George V dies in 1892

[Tyler96]

So, apparently at the same time his brother Albert Victor was dying, the future George V was recovering from a bout of typhoid.

What happens if they both died? There'd obviously be major emotional trauma for the royal family to lose them both in quick succession, but what are the political effects?

The new 'heir's heir' is their eldest sister Louise, who is already married to the Duke of Fife, what does her reign look like?

 

[Lalli]

Probably not very different from George V. Monarch hasn't anymore much power. Some details might be different but big things will be same as in OTL. Another thing is would queen Louise I be willingful give asylum for last imperial family of Russia.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

it is very probable that the great constitutional crisis of Louise's reign would be the same as George V's: abolition of the House of Lords veto.

OTL it was triggered when the Lords refused to pass the "People's Budget" in 1909. The Lords eventually accepted the "People's Budget", but the dispute brought on demands for the abolition of their veto. The Irish Nationalists wanted this to get Home Rule through, and as the Liberals were dependent on the Irish for their majority, they went for it in 1911.

It passed the Lords only after the newly-enthroned George V agreed to create as many new peers as the Liberals needed to vote it through. (At this point enough of the opposed peers abstained by staying home to let the bill pass.)

Barring some strange knock-on from a butterfly, the crisis should come at about the same time, with Louise coming to the throne. Louise being a woman, one might think she would be at least as compliant as George was OTL; but that is only an asssumption. Her husband, the Duke of Fife, had been a Liberal MP before succeeding as Earl (the dukedom was created when he married Louise). I can't find anything about his stance in the OTL crisis, or even whether he attended the House. (As a royal consort, it might be considered improper for him to be a political partisan.)

So it doesn't seem like there would be a difference, but it would be possible.

 

[Llamastrangler]

Thing is, this is one of those PODs where, on paper, you can’t point to any obvious major differences. But of course the thousand little differences would make for some massive but random butterflies.

 

[VVD0D95]

it is very probable that the great constitutional crisis of Louise's reign would be the same as George V's: abolition of the House of Lords veto.

OTL it was triggered when the Lords refused to pass the "People's Budget" in 1909. The Lords eventually accepted the "People's Budget", but the dispute brought on demands for the abolition of their veto. The Irish Nationalists wanted this to get Home Rule through, and as the Liberals were dependent on the Irish for their majority, they went for it in 1911.

It passed the Lords only after the newly-enthroned George V agreed to create as many new peers as the Liberals needed to vote it through. (At this point enough of the opposed peers abstained by staying home to let the bill pass.)

Barring some strange knock-on from a butterfly, the crisis should come at about the same time, with Louise coming to the throne. Louise being a woman, one might think she would be at least as compliant as George was OTL; but that is only an asssumption. Her husband, the Duke of Fife, had been a Liberal MP before succeeding as Earl (the dukedom was created when he married Louise). I can't find anything about his stance in the OTL crisis, or even whether he attended the House. (As a royal consort,it might be considered improper for him to be a political partisan.)

So it doesn't seem like there would be a difference, but it would be possible.

When did people start thinking it improper for a royal duke to exert their rights as a citizen of Britain? I know some mp had the gall to tell Edward VII when he was prince of Wales thay he couldn’t vote in the lords

 

[mcdnab]

One change is for Louise's daughter - Alexandra (who will in this tl succeed her mother) - Alexandra became attached to her first cousin once removed Prince Christopher of Greece and Denmark in around 1910 - the parents didn't approve and the engagement was scotched - they might not disapprove in a scenario where Alexandra was going to succeed her mother - though the closeness of their relationship would have probably caused some concern (Christopher was first cousin to Alexandra's mother Louise - being a grandson of Christian IX and nephew to Queen Alexandra) - King George of Greece and Queen Olga might overlook that to see their son Britain's future Prince Consort.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

One change is for Louise's daughter - Alexandra (who will in this tl succeed her mother) - Alexandra became attached to her first cousin once removed Prince Christopher of Greece and Denmark in around 1910 - the parents didn't approve and the engagement was scotched - they might not disapprove in a scenario where Alexandra was going to succeed her mother - though the closeness of their relationship would have probably caused some concern (Christopher was first cousin to Alexandra's mother Louise - being a grandson of Christian IX and nephew to Queen Alexandra) - King George of Greece and Queen Olga might overlook that to see their son Britain's future Prince Consort.

According to Chris' memoirs there was a whole story about WHY that engagement didn't go through. Louise's sister, Toria, wangled an engagement to the Fifes for Kit. But the duke only agreed IF Kit wouldn't propose to Alexandra. Toria left out that niggly little detail, and Kit and Alex came back to her parents all excited about the engagement and the duke was, understandably furious, accused Kit of breaking his word (some nasty words were exchanged IIRC, don't have the source to hand right now) and Kit told to go upstairs and pack his bags.

If only Toria had just mentioned that little detail. She probably didn't think it was NB or perhaps she just forgot to mention it... things could be very different

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

When did people start thinking it improper for a royal duke to exert their rights as a citizen of Britain? I know some mp had the gall to tell Edward VII when he was prince of Wales thay he couldn’t vote in the lords

The royal family enjoy great prestige and perquisites, which to be blunt they did not earn. They retain it out of general respect for the monarchy as a non-partisan institution. Any royal taking a side in politics automatically invokes the unearned prestige of the Crown for that side (even if he doesn't intend to). That makes it an abuse of the Royal status, i.e. improper.

That principle was established during Victoria's long reign-without-ruling.

 

[VVD0D95]

The royal family enjoy great prestige and perquisites, which to be blunt they did not earn. They retain it out of general respect for the monarchy as a non-partisan institution. Any royal taking a side in politics automatically invokes the unearned prestige of the Crown for that side (even if he doesn't intend to). That makes it an abuse of the Royal status, i.e. improper.

That principle was established during Victoria's long reign-without-ruling.

Their service in the armed forces, their service to this country through charitable arms and aims, their work for the country suggest they have earned this prestige. And interesting, so because of that they’re denied what everyone else considers a fundamental human right. How very hypocritical of democracy

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Their service in the armed forces, their service to this country through charitable arms and aims, their work for the country suggest they have earned this prestige. And interesting, so because of that they’re denied what everyone else considers a fundamental human right. How very hypocritical of democracy

Millions of Britons have served in the British armed forces, but they don't get to live in palaces. The only recent royal whose service was even moderately significant was Louis Mountbatten. The last royal who would be considered an outstanding military commander was

The royals do advocate for charities and preside over fundraising. Which they do because they are royals, not the other way around.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

royals do advocate for charities and preside over fundraising. Which they do because they are royals, not the other way around.

Maybe in the modern mindset, but one princess (think it was Adélaïde de Savoie, duchesse de Bourgogne), wrote: "we are obliged to help these wretched objects of misery. Not because we are more fortunate (royal vs peasant) than them, but because we are ABLE (i.e. have the means) to do so".

Nowadays, the fortunate and the able seem to have a tendency to do so. Hell, in the First World War Empresses Alexandra (one of her more shining moments IMO) and Zita would work in the hospitals as common nurses, King Albert I of Belgium (and several of the kaiser's sons - including his eldest) fought as soldiers in the war (Albert and his son Léopold I know were in the trenches).

Empress Sisi's brother was an opthalmologist and helped make Bavaria the leader in eye surgery in the 19th century; Louis Philippe's son/grandson(s) fought in the Civil War (as did Napoléon's nephew, Jerome Bonaparte-Patterson). Did they live in a palace, rent free? Sure. But Christian IX's family's early lodgings were hardly bigger than a normal bourgeois town house, for instance. (And then you should add some churches' ministers to the list since the vicar's mance works (or used to) on the same principle - free food and lodging, in exchange for work once a week).

And even the rent free part isn't right. The royal family apparently pays for water, gas and power like the rest of the rabble. George V ordered Maria Feodorovna to turn lights off when she wasn't in a room when she was staying in whichever palace it was in London because the power bill was too high. In an act of spite/flicking him the bird, she sent the footmen through the palace to turn on every conceivable light that "the palace was lit from basement to casement" and then turned to the messenger and said "Tell the king that as long as I stay here, he shall be obliged to foot the bill" (or some such).

 

[VVD0D95]

Millions of Britons have served in the British armed forces, but they don't get to live in palaces. The only recent royal whose service was even moderately significant was Louis Mountbatten. The last royal who would be considered an outstanding military commander was

The royals do advocate for charities and preside over fundraising. Which they do because they are royals, not the other way around.

Prince harry 2005-2015, tours of Afghanistan, front line service. Prince William, search and rescue pilot frontline, prince Andrew falklands war, business development for the army. Prince Edward, duke of Kent active service during the troubles and in Cyprus.

Really? Heads together, the mental health charity started because of the fat William and Harry felt not enough was being done for mental health, Invictus Games, started by prince harry to give service personnel a feeling of purpose outside the force. Princes trust, which has helped young people and business for over forty years.

 

[QueenMaud]

Louise was a pretty shy woman, a contemporary said it was very difficult to have a conversation with her because she was a really reserved woman. Anyway Louise as Queen we can work with 2 scenarios.
Her husband the Duke of Fife died in 1912 OTL - If with Louise Queen he died at the same time she would have reigned with a consort for only two years, certainly in the same style that George V did, with the duke's death she would surely follow the and he would stay away from the court and would do what was most necessary, while Alexandra would certainly be the one to play more roles in the royal family, followed by Maud.
If the duke survived until the 1920s or 1930s we might have a more active and participative Queen, since her husband might have worked as an incentive for the Queen, Alexander was rather interesting, I believe.
Some questions that I imagined =
during the first world war would the royal family have assumed the surname macduff / fife or would it remain Windsor?
Had your daughter maud inherited the Duchy of Fife?
Louise being heiress in 1892, with only one daughter (Alexandra) would have assisted in a possible marriage to Toria, since she would be 4 in the line of succession?
Some sources have already stated that May of Teck did not authorize the Russian imperial family to gain exile in England, in a scenario that May is not the Queen consort, and Louise and Queen would have a chance of the Russian royal family exile in London after the revolution?

 

[Tyler96]

during the first world war would the royal family have assumed the surname macduff / fife or would it remain Windsor?

It's not an issue of whether it would 'remain' Windsor- they only adopted that in WWI IOTL. The question is whether they still change from de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, or just assume Macduff/Fife.

As to whether they would- the current royals have been declared part of the House of Windsor, rather than being Mountbattens (or Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburgs) as descendants of Philip. But here things are taking place several decades earlier with different dynamics and expectations regarding men passing on their surnames (and Philip was unsatisfied at what happened IOTL IIRC), so...

 

[Jonathan]

A big difference in this time line is going to be, Princess Victoria, born in 6 July 1868, who IOTL remained unmarried, but with three of her brothers dead, the royal family will need to continue the royal family. She could marry Adolphus Cambridge, 1st Marquess of Cambridge, whose older sister, Mary Teck has lost both her fiancees

 

[QueenMaud]

Coincidence or was not exactly the suitor I thought hahaha. But Adolphus courted Victoria OTL but she refused him (I just do not know why, he was so handsome).
May lost her fiancé, and she was 25 years old, would it be interesting for her to become Paul Alexandrovich's second wife?

 

[wwbgdiaslt]

It's not an issue of whether it would 'remain' Windsor- they only adopted that in WWI IOTL. The question is whether they still change from de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, or just assume Macduff/Fife.

I read an article or saw a documentary in which the alternatives to Windsor were revealed - they reportedly considered Plantagenet, Hastings and Guelph.

The fictional royal family in The Royals seen to take the name of their House, the House of Henstridge, from their founder, Queen Matildas, husband (the most recent IRL monarch referenced in the show is Victoria iirc) and the number of monarchs of the House would suggest a similar divergence point to the one you're suggesting (Edward VII and George IV predeceased Victoria meaning Maud/Matilda takes the throne).

 

[catalfalque]

I would thiink there would be some emotional trauma to Edward VII (to be) having lost both his sons. This might have knock-ons in his private life, in disreputable fashion, or even in depression and NOT being the dynamic old man who rewrote European relations

 

[QueenMaud]

Eduardo was against the marriage of his sister luisa to a duke, and used to prefer royal-royal marriages he would certainly not be very pleased with a non-royal duke becoming the consort of Louise (daughter) even being his friend

 

[isabella]

The surname of the new royal family would be naturally MacDuff and we would see many differences with OTL in the titles of the royal family as George V was responsable of many of the changes in the titles of the royal family (the Windsor surname, the restrictions on the HRH, the stripping of the German titles for the English princes or of the english dukedoms for the german cousins)... Louise's husband will live longer than OTL as his death at the end of January 1912 was almost surely a direct consequence of the shipwreck of the previous December in which he will never be involved here. Louise will stay as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Alexandra will be Duff and then will depend on her husband (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg if she marry Christopher, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha again if she marry her OTL husband Arthur of Connaught). Fife, Connaught/Christopher's Royal Dukedom (if he will have one) will likely become the new surname of the Royal family

Eduardo was against the marriage of his sister luisa to a duke, and used to prefer royal-royal marriages he would certainly not be very pleased with a non-royal duke becoming the consort of Louise (daughter) even being his friend

Louise was already married to Fife before her brothers' death so that will not change anything...
If her younger sister Victoria will marry Adolphus she will marry HSH the Prince Adolphus of Teck, heir of the Duke of Teck (morganatic branch of the house of Württemberg but still on the same level of mediatized houses so perfectly acceptable as consorts for royalty).

May of Teck will cry for her fiancè and his brother and then search another husband (maybe Ernest Louis of Hesse will be interested in marrying her instead of Victoria Melita if the latter and Kirill will be more determined and do not let their relatives stopping their desire to marry? Or May as second wife of Paul Alexandrovich also would be interesting)