List your most promising alternate monarchs

Well another English one; Henry IX
Eldest son of Henry VIII and Catherine, he died after a month, what if he'd survived
 
That's refreshing. Most Spain-dominates-Earth timelines (stuff like Pavane) tend to assume that it's going to produce some backwards planet with innovation suppressed by the Catholic Church :rolleyes: - quite implausibly, in my view.

That's because the rol of the Spanish Inquisition is greatly overpowered in English-speaking media. Actually, the first guy who seriously claimed that the human heart was a simple bomb for the blood and not the residence of human soul was a Spaniard, Miguel Servet, who was burn as heretic by Calvinist protestants in Switherland. Other thing that people use to forget is that the Spanish Inquisition also regarded witchcraft as a simple superstition of ignorant people, or an evidence of mental illness at most, while the Germans, French and English were burning thousands of women in the sme epoch. This practice didn't spread to Spain or other countries when France or Britain replaced it as dominant power on Europe, by the way...

In short words, the real owner of the Spanish politics was the own Spanish Monarchy, not the Vatican, and the Spanish Inquisition was just another puppet of the Crown destined to hunt the opponents of its political system. Just remember that the own introductors of the Inquisition in all Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, were in fact excomuniated in their youth because they used a false papal bull in order to get married. This doesn't change anything in their acttitude and ultimately they became the "Catholic Monarchs" and champions of Christ... very ironic. Their grandson Charles, who is regarded also as a fanatical Catholic, had not any problem to sack Rome in 1527 and chase the Pope Clemens VII for political reasons. Even his son, Philip II (who was called "Demon of the South" by the English) never tried or even though to introduce the Inquisition in the only of his dominions that had protestant population, Flanders.

Actually, when Spain refused more to introduce modern innovations was during the 19th century, when the country was in the peak of its decadence. And the middle of the 19th century was, actually, one of the periods of History in wich Spain had worse relations with the Church.
 

Thande

Donor
That's because the rol of the Spanish Inquisition is greatly overpowered in English-speaking media. Actually, the first guy who seriously claimed that the human heart was a simple bomb for the blood and not the residence of human soul was a Spaniard, Miguel Servet, who was burn as heretic by Calvinist protestants in Switherland. Other thing that people use to forget is that the Spanish Inquisition also regarded witchcraft as a simple superstition of ignorant people, or an evidence of mental illness at most, while the Germans, French and English were burning thousands of women in the sme epoch. This practice didn't spread to Spain or other countries when France or Britain replaced it as dominant power on Europe, by the way...

In short words, the real owner of the Spanish politics was the own Spanish Monarchy, not the Vatican, and the Spanish Inquisition was just another puppet of the Crown destined to hunt the opponents of its political system. Just remember that the own introductors of the Inquisition in all Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, were in fact excomuniated in their youth because they used a false papal bull in order to get married. This doesn't change anything in their acttitude and ultimately they became the "Catholic Monarchs" and champions of Christ... very ironic. Their grandson Charles, who is regarded also as a fanatical Catholic, had not any problem to sack Rome in 1527 and chase the Pope Clemens VII for political reasons. Even his son, Philip II (who was called "Demon of the South" by the English) never tried or even though to introduce the Inquisition in the only of his dominions that had protestant population, Flanders.

Actually, when Spain refused more to introduce modern innovations was during the 19th century, when the country was in the peak of its decadence. And the middle of the 19th century was, actually, one of the periods of History in wich Spain had worse relations with the Church.
You're preaching to the converted, mate ;) (re the Spanish Inquisition being turned into a bogeyman by the Anglophone world)
 
Word of explanation: History is full of potential kings or queens who died before their accession and so the crown went to a younger sibling. What in your opinion are the most interesting ones to survive and do AHs about?

Here are some for England/Britain:

- William Adelin (son of Henry I, would have been William III) - killed in White Ship disaster - as see in Oth's timeline. OTL King superseded: Stephen
Thanks for the mention. You'll find a few in Norman Sicilly that might intrest you as well.
 
I wonder how would have ended Japan if Totoyomi Ideyoshi started his own shogunal line, instead of his familly dying with him....
 
George VII because it's a traditional British monarch's name, emphasises continuity (as you said, his grandfather was so called).

I'm not sure if the Victoria thing you quoted is accurate - I thought Victoria insisted that no future kings be called Albert, in memory of Prince Albert.

Don't have the book handy at the moment but I recall vaguely that the Edward/Albert business came from Robert Massie's work Dreadnought.

As for Charles, his full name is 'Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor'. The choice of George is also because 'Charles III' carries unfortunate connotations - Charles I was executed, and also the Jacobites regard Bonnie Prince Charlie as Charles III so it could cause iffiness. This is reportedly what Charles has said himself - he wants to be crowned as George VII.

However, I think it's quite likely that the public will insist he be Charles III just because that's what they've always known him as.

That iffiness, as you put it, kind of limits his options: I can't see him using Philip since it calls to mind the Spanish monarch that sent the Armada, and Arthur is too intimately associated with the legend. Unless I'm way wrong, wouldn't it be a very tiny minority of Scots nationalists/unreconstructed Jacobites that would balk at Charles III? On the other hand, what sort of outcry would there be if he went with George VII instead of Charles III?
 

Thande

Donor
That iffiness, as you put it, kind of limits his options: I can't see him using Philip since it calls to mind the Spanish monarch that sent the Armada, and Arthur is too intimately associated with the legend. Unless I'm way wrong, wouldn't it be a very tiny minority of Scots nationalists/unreconstructed Jacobites that would balk at Charles III? On the other hand, what sort of outcry would there be if he went with George VII instead of Charles III?
You'd be surprised at the Jacobite sympathies in Scotland. It's not like they'd actually go and depose the current monarchy or something, but you get things like Scots spray-painting out the 'II' in 'Elizabeth II' on post boxes etc. because she's not THEIR second queen called Elizabeth...

Fortunately the royal family is sensitive to these things and, bizarrely, the current line (ever since George IV) has been fascinated by the romanticism of the Jacobite legend and basically started promoting it once they were sure that there weren't any serious pretenders left.

For instance, in Holyroodhouse (one of the royal residences in Edinburgh open to the public), there are portraits of the Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie alongside those of the Hanoverian monarchs, and they are labelled 'James VIII and III' and 'Charles III'. So you can see why Charles might want to avoid that (he's nuts about Scotland himself), and there's also the unfortunate association with Charles I.

However, if there is any objection to 'George VII' I think it will just come from English people who refuse to call him by any time other than the one they've always known him by. On the other hand, George VI was often referred to by the public as Bertie (his real name being Albert).
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Emperor Yuan Shi Kai of the Zhao Dynasty. The real last Emperor of China, haha.

No he wasn't. The Hsuan-tung Emperor (Aisin Gioro Pu Yi) was briefly restored to the throne in July 1917. Yuan Shi Kai died in June 1916.

And as for Prince Charles, Thande is right on the money. There is probably little chance of him becoming Charles III - there are just too many negative connotations with that name for it to be used - the 1st one was executed, the 2nd one was a womaniser and playboy. And he is very aware of Scottish feelings on the issue. So, George VII is most likely, especially as it is known he has a lot of respect for his late grandfather, George VI.

Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose
 
Last edited:
You'd be surprised at the Jacobite sympathies in Scotland. It's not like they'd actually go and depose the current monarchy or something, but you get things like Scots spray-painting out the 'II' in 'Elizabeth II' on post boxes etc. because she's not THEIR second queen called Elizabeth...

Fortunately the royal family is sensitive to these things and, bizarrely, the current line (ever since George IV) has been fascinated by the romanticism of the Jacobite legend and basically started promoting it once they were sure that there weren't any serious pretenders left.

For instance, in Holyroodhouse (one of the royal residences in Edinburgh open to the public), there are portraits of the Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie alongside those of the Hanoverian monarchs, and they are labelled 'James VIII and III' and 'Charles III'. So you can see why Charles might want to avoid that (he's nuts about Scotland himself), and there's also the unfortunate association with Charles I.

However, if there is any objection to 'George VII' I think it will just come from English people who refuse to call him by any time other than the one they've always known him by. On the other hand, George VI was often referred to by the public as Bertie (his real name being Albert).

This is fascinating. So he has no options other than Charles or George, in effect, given other potential associations? Obviously John is out and has been for nearly 800 years; William, Henry, and Richard are also not open as possibilities (can't imagine the latter; there hasn't been one for--what?--about 550 years)?
 

Thande

Donor
This is fascinating. So he has no options other than Charles or George, in effect, given other potential associations? Obviously John is out and has been for nearly 800 years; William, Henry, and Richard are also not open as possibilities (can't imagine the latter; there hasn't been one for--what?--about 550 years)?
Yeah, as far as I know, he has to go with ONE of his given names.

Despite everything, as I say, he may end up being Charles III just because the English public demand it (everyone knows him as Prince Charles). It's a toss up though really, we won't know until Her Majesty kicks the bucket...
 
Other thing that people use to forget is that the Spanish Inquisition also regarded witchcraft as a simple superstition of ignorant people, or an evidence of mental illness at most, while the Germans, French and English were burning thousands of women in the sme epoch. This practice didn't spread to Spain or other countries when France or Britain replaced it as dominant power on Europe, by the way...

You're absolutely right, Tocomocho, although I would like to add a few minor details about the witchhunts in Europe.

There indeed were many thousands of witches burnt in France and especially Germany, although there was actually no burning of witches in England. As I remember, there were only a few hundreds (or possibly even less) women in England put to death for witchcraft - and even those weren't actually burnt - they were simply hung instead.

Of the British Isles, it was actually Scotland that had the worst witchhunts.
The sheer brutality, cruelty and paranoia of the witchhunts in Scotland rivaled that of those in France and Germany.

There was only one witch-hunt on the entire Iberian Peninsula, and that one was in Basque Country.
And that was solely the work of a French judge, who was, I believe, evicted by the Spanish Inquisition...

And you're again right that the practice of witch-hunting did not spread into Europe outside France, England and Scotland. And contrary to popular belief, the practice of witch-hunting wasn't a solely Catholic practice either, as many Protestants in Germany and Scotland
(as well as in America -> the Salem witch-hunts...) started witch-hunts as well.

The Roman Catholic Church preached during most of history that belief in witchcraft and magic were vain and primitive superstitions, without really paying much attention to it. There may be a few exeptions on that one, but none had a lasting effect on the Church's policy.

By the way, it is also worth mentioning that there never were any witch-hunts in Orthodox communities, even though there was as much superstition there among the common people as there was in the Catholic and Protestant parts of Europe...
 

Thande

Donor
There indeed were many thousands of witches burnt in France and especially Germany, although there was actually no burning of witches in England. As I remember, there were only a few hundreds (or possibly even less) women in England put to death for witchcraft - and even those weren't actually burnt - they were simply hung instead.
I seem to recall seeing (possibly on QI) that precisely two women were burned as witches in England throughout the whole of recorded history...about seventy more were, as you say, hanged. Just seventy-two.
 
Now you're propably right there, as my memory on the matter was a bit vague on the part of witch-hunts in England.

Anyway, it does prove that witch-hunts were never a really big thing in England - with the notable exception that England had the last witch-trial in all of Europe, somewhere in the '40's, I believe...

...and this case also happened to be the reason why these archaic laws were officially abolished soon afterwards.
 
Top