Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

How likely is it that the United States will not intervene in other nations after 1946, what would be the consequences?
 
what happened to land under a peerage after its becomes forfeit? like say if an english earldom gets forfeited, does the king become the new earl in all but name, perhaps appointing somekind of steward? or do the barons/ hundreds underneath become the new highest level of direct authority?
 
Last edited:
what happened to land under a peerage after its becomes forfeit? like say if an english earldom gets forfeited, does the king become the new earl in all but name, perhaps appointing somekind of viceroy? or do the barons/ hundreds underneath become the new highest level of direct authority?
Usually, when a title goes extinct for whatever reason, the titles and land go back to the King. If he wants to, he can create a new Earldom and give the title to someone else...
 
what happened to land under a peerage after its becomes forfeit? like say if an english earldom gets forfeited, does the king become the new earl in all but name, perhaps appointing somekind of viceroy? or do the barons/ hundreds underneath become the new highest level of direct authority?
It depends what period of history you're considering.
For example, during Edward the Confessor of England's arguments with the Godwine family, he exiled them all at one point and one of the Godwinsons forfeited his earldom (East Anglia, iirc) - which was immediately given to someone else as the new earl (Ælfgar, son of Leofric of Mercia, iirc). The same sort of thing happened quite a few times over the following few centuries.
It just wasn't practical to have an earldom without an earl - as you've hinted at, this would have left a gap in the various levels of authority, particularly once feudalism was firmly established.
In later centuries when titles were given by letters patent and were less concerned with military matters (in other words, when becoming an earl or other noble didn't automatically bring with it the need to provide a set number of knights/etc for a number of days per year), then titles could be left vacant without having such a potential negative impact on the defence of the realm. So the monarch could afford to have a vacant earldom/dukedom/whatever - either from a line going extinct or if a title were forfeited.
Any title once created never really dies out though; as vandevere says above, any empty title reverts to the crown and is available any time in the future - if a new 'Earl of Thisplace' is created, it's a 're-creation' of the old earldom.
Some titles are vested permanently in the crown (such as the Duchies of Rothesay and Lancaster, for example).
The above is the system in the UK (and its constituent countries in earlier centuries) - it may well be different in other countries.
There's some information here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/earl-title
and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl#Changing_power_of_English_earls
 
It depends what period of history you're considering.
For example, during Edward the Confessor of England's arguments with the Godwine family, he exiled them all at one point and one of the Godwinsons forfeited his earldom (East Anglia, iirc) - which was immediately given to someone else as the new earl (Ælfgar, son of Leofric of Mercia, iirc). The same sort of thing happened quite a few times over the following few centuries.
It just wasn't practical to have an earldom without an earl - as you've hinted at, this would have left a gap in the various levels of authority, particularly once feudalism was firmly established.
In later centuries when titles were given by letters patent and were less concerned with military matters (in other words, when becoming an earl or other noble didn't automatically bring with it the need to provide a set number of knights/etc for a number of days per year), then titles could be left vacant without having such a potential negative impact on the defence of the realm. So the monarch could afford to have a vacant earldom/dukedom/whatever - either from a line going extinct or if a title were forfeited.
Any title once created never really dies out though; as vandevere says above, any empty title reverts to the crown and is available any time in the future - if a new 'Earl of Thisplace' is created, it's a 're-creation' of the old earldom.
Some titles are vested permanently in the crown (such as the Duchies of Rothesay and Lancaster, for example).
The above is the system in the UK (and its constituent countries in earlier centuries) - it may well be different in other countries.
There's some information here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/earl-title
and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl#Changing_power_of_English_earls
The title of the Duke of Rutland was on the verge of extinction in the early 20th century as it had one unmarried male heir who had two male living relatives, one I think was married without children and the other gay and old. IIRC what would have happened is that the title would have reverted to the crown, but the land would have been split between the primary female heirs, the entail being broken by the demise of the title
 
It depends what period of history you're considering.
For example, during Edward the Confessor of England's arguments with the Godwine family, he exiled them all at one point and one of the Godwinsons forfeited his earldom (East Anglia, iirc) - which was immediately given to someone else as the new earl (Ælfgar, son of Leofric of Mercia, iirc). The same sort of thing happened quite a few times over the following few centuries.
It just wasn't practical to have an earldom without an earl - as you've hinted at, this would have left a gap in the various levels of authority, particularly once feudalism was firmly established.
In later centuries when titles were given by letters patent and were less concerned with military matters (in other words, when becoming an earl or other noble didn't automatically bring with it the need to provide a set number of knights/etc for a number of days per year), then titles could be left vacant without having such a potential negative impact on the defence of the realm. So the monarch could afford to have a vacant earldom/dukedom/whatever - either from a line going extinct or if a title were forfeited.
Any title once created never really dies out though; as vandevere says above, any empty title reverts to the crown and is available any time in the future - if a new 'Earl of Thisplace' is created, it's a 're-creation' of the old earldom.
Some titles are vested permanently in the crown (such as the Duchies of Rothesay and Lancaster, for example).
The above is the system in the UK (and its constituent countries in earlier centuries) - it may well be different in other countries.
There's some information here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/earl-title
and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl#Changing_power_of_English_earls
late medieval england, was trying to figure out what fell under the kings demense. i think i understand now tho
 
Who would inhabit Estonia, Pannonia, Sapmi, Finland and Karelia if the Uralic peoples just, never existed ?
How about the Chukutko-Kamchatkan peoples, particularly Chukchis and Koryaks (although we need a scenario that would wank beyond their OTL occupation of reindeer herders.)
 
How about the Chukutko-Kamchatkan peoples, particularly Chukchis and Koryaks (although we need a scenario that would wank beyond their OTL occupation of reindeer herders.)
That's a hell of an interesting scenario, and I'll make a map about it rn, but I was more wondering like, realistically, what people might have been there instead
 
That's a hell of an interesting scenario, and I'll make a map about it rn, but I was more wondering like, realistically, what people might have been there instead
Although Chukutko-Kamchatkan (most specifically Chukchi-Koryak clans) tribes settling in Pannonia (and beyond) would be more complicated.
 
Last edited:
Hey,How Would be if Latins(Order of Saint Lazzarus) dominated Estonia and Latvia instead of Livonian/Teutonic Order
How this would change the Estonian Language
and How would Change the Names of/how would be the Lazzaranian Latin Names(Considering that The First Crusader Invasion was at Muhu Island,Knihu Island,Western Laanemaa and Eastern Saaremaa:
Saaremaa(Estonian)/Osel(OTL Teutonic Name)/Oselia(OTL Modern/Teutonic Infleunced Latin)
Hiumaa(Estonian)/Dago(Teutonic)
Parnu(Estonian)/Pernau(Teutonic
Tartu(Estonian)/Dopart(Teutonic)
Tallinn(Estonian)/Tallinna(Estonian and Finnish/Reval(Estonian, and Teutonic)/Lydanisse(Estonian and Dannish)
Liepaja(Latvian)/Libau(Teutonic)

Also Considering that They Form a Kingdom(Latin Kingdom of Aestia) like in Jerusalem,how would be the Flag,how would be the Latin Elite unitil today days,how would be the flag of the Latin Baltics/Latin Estones,how this would change the History of Estonian,Seto,Voro,Tartu,Mulgi,Livonian and Kreevin Votes Languages,and of the Latvian Ones,and this would allow a Monarchy in Estonia?,also how would this Change the History of some People like Kreusestern,Bellisguasen,\Lydia Koidula and her Family,also how would be the flag of the Medieval Era Military Order/Crusade Kingdom and how this would Make Influence at least the Population and Both Estonian and Latvian CoA
They’d be as influential as the Germans. Assuming that the Soviets still exist, they’d likely die off depending on the way the world goes.
 
late medieval england, was trying to figure out what fell under the kings demense. i think i understand now tho
Look at hat happened to Warwick after his rebellion against Edward IV - he had no male heir, so the title reverted to the crown (but see below), whilst the lands and assets were split between his two daughters, both of whom were married to Edward IV's brothers - one the Duke of Clarence, one the Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III). The title Earl of Warwick was recreated for Clarence's son (the Warwick who would later rebel, or be rebelled, against Henry VII)

Do also note that if an earl or duke dies leaving only a child heir, that child can become a ward of the crown who can essentially decide who to marry them off to - hence when the last Mowbray Duke of Norfolk died, Edward IV decided to marry his child heir Anne to his own son, Richard, Duke of York, thus bringing the Mowbray lands and money to his son (but not the title, which reverted to the crown)
 
Last edited:
What was the most significant anti-monarch/republican movement in the Russian empire between 1848-1875? What factors would increase its significance?
 
Top