The_Last_Plantagenet
Donor
I'll give you dibs on inspecting the TLOoh cheeky
I'll give you dibs on inspecting the TLOoh cheeky
SureI'll give you dibs on inspecting the TL![]()
wanna do a Co-Op TL togethor?
My knowledge is strong. I have knowledge to giveSure. Wouldn't mind developing my knowledge of the 19th century a bit more
...I don't want to pour cold water on your timeline, by any means, but can I just step in and point out that whilst there was Republicanism in the Uk in the 1870s its place has often been over-represented [and tends to very much on this forum].
A lot of it was to do with Victoria's isolation and was more the form of grumbling editorials saying 'Well, if she isn't going to turn up and do things then why have her at all?' This was swept up as a whole in Government reports as 'Republicanism' partly to convince the Queen to let the Prince of Wales become more involved in matters of state in her absence. It sounded more dramatic in the reports.
In reality, the majority of British people were not actively interested in the end of the monarchy in the 1870s and many with republican leanings were probably quite pleased with the status quo of an absent monarch letting Parliament get on with things. The actual hardcore Republican movement was tiny.
...that said, don't let me stop you with your timeline. I just wanted to point out that as a POD its incredibly unlikely. Plus also remember that, if you're thinking a crackdown on Republicanism this will still be the 1870s and the attendant levels of technology and police training and surveillance. A crackdown probably amounts to closing a couple of radical printings presses, raiding some London debating clubs in the East End, and beefing up the process of spying on dissident groups that was already underway.
Ah, I see, that's quite interesting.
I take it anarchism wasn't big in the UK either, unlike in the continent?
Well, I mean it depends what you mean as 'big'? Anarchists, by their very nature, tend not to have solid organisations. There was a lot of tension around the idea of ''foreign anarchists'' in the press in the 1890s and 1900s but that was more a product of how often they were in the news abroad than anything to do with knowledge of domestic radicals.
First there is no guarantee that Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh would then be named Prince of Wales. (It is not an inherited title, but a divested one given by the monarch at their discretion to the male heir to the throne. Alfred was also close to his older brother and may have not wanted the new title because it might seem or feel disrespectful to his brothers memory.) He would however as the eldest surviving son and now heir of Queen Victoria also be the Duke of Cornwall. Next, his wife, was an unbearable and uppity woman, (a Grand Duchess of Russia) but with her now being the most senior woman in the Kingdom, outranked only by the Queen, which was denied her as long as Princess Alexandra was around, perhaps she puts less pressure on young Prince Alfred of Edinburgh who may not attempt suicide and later die of his wounds. Now that he is the "Heir but One," as Queen Victoria used to call Prince Albert Victor of Wales, aka Duke of Clarence, he may have a new purpose. His father did die I think it was from cancer in 1900, so he would have succeeded his grandmother as King in 1901. What name he would have taken is anyone's guess. I know Victoria would have hoped it would be King Albert I, after her late husband, as it was assumed by her that Edward VII was going to be. (He was christened Albert Edward.)
To be honest I would rather see an ATL that would see Prince Albert Victor, known as Eddy, surviving and becoming Prince of Wales, (at grandma's discretion), and what marriage and changes in his character might have occurred without his rake of a father as his role model.
I think Prince Eddy might have been brought along different. A less indulgent mother perhaps, maybe different tutors, I mean none of the Male members of the Royal family at that time could be accused of being scholars. That includes his father and Uncle the Duke of Edinburgh. Both Eddy and his brother the future George V were difficult and not very successful students, it is said neither ever picked up a book if they could help it. Prince Eddy is maligned in history since his untimely death in 1892, but his family and friends have reportedly said he was kind, gentle, devoted to friends and family. His brother George V has mixed reactions from his own sons and grandchildren who may have known him from being wonderful, George VI and Elizabeth II to a S ---- of a b....! Edward VIII, George, Duke of Kent, and the Earl of Lascelles.
Changing tutors, a change in his lifestyle, parents gone, now primarily raised by Grandma, new responsibilities at a younger age as Heir Apparent, being trained in the art of being a Constitutional Monarch verses a politically practicing one like the Kaiser or the Tsar. I mean, look at George V who was as academically challenged as his brother, he did alright as a constitutional British king. Who is to say what ever he was able to learn was enough to be the King of the Great Britain, so Eddy might have been able to swing it too.
Also, even the press at the time recognized Prince Eddy as being more personable compared to his brother Prince George prior to his death. Or like you suggest, maybe him just surviving does the trick.
Maybe the Queen seeing that her family could be harmed presses the government to provide more security especially for those closest to the throne. (A Prince Eddy, Prince Alfred, etc. according to this timeline.) This could possibly change the kind of people who may come into contact with the royals. Interesting, today's Royals are more protected, but portrayed as being more approachable with and to the people, yet royals of before were less protected, but they also had more freedom to get into trouble. (Or am I reading that wrong?)