernest managed to go from a dead-cert for revolution to seeing off Hanover's 'revolution' comfortably. Somehow, he seems to have ruled better than expected in Hanover or at least been a Hanoverian King in Hanover for a change.

Well, Ferdinand wasn't exactly a victim of revolution. He was persuaded to abdicate by his own family and (conservative) ministers because it was thought that a young emperor who was actually capable of ruling would be a better rallying point for Habsburg loyalists, and a better ruler of the Empire more generally. Italy was different - the ruling houses in Tuscany, Parma, and Modena had very little popular support of any kind.

But I take your broader point. I'm not sure how unusual Ernst August was - he did face a revolution, and had to restore the 1833 constitution, I believe. He wasn't necessarily worse than other German rulers, but he doesn't seem to have done any better, either.

Honestly, I don't see King Ernest getting on with any prime minister. I suspect the only person he thought fit to do the job was himself. He would tolerate Peel at first but hate him later, thinking Peel had sold out the Tories, but then nearly all the Tories hated Peel afterwards as well anyway. I agree that Melbourne would go very quickly - pushed or jumped, it could be a race between them. Russell, well he's a Whig.

I can see a political frostiness between Ernest and Parliament, sometimes developing into an impasse. I think Ernest would want to sit in cabinet. I can see prime ministers threatening to resign and actually resigning to force Ernest to sign bills. The problem Ernest would face is that at some point he is going to have to back down as he needs Parliament and he just hasn't got the support within his own faction.

Right, agreed here. I also wonder how much he'd hate Palmerston - Palmerston is actually one of the generally more conservative politicians in England at this point, but he's also an apostate Tory who abandoned the party over Catholic emancipation and reform, and just kind of an arrogant dick. I can't imagine they'd get on well, either.

I guess the thing is, if Ernest is usually not backing down, and then you get revolution on the continent (including Hanover, almost certainly) in 1848, how does that play out in England? Given how much virtually the entire political class will loathe the king by this point, it seems entirely likely there will be some mild revolutionary unrest and he'll be forced to abdicate.
 
and then you get revolution on the continent (including Hanover, almost certainly)

Hanover is interesting. I think having their own king counted for a lot and Ernest did enact some reforms there, but they also really wanted to avoid pressure from Prussia. Part of me so wants them to stay unified with the British monarchy just to explore how that would mess with later 19thC European history, but I do agree that a revolution is strong possibility.

Given how much virtually the entire political class will loathe the king by this point, it seems entirely likely there will be some mild revolutionary unrest and he'll be forced to abdicate.

That's if he's still alive. If so many people wanted to have a pop at Victoria, then how many will Ernest get? He's brave to the point of reckless and would continue to ride / walk round London regardless of would-be assassins. (Another interesting storyline could have Prince George assassinated instead.) I also wonder how Ernest's political struggles would affect his health.
 
Top