In Lost Monkeys I had him fall victim to a car accident, by all accounts he was driving like crazy but if e survived his mad driving he could well live into his 80s if his brothers and sisters are any indication. Which means Easily 1970 or so.
Natural death dates of unnaturally deceased figures
- Thread starter Domz
- Start date
One obvious answer is Albert, The Prince Consort. The effects on Queen Victoria and British politics would be dramatic.
His death at 42 was remarkable, his father died at 60, his brother 75, his uncle Leopold at 74, his son Edward VII at 68. The male Saxe-Coburg line was generally longer lived. Despite being a somewhat dissolute bunch. (Although his mother died at 30)
His death at 42 was remarkable, his father died at 60, his brother 75, his uncle Leopold at 74, his son Edward VII at 68. The male Saxe-Coburg line was generally longer lived. Despite being a somewhat dissolute bunch. (Although his mother died at 30)
Another Greek king would be Goerge I survivivng his assassination attempt in 1913. He could had pretty easily live yet 10 years perhaps even 15. This would has intresting affect to WW1.
In Cinco de Mayo, Lincoln lives to be 85, which is probably one of the details that takes the most "creative license" in an otherwise grounded TL. Turtledove has him dying before the age of 75 in TL-191, which seems reasonable.
Whether it was Marfan Syndrome or another, rarer cancer causing disorder, he likely had some sort of developmental/glandular issues that would've impeded his health. If he wasn't assassinated, I wouldn't expect Lincoln to live past the 1870s.
Living 85 years seems really stretched speciality for someone who lived with 19th century medical level. And only few president before WW2 has lived even at age of 80. So lesser than 75 seems indeed pretty reasonable and plausible even if Loncoln wouldn't had any health issues. That stress about the Civil War and personal tragedies would still take someyears from Lincoln.
It would be pretty intresting. Even if he would survive his first temr would change things intrestingly.
I mean, I have no way to prove that Lincoln wouldn’t’ve lived to 85, Robert Todd died at 82, but yes it seemed like a stretch, albeit done so for narrative reasons I can accept.
Edward VI of England, Henry's much-desired son. He became king of England at age 9, but was an extremely sickly child, and died in 1553 at age 15. It's kind of ironic that, for all Henry's efforts to sire a son, his most celebrated successor was his neglected daughter Elizabeth. Had Edward recovered from his ailments, reached maturity, and come to rule in his own right, all of English history would look very different.
First of all (aside from Mary and Liz never coming to power), if Edward married and sired heirs of his own, then the Tudors would reign for more than another generation. James would not be invited to take the English throne; and the English succession would continue through normal male primogeniture. However, England and Scotland might still be united -- Edward was betrothed to the future Mary, Queen of Scots. So...Mary, Queen of Scots's son might still become King of England and Scotland, but he would not have been the King James of our timeline. And of course, since Liz never takes power, Mary, Queen of Scots will never claim the English throne, plot to assassinate Liz, or be imprisoned and executed by Liz.
Secondly -- Edward was raised a Protestant, like Liz and unlike Mary; and it was under Edward that the Church of England formally separated from the Papacy and became a Protestant church. Since he was a chronically-ill child, Edward probably personally didn't play a huge role in the English Reformation, but his reign would see a lot more Protestant trends in theology, like iconoclasm, denial of Purgatory, and denial of the intercession of saints. Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury (and author of the first English Book of Common Prayer), was responsible for Edward's education; and Cranmer was heavily influenced by Martin Luther and especially Hyuldrich Zwingli. So it's likely that Anglicanism would have been more Zwinglian than IOTL. Also, perhaps ironic for someone who was so against the veneration of saints -- the Church of England today honours Cranmer as a martyr, as he was executed for heresy by Queen Mary. So if his protégé Edward ruled instead of Mary, that wouldn't have happened.
I don't know how this marriage between a very Protestant Edward and the very Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots would work. Certainly, the Pope would permit -- even insist -- on an annulment; and Edward would probably have the power to divorce or annul the marriage according to his own Church. However, although Mary was a Catholic, Scotland had a Reformation of its own, and Mary was fairly pragmatic. If she divorced Edward and championed Catholicism, there'd be a civil war in Scotland, and the Scottish Protestants would have the support of England. She might find herself exiled and disgraced, just like IOTL. IOTL she did stick with Catholicism -- but she was the wife of the King of France; and she did march against England (with the support of English Catholics), but in this timeline she'd be England's co-ruler or at least its queen-consort by going along with the Reformation. The motivations are completely different; and to me, Mary, Queen of Scots doesn't seem like she'd be a Catholic out of humble piety. I think she'd participate in the Reformation, and use it to her political advantage. And in the meantime, she and Edward would sire children, and the next monarch of united England and Scotland would be a Protestant of the Tudor line. Maybe they'd still name him James. King James VI and I, of the House of Tudor.
First of all (aside from Mary and Liz never coming to power), if Edward married and sired heirs of his own, then the Tudors would reign for more than another generation. James would not be invited to take the English throne; and the English succession would continue through normal male primogeniture. However, England and Scotland might still be united -- Edward was betrothed to the future Mary, Queen of Scots. So...Mary, Queen of Scots's son might still become King of England and Scotland, but he would not have been the King James of our timeline. And of course, since Liz never takes power, Mary, Queen of Scots will never claim the English throne, plot to assassinate Liz, or be imprisoned and executed by Liz.
Secondly -- Edward was raised a Protestant, like Liz and unlike Mary; and it was under Edward that the Church of England formally separated from the Papacy and became a Protestant church. Since he was a chronically-ill child, Edward probably personally didn't play a huge role in the English Reformation, but his reign would see a lot more Protestant trends in theology, like iconoclasm, denial of Purgatory, and denial of the intercession of saints. Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury (and author of the first English Book of Common Prayer), was responsible for Edward's education; and Cranmer was heavily influenced by Martin Luther and especially Hyuldrich Zwingli. So it's likely that Anglicanism would have been more Zwinglian than IOTL. Also, perhaps ironic for someone who was so against the veneration of saints -- the Church of England today honours Cranmer as a martyr, as he was executed for heresy by Queen Mary. So if his protégé Edward ruled instead of Mary, that wouldn't have happened.
I don't know how this marriage between a very Protestant Edward and the very Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots would work. Certainly, the Pope would permit -- even insist -- on an annulment; and Edward would probably have the power to divorce or annul the marriage according to his own Church. However, although Mary was a Catholic, Scotland had a Reformation of its own, and Mary was fairly pragmatic. If she divorced Edward and championed Catholicism, there'd be a civil war in Scotland, and the Scottish Protestants would have the support of England. She might find herself exiled and disgraced, just like IOTL. IOTL she did stick with Catholicism -- but she was the wife of the King of France; and she did march against England (with the support of English Catholics), but in this timeline she'd be England's co-ruler or at least its queen-consort by going along with the Reformation. The motivations are completely different; and to me, Mary, Queen of Scots doesn't seem like she'd be a Catholic out of humble piety. I think she'd participate in the Reformation, and use it to her political advantage. And in the meantime, she and Edward would sire children, and the next monarch of united England and Scotland would be a Protestant of the Tudor line. Maybe they'd still name him James. King James VI and I, of the House of Tudor.
Edward V was NOT betrothed to Mary of Scotland (who was engaged to the Dauphin and lived in France since well before Edward’s death), but to Elisabeth of France (the OTL third wife of Philip II of Spain), the eldest daughter of Henry II and both Edward and Henry were quite determined in seeing the match going ahead, despite the strong opposition of the Pope. Edward living and marrying Elisabeth would take her away from any Spanish match, meaning who Philip II would remarry to Maria of Viseu (instead of Mary Tudor) and would likely have more children earlier
Yeah, I looked it up, and it turns out I was completely wrong. Thanks you for setting me straight.
Henry VIII wanted Edward and Mary Stuart to be betrothed, and for their marriage to unite the crowns. The plan was negotiated at the Treaty of Greenwich (1543), which stated that Scotland's child-queen would be promised to Edward, and that she would be educated at the English court. Meanwhile, the Earl of Arran (Scotland's regent at the time) would have his son betrothed to Princess Elizabeth (that is, Queen Elizabeth IOTL).
But even though Regent Arran signed the Treaty, the Scottish Parliament ultimately rejected it, and reaffirmed the Auld Alliance by promising Mary of Scotland to the future King Francis II of France. Henry was outraged that Scotland broke its treaty, and invaded Scotland to force the marriage alliance, in a nine-year-long war known as the "Rough Wooing." The Rough Wooing was fought from 1542-1551; Henry died and was succeeded by Edward in 1547, so this massive war against Scotland and its French allies dominated most of Edward's brief kingship (he died in 1553).
So...yeah. I was totally wrong. I didn't see anything saying that Edward was betrothed to Elisabeth of France. Certainly, Henry never made such a betrothal, since as he saw it he'd Edward was already betrothed to Mary, Queen of Scots. Maybe Edward was promised to Elisabeth of France by Parliament or by the Regency, after the war had ended? Maybe that was part of the peace terms. If marriage to a French Catholic princess was imposed on a humiliated England as part of the terms of their defeat, I'm sure she would not be very popular in England. And additionally, not only has France affirmed its alliance with Scotland, but made an alliance with England. All of Britain would be seen as being under the French, Papist sphere of influence. I foresee more upheavals in both England and Scotland.
Brigadier General of volunteers during the War (the youngest in the Army, IIRC); reverted to his Regular Army rank at the end of the war. So not "demoted".
Maybe not formally but I find it really difficult to believe that wouldn't be how she would be seen if she had lived.
The Art of Diplomacy: Elisabeth de Valois and Edward VI
In July 1551 the French Maréchal St. André visited the English court, ostensibly to bestow the prestigious Order of St. Michael on Edward VI, but also for negotiations about a marriage between the …
allthingsrobertdudley.wordpress.com
Tudor Times
Fact 7: Edward was engaged to marry Elizabeth of Valois, the eldest daughter of King Henry II of France
tudortimes.co.uk
Last edited:
For a more modern POD, what about Mao Anying had he not died in Korea? Both his father and brother coincidentally died at the age of 83, so he could have easily made it to his 80th birthday.
Not sure if it would make any actual change if then he is not very ambitious guy and CHinese system allow son succeed his father on the office.
Had John VI of Portugal not been poisoned at the age of 58, he could've reached the late sixties or even the seventies, if his parents' lifespans (81 years for his mother and 68 for his father) are any indication. Assuming lives until, say, 1835 (an extra nine years), Portugal could've avoided the Liberal Wars, since Maria II would be 16 years old by the time of his death and Dom Miguel wouldn't be in as strong a position to launch his coup.
My TL has a surviving Anying rise through the ranks of the PLA and get into the Chinese Politburo. I honestly don’t see Anying accomplishing much of anything above that, though. Especially once the Cultural Revolution is concluded.
I help my case on that one by having him be essentially an irrelevant background character haha though yes, I’d agree that IRL a surviving Abe would be lucky to make it to 1880