Edward VII Dead at age 77

Transcript of NBC Breaking News Update, 28 May 1972:

"Late news from London is that Edward VII, King of England since 1936, has died at age 77. It is expected that his niece the Princess Elizabeth, will assume the throne upon her return from her current tour of Canada.

More details on this NBC station as they come in...
 
He must mean Edward VIII, obviously this Edward never met Wallis Simpson. The likelyhood of him dieing childless is possibly large enough for this to happen
 
He must mean Edward VIII, obviously this Edward never met Wallis Simpson. The likelyhood of him dieing childless is possibly large enough for this to happen

OOC: I did mean VIII rather than VII, typo on my part. Mea culpa.

He indeed never did meet Ms. Simpson, and infact never married or fathered an heir (both points of great controvesy during his reign).

A lot of speculation at this juncture on how Elizabeth will handle the throne. Or for how long since she is already 45 years old.
 
Part of me has begun thinking Elizabeth is now staying healthy just to mess with Charles. :)

No, she's not that petty. To preserve the country from any more of his reign than is absolutely necessary, to better serve her country and the institution of the monarchy? Yes, certainly.
 
Transcript of NBC Breaking News Update, 28 May 1972:

"Late news from London is that Edward VII, King of England since 1936, has died at age 77. It is expected that his niece the Princess Elizabeth, will assume the throne upon her return from her current tour of Canada.

More details on this NBC station as they come in...

I suppose Henry, Duke of Gloucester doesn't live until 1974 in this TL. Elizabeth is the crown princess? Does that title even exist?
 
I suppose Henry, Duke of Gloucester doesn't live until 1974 in this TL. Elizabeth is the crown princess? Does that title even exist?

:confused: why would it matter if Henry Duke of Gloucester was a alive, Elizabeth would be heir if........ you know Prince Albert Frederick may still be alive, it was being king that really killed him so, no kingship, less stress, no chain smoking= alive in 1972? :eek:
 
A) You can't 'not want the throne'. To 'not want the throne', you would have to modify the line of succession via legal process, which would almost certainly require an Act of Parliament in all cases, as it did in 1936 in OTL.

B) No such title as Crown Princess, (Or Crown Prince for that matter) but then it never came up here until someone questioned whether it existed.

C) The Duke of Gloucester surviving would have no effect on the succession, as he was only the fourth child of George V. If David didn't have any children then it would pass through his nearest brother, (I think that's right) and his children, whether they be male or female.
 
A) You can't 'not want the throne'. To 'not want the throne', you would have to modify the line of succession via legal process, which would almost certainly require an Act of Parliament in all cases, as it did in 1936 in OTL.

B) No such title as Crown Princess, (Or Crown Prince for that matter) but then it never came up here until someone questioned whether it existed.

C) The Duke of Gloucester surviving would have no effect on the succession, as he was only the fourth child of George V. If David didn't have any children then it would pass through his nearest brother, (I think that's right) and his children, whether they be male or female.

A) yes

B) the tile of the first born son of the Monarch is Prince of Wales (there's never been a Princess of Wales) there are however tiles for Heir apparents they're all Scottish tiles, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, which Elizabeth would be on the death of her father, how ever she wouldn't be Princess of Wales or Duke of Cornwall which are for the first sons of King only

C) yes you are right good sir :)
 
B) the tile of the first born son of the Monarch is Prince of Wales (there's never been a Princess of Wales) there are however tiles for Heir apparents they're all Scottish tiles, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, which Elizabeth would be on the death of her father, how ever she wouldn't be Princess of Wales or Duke of Cornwall which are for the first sons of King only

But a monarch doesn't invest any of the standard titles of an heir apparent on their brother, (for the obvious reason that an heir may come along in the future) and in any case the scope for a female holding most hereditary titles is very small. So the OP is quite correct. She would just be 'HRH, The Princess Elizabeth.'

btw when I said there was no 'Crown Prince', I literally meant there was no such title, not that there wasn't an equivalent position.
 
Last edited:
V-J said:
The Duke of Gloucester surviving would have no effect on the succession, as he was only the fourth child of George V. If David didn't have any children then it would pass through his nearest brother, (I think that's right) and his children, whether they be male or female.

Okay, I guess so.

:confused: why would it matter if Henry Duke of Gloucester was a alive, Elizabeth would be heir

Black Angel, are you sure you're native to New Hampshire, aka the 'live free or die state'? Why are you all :confused: at someone who doesn't know the rules of British royal primogeniture (or whatever Westminster says is primogeniture)? Curious.;)


btw when I said there was no 'Crown Prince', I literally meant there was no such title, not that there wasn't an equivalent position.

Wot, an invented British royal tradition? I'm shocked.

Next you'll tell me the investiture of the Prince of Wales is a bogus ritual invented by a 20th century politician!

(I think if Elizabeth is the the heir for twenty years or so then there's a chance parliament might pass a law styling her 'crown princess', if only because the succession has always been parent-to-child throughout the existence of the modern royal family, and king-to-niece is unprecedented in this era. Perhaps it all depends on whether Churchill is PM in this TL at the time of the death of Elizabeth's father.)
 
Actually, William IV to Victoria was Kig to Neice, so its not really unprecedented

Victoria invented the idea of the Royal Family. Before her it was the monarch, the monarch's court, and his/her relatives (and a bunch of transnational European relatives at that)--she turned the monarch's family into an institution that the whole nation felt it owned.

With the help of the rise of the press, of course.
 
I really, really, don't think it's a good idea to have Edward VIII take the throne. He was OTL a Nazi symphasizer and met with Hitler against Parliament's wishes. :mad::mad::eek:

Britain and the world should be very glad that OTL Ed left the throne on his own accord. Imagine what would have happened to the Allied cause if the British throne were pro-Axis/Hitler during WWII?
 
Top