Edward VII Dies from Peritonitis on 25 June 1902

Enough to set butterflies rolling across Europe? Would George V have managed the delicate relationship with France as well as his father? Would there still have been an 'entente cordiale'?

(Apologies if this has already been explored elsewhere but despite searching I cannot find such a thread).
 
George V could resemble Nicholas II: pushed to the throne before his time.
This would leave more room for Foreign Office to conduct British foreign policy. The fundamental analysis of the British strategic position is unlikely to change: the Franco-Russian alliance is much more serious threat to British security than Germany.

There was a lot of anti-British sentiment at France after Fashoda and the Boer War, and conflicting views on matters such as Egypt.Yet French political leadership was divided on the matter. This situation could develop to several plausible directions.

All in all a quite interesting scenario.
 
Thank you both - despite his lack of experience, could he fortuitously take on the role of 'cousin of Europe' (as opposed to his ITL father's role as 'uncle of Europe) and manage the relationship with his cousins in Russia and Germany a little more effectively than did his father? Perhaps Wilhelm would not be so anti-English if he felt less dominated by a cousin rather than a grandmother and uncle?

Another butterfly could be to have allowed George to marry Princess Marie (granddaughter of Tsar Alexander II) in 1892 - that would have given him even stronger links to the Romanov's.
 
Another butterfly could be to have allowed George to marry Princess Marie (granddaughter of Tsar Alexander II) in 1892 - that would have given him even stronger links to the Romanov's.
I don't think that would be necessary, as Nicholas and George always got along quite well. Maeglin has it surrounded; Edward VII had every reason to like France (her prostitutes) and dislike Germany (her Kaiser). So he encouraged the system of alliances that resulted in total war.

George is unlikely to snub France, but I could see Britain retreating into 'Glorious Isolation' under him. So when the Sarajevo crisis rolls around, France is going to get flattened by Germany or decide it would be better off staying out of it.

The war probably will be over by Christmas, with Europe covered in butterflies for the foreseeable future.
 
If Britain is not linked into the treaty system could George step into the role as independent arbitrator when the crisis hits? The invention of the Zeppelin and Heavier than air aircraft makes classic Splendid Isolation increasingly unlikely as time goes on.
 
If Britain is not linked into the treaty system could George step into the role as independent arbitrator when the crisis hits? The invention of the Zeppelin and Heavier than air aircraft makes classic Splendid Isolation increasingly unlikely as time goes on.
One could make the argument that air travel makes Splendid Isolation an even better idea. Either way, you are right that he could offer to mediate, assuming anyone takes him up on it.
 
One could make the argument that air travel makes Splendid Isolation an even better idea.
A better idea maybe, but with only 20 miles between Britain and the rest of Europe no longer possible. Britain has to be somewhat involved in European affairs even if only as a third party to broker compromise deals. KGV can be the key to starting negotiations due to his family links with most of Europe's ruling dynasties.
 

Deleted member 94680

I think all of this so far overestimates the effect of the King in Britain's policy during the pre-War era.

Granted, Edward the Caresser was pro-French and anti-Kaiser (though not particularly anti-German per-se) but by the time of his reign politics were firmly in the hands of the politicians - he agreed and disagreed as he thought personally, but never set policy. He may have been the prime mover in the dismissal of Admiral Beresford, but one Admiral does not the foreign policy of an Empire make.
 
I think all of this so far overestimates the effect of the King in Britain's policy during the pre-War era.

Granted, Edward the Caresser was pro-French and anti-Kaiser (though not particularly anti-German per-se) but by the time of his reign politics were firmly in the hands of the politicians - he agreed and disagreed as he thought personally, but never set policy. He may have been the prime mover in the dismissal of Admiral Beresford, but one Admiral does not the foreign policy of an Empire make.

True, but a Teutophile (a la Victoria) on the throne during this period might have been able to maintain better German relations than Francophile Edward. I wouldn't go so far as to hypothesise a Britain/Germany vs France/Russia set-up though.
 

Deleted member 94680

True, but a Teutophile (a la Victoria) on the throne during this period might have been able to maintain better German relations than Francophile Edward. I wouldn't go so far as to hypothesise a Britain/Germany vs France/Russia set-up though.

Victoria was hardly a 'teutophile' as you put it. After all, she became Empress of India to "one up" Wilhelm when he was made Emperor of Germany (according to some sources, more her daughter becoming Empress!) but even then, it was more that for the majority of her reign Germany simply wasn't a threat.

Again, the Monarch didn't set foreign policy in this era. You might have a TL with a Constitutional Crisis resulting from an overt act of the Monarch meddling but that's as far as it would realistically go.
 
I think all of this so far overestimates the effect of the King in Britain's policy during the pre-War era.

Granted, Edward the Caresser was pro-French and anti-Kaiser (though not particularly anti-German per-se) but by the time of his reign politics were firmly in the hands of the politicians - he agreed and disagreed as he thought personally, but never set policy. He may have been the prime mover in the dismissal of Admiral Beresford, but one Admiral does not the foreign policy of an Empire make.

The problem was that Edward did make a strong effort to influence the British foreign policy, and it had an effect both at home and abroad. IMO Clark makes a compelling case at Sleepwalkers: Edward had larger impact to British foreign policy than Nicholas II had to Russian foreign policy.
 

Deleted member 94680

The problem was that Edward did make a strong effort to influence the British foreign policy, and it had an effect both at home and abroad. IMO Clark makes a compelling case at Sleepwalkers: Edward had larger impact to British foreign policy than Nicholas II had to Russian foreign policy.

Do you have an example of Edward's impact on policy? A meeting where he directed the PM of the time to seek better relations with France?

He might have had an impact, but it was more of a confirmation of British policy as opposed to direction. British traditional strategic interests dictated they seek an alliance with the Franco-Russian bloc (no one power should dominate the continent, British power should ally with the weaker faction) Edward's francophilia merely supplimented the policy of Lansdowne.

It would be interesting to play out a TL that sees a British monarch opposed to the policy of the government, but I would guess - butterflies notwithstanding - it wouldn't lead to much of a change.
 

Deleted member 94680

and as for concrete examples: the matter of Norwegian succession in 1905.

OK, whether this is a transatlantic thing, but I'll bite. A state visit by a Monarch of the United Kingdom is not the King or Queen making independent foreign policy. They visit the country selected for them by the Government - in a rare case where the Monarch refused to visit said nation (I'm not sure of precedence, but will be happily lead to one) then the state visit simply wouldn't happen. The Monarch is not a President, making or leading policy. At least not in Britain, they aren't.

As for Norwegian succession, I'd imagine that was Edward in his role as a Senior member of the Royal community as opposed to striking out on his own in defiance of the political establishment at Westminster. It probably had more than a little to do with the fact his daughter was married to Haakon as well. Was there a candidate supported by the British politicians that Edward disagreed with? Was the choice of Norwegian Monarch a critical foreign policy issue for the British Empire? I'm not fully read up on my Scandinavian royalty. Also, as potentially unreliable as it is, Wikipedia makes no mention of Edward having anything to do with the selection of Haakon, short of his relationship to the British royal family.
 
I agree with stenz. There is an interesting timeline here but it is not the one you suggest.
Now a British monarch in 1905 certainly has influence but a new king has a lot less than an established one and the effects would be subtle.
A slightly less fashion in Britain for French things and people might influence policy but that is not going to stop the germans building battleships, railways and artillery.
Now a slightly more cautious France/Russia could put off the war until th Uk gives a promise that means something. After which would the Germans attack?
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
My understanding - from Massie's "Dreadnought" - was that the British government wanted to downplay Edward VII's state visit to France, but the King - for reasons political or just for his ego - insisted the more he was treated as a King-Emperor the better.

I agree that a monarch does not set the British foreign policy but they can help give it a nudge further in the direction it is already going.

And although Edward was a "new" king the people in power had known him for decades and were expecting his to succeed Victoria for many years before she passed away. He had more behind-the-scens influence than his mother desired.
 
Top