Edward VII shot!

Shackel

Banned
Idea: Edward VII is shot on April 4th, 1900 by an anarchist.

Question: Seeing how I absolutely fail at succession laws, who would have the throne in 1901 when Victoria dies(George V?) and how would that ruler change Britain?

Would the new ruler modernize the U.K. better/worse than the new ruler?
 
Yes George V would take the throne but of all of Europe's Monarchies at the turn of the century, the British Monarch had the least power. George V's Prime Ministers would determine Britain's course.
 

Shackel

Banned
So there would still be an "Edwardian" period of modernizing, and peacemaking?

I thought it was Edward himself who had a large role in greatly helping relations with Europe(with the exception of Germany) and modernizing the military.

Also, would George have WORSE relations with Germany?
 
It is hard to say. George was not a bad person. (at least as king. Now as a parent, well that is another story.) He was not the brightest either. Even though he is given by some historians the edge on his elder brother the Duke of Clarence on intelligence, (apparently most of their contemporaries and even some revisonists say there was not much difference between the two, nice men, just not so smart) but then again George was a constitutional monarch. He did not have to make the decisions necessary to rule. No which ever one inherited the throne, in real life's case, it was George, he learned his kingship from his father Edward VII. But if Edward VII predeceases George as did his elder brother, then Britain is left with a monarch who has spent most his life expecting someone else to be king.

My guess is that George V would have been what he was, a good constitutional monarch but wold have not been able to have as much influence as his father who was a socialite, more of a people person, who commanded a respect from his fellow monarchs, including a begrudging one from his nephew the Kaiser. George's biggest asset was that he was the symbol of the British Empire. So the loss of an Edwardian period, even though he too was a constitutional monarch, could have had some serious repercussions on history.
 

Shackel

Banned
Could we see a failure to establish the Entente Cordiale or the Anglo-Russian Entente?

EDIT: Oh no, due to an oversight I have accidentally posted this in "Before 1900"! Can a mod please fix this error?
 
I think it possible but more than likely the Kaiser would still have bumblingly forced the Russians into allying with France. As for Britain, Edward VII was crafty enough to delay the"formal" alliance that would lead to the Great War, my thoughts are that George V would have sat back not really knowing what to do other than let his government do what it will do. Perhaps the Alliance system and the war would have occured sooner.

One thing for sure, the Kaiser, though competitive with Uncle Bertie, really respected him. Where he felt he could work with his uncle, and saw him as his equal, he looked at cousin Georgie as just as his younger cousin who should follow him.
 
Last edited:

Shackel

Banned
I don't mean the Triple Entente, I mean the U.K's role in it.

The Entente Cordiale was France-U.K.

I doubt the war could have started sooner, though, unless the "success" of Edward being shot gave people some ideas.
 
I think the ability of Edward VII to bolster up his spineless nephew by marriage, Nicholas II who was being pressured by cousin Willy to sign a non-agression pact if you will with Germany would have been missing as George V did not have the ability or perhaps even the will to do so. Remember, George would be the one who would help seal the fate of the Romanavs by personally denying them entry into Britain during the War and Revolution.

I think the British governments wishes to side more closely with any agreement to contain the Germans, especially their growing naval strength would have forced them into a entente with Russia. I am only saying Edward's diplomacy helped to keep a full scale panic by the Germans. I don't feel George had that skill.
 

Shackel

Banned
So what we would see is a simple LACK of change and notable diplomatic treaties and whatnot?

A possible ignorance of the growing Imperial Navy, no reorganization of the Army, and a failure to establish the Triple Entente, leading to a WWI without the U.K. truly involved?
 
Last edited:
Without an Edward VII to work behind the scenes as the respected uncle of Europe, yes you are probably right. George V just did not have the personality to influence his cousins nor the intellect. A good constitutional monarch but not a natural leader.
 

Shackel

Banned
Seeing how Germany would most likely win a WWI without the U.K. in the way, but with the same terrible costs.

ALSO:

No tanks.
No Hitler.
No damage in the U.K.
No Luxembourg
German satellites everywhere
No Soviet Union
America still not a superpower

Could Lenin get communism to start up in Germany? Would Italy fall into the Austrian sphere of influence?
 
One power British monarchs have is to invite someone to become Prime Minister and whilst diminished this is potentially an important power at the beginning of the 20th century, not least because of the Lords/Commons divide. Most parties had one leader in the Lords, another in the Commons, and often lacked a clear indication of who was senior, who was leading THE PARTY.

Things were usually worked out informally, but I remember Edward VII saying of the then rather decrepit Earl Spencer that the poor fellow still harboured delusions that he (Ed) was going to ask him to become Prime Minister.

I certainly think that Edward VII also had a large role to play as a figurehead of British diplomacy, and by playing this role well won over doubters in both countries. George probably cannot do this, and any attempt to bring Britain into an alliance with France and Russia is going to be a lot more difficult

Not to mention that if an anarchist DOES succeed in offing Bertie, its going to give impetus to other terrorists to try again later and its not outside the bounds of possibility that George gets his bits blown off too

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
This could also have important repercussions for the constitutional crises of the first decade of the 20th century - would reactions to the People's Budget and attempts to destroy the power of the Lords through the Parliament Act differ if the heir to the throne had been assassinated? It could lead to a hardening of attitudes amongst the upper classes.

Edward was also obviously central to good relations with France, and strongly disliked the Kaiser - so the impact on foreign affairs would be interesting.
 
Top