Nomenclature for a male "Queen Victoria"

PoD: The first and only child of Duke Edward of Kent and wife Victoria is a son, born on May 24th, 1819. The Prince regent denies the use of the name George, so the little boy (fifth in the line of succession) receives the names Alexander Victor. Tsar Alexander of Russia is his godfather.

a) am I correct that Alexander will never be Prince of Wales unless in TTL Edward lives longer than William IV: and becomes king before his son?

b) as I understand it, one uses the highest minor title of a peer as courtesy title for his eldest son. But if Edward dies as in OTL, young Alexander will inherit the Dukedom of Kent and Strathearn in 1820. If Edward lives longer, then until his (Edwards) death Alexander will be known as the Earl of Dublin. Or are courtesy titles uncommon in the royal family?

c) once Alexander becomes king, what will his regnal number be (assuming he does not go with "King Victor")? How old is the theoretical rule "highest number used in any country of the United Kingdom" anyway? Would he be Alexander (the first in England or the United Kingdom) or Alexander IV. (following Alexander I. to III., Kings of Scots)?
 
c) once Alexander becomes king, what will his regnal number be (assuming he does not go with "King Victor")? How old is the theoretical rule "highest number used in any country of the United Kingdom" anyway? Would he be Alexander (the first in England or the United Kingdom) or Alexander IV. (following Alexander I. to III., Kings of Scots)?

I don't know about the rule (or the other stuff) - but judging by the OTL monarchs, it would be Alexander I - just like we had OTL Edward VII, Edward VIII, and Elizabeth II.
 
I don't know about the rule (or the other stuff) - but judging by the OTL monarchs, it would be Alexander I - just like we had OTL Edward VII, Edward VIII, and Elizabeth II.

That's the thing though, we had accidentally followed the current practice of using the highest number for a long time. My guess is that using Alexander I might piss off some Scots, and it would also set a precedent of English numbers over-riding Scottish ones.
 
A) correct, but not necessarily so even then. The Prince of Wales must be created so, though only the heir apparent can bear the title. The oldest son of the reigning King is automatically Duke of Cornwal, though that is only very rarely used as a title ( it is a duchy not a dukedom, the only English duchy left apart from Lancaster )
B) normally correct, unless he receives a title in his own right. The use of the courtesy title is subject to approval by the monarch, it is not of right.
C) the regnal title is "by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King etc". There has never been a King of the United Kingdom called Alexander, so he would be Alexander I.
 
C) the regnal title is "by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King etc". There has never been a King of the United Kingdom called Alexander, so he would be Alexander I.

That cannot be the reasoning. After all, there had never been a King of the United Kingdom called William before 1830, yet the Duke of Clarence became William IV., not just William or William I.
 
PoD: The first and only child of Duke Edward of Kent and wife Victoria is a son, born on May 24th, 1819. The Prince regent denies the use of the name George, so the little boy (fifth in the line of succession) receives the names Alexander Victor. Tsar Alexander of Russia is his godfather.

a) am I correct that Alexander will never be Prince of Wales unless in TTL Edward lives longer than William IV: and becomes king before his son?

b) as I understand it, one uses the highest minor title of a peer as courtesy title for his eldest son. But if Edward dies as in OTL, young Alexander will inherit the Dukedom of Kent and Strathearn in 1820. If Edward lives longer, then until his (Edwards) death Alexander will be known as the Earl of Dublin. Or are courtesy titles uncommon in the royal family?

c) once Alexander becomes king, what will his regnal number be (assuming he does not go with "King Victor")? How old is the theoretical rule "highest number used in any country of the United Kingdom" anyway? Would he be Alexander (the first in England or the United Kingdom) or Alexander IV. (following Alexander I. to III., Kings of Scots)?

First off, I can't see him being named Victor. That name was never used in ANY German Royal House and just using the male form of Victoria wouldn't happen. No most likely the name would be Frederick, or William. Or maybe one of Edward's other brothers, but not Victor.

1. Yes you are correct about this. In theory the title of Prince of Wales can be given to an heir presumptive (James II's son held it until 1702, even though he was no longer heir) but its never happened before.

2. Your half right. If Edward dies on schedule he would be Duke of Kent but if not he would be known as Prince Alexander of Kent. Courtesy titles weren't really used in the Royal family. They are typically known as Prince/Princess X of X. Not Prince X, Earl of X. They only use the courtesy titles if they have lost the Princely title and style of HRH/HH.

3. Well again they wouldn't go with Victor but if he becomes King Alexander, it would be Alexander I. The British monarch's always go with English numbering.
 
That cannot be the reasoning. After all, there had never been a King of the United Kingdom called William before 1830, yet the Duke of Clarence became William IV., not just William or William I.

He became William IV because there have been 3 Williams in England before him. The British monarch's never used Scottish numbering.
 
a) am I correct that Alexander will never be Prince of Wales unless in TTL Edward lives longer than William IV: and becomes king before his son?

Correct

b) as I understand it, one uses the highest minor title of a peer as courtesy title for his eldest son. But if Edward dies as in OTL, young Alexander will inherit the Dukedom of Kent and Strathearn in 1820. If Edward lives longer, then until his (Edwards) death Alexander will be known as the Earl of Dublin. Or are courtesy titles uncommon in the royal family?

He would be called Prince Alexander of Dublin until the death of his father and then Prince Alexander of Kent.

c) once Alexander becomes king, what will his regnal number be (assuming he does not go with "King Victor")? How old is the theoretical rule "highest number used in any country of the United Kingdom" anyway? Would he be Alexander (the first in England or the United Kingdom) or Alexander IV. (following Alexander I. to III., Kings of Scots)?

At this point English numbering trumps Scots numbering thus William IV rather than William II (The Scots had King William the Lion)
 
Just now the convention is that the monarch goes with the higher number, so if a future king is Alexander he will be Alexander IV rather than Alexander I. However, this seems to be a retrospective rationalisation of the situation by Churchill etc in 1952 (maybe also by Lord Salisbury in 1901, but I'm not sure that a fuss was kicked up then) and that prior to that point monarchs had simply been going by the English precedent. So I suspect Alexander will be Alexander I.
 
He would be called Prince Alexander of Dublin until the death of his father and then Prince Alexander of Kent.

Not quite. The use of courtesy titles is not practised in the royal family as the style Prince of the United Kingdom outranks any noble title they may have, thus rendering a courtesy title irrelevant. Princes are granted dignities when they marry (or otherwise grow old enough to need to become independent) to give them the income and household to maintain their own existence and not remain a dependent of their parent - or at least this was more the case in Victoria's era. They aren't there for prestige or for standing, and therefore it isn't necessary to confer such a title on a son of an heir.


As for the question about the Prince of Wales, as others have said: yes, it would not pass to "Alexander" unless his father became King first. The title Prince of Wales is, contrary to what many believe, not inherited but is conferred. At the death of a monarch, or even the death of a Prince of Wales, the title becomes extinct. It is entirely upon the monarch's prerogative to then decide whether or not to issue it again. In this case, it would be extremely impolitic to name your nephew as Prince of Wales because A) - if you had a son after all then they would be heir but not be able to claim the traditional title of an heir, which would be...awkward and B) - if you don't have a son then you're still essentially claiming "I really can't be bothered trying to secure the inheritance by having a child". This may be factually accurate, but it's still simply one of those things that "you just don't do". It would be considered an open admission that you were being lackadaisical with the future of the country and didn't really care about what happened after you died. Even if you were past the point of procreation you should still technically reserve the title for a child of your own blood just as a matter of tradition.
 
How about he takes the name Victor as his royal name. Then his reign would be known as the "Victorian Era"

I really have little else to contribute. He'd probably be Alexander I, given William was William IV (not only a predecessor but his direct precursor)
 
In this case, it would be extremely impolitic to name your nephew as Prince of Wales because A) - if you had a son after all then they would be heir but not be able to claim the traditional title of an heir, which would be...awkward and B) - if you don't have a son then you're still essentially claiming "I really can't be bothered trying to secure the inheritance by having a child".

By the time he became king, William and his wife Adelaide were some way past the time when they would be expecting children. So that objection doesn't hold.

(Not that I'm entirely sure it would be conferred. It's never been actually tested to the contrary, but it's a title very tightly bound up historically with a tradition of only being conferred on not just a junior heir but a king's son, I.E, a direct and non-displaceable heir. More likely, the child gets a second dukedom and that's the lot)

Not sure all the horsetrading over naming would hold ITTL either. It's more likely a male child gets a traditional name than a girl.
 
Last edited:

GarethC

Donor
The PoW title is conferred upon the heir presumptive - that is, when it's a dead cert that the holder will either ascend to the throne or die. Young Alexander could only be Prince of Wales when he is first-in-line to the throne, so his father must either be dead, or King himself for that to happen.

It's a statement that either a) the holder is the eldest son of the current monarch, or b) the current monarch isn't going to be having any more sons. I think William IV's wife, Princess Adelaide is not so old that the latter is certain, so Alexander won't be made PoW before William IV dies.

There was some talk of Elizabeth being the first Princess of Wales in her own right when George VI was ailing, but she was busy and abroad and not particularly in favour herself, so it never came up before George VI passed.

I doubt Alexander would have kept that regnal name, meself, but the concept is far enough off-piste that keeping it doesn't strain things much more if you like it. Alexander IV though, because Jimmy the Saxt set the precedent that England is bigger than Scotland and has nicer weather, so the royals use English numbering.
 
The PoW title is conferred upon the heir presumptive - that is, when it's a dead cert that the holder will either ascend to the throne or die.

Yeah, but when was that rule invented? This kind of stuff and constitutional assertions and conventions, they all are, at some stage.

To me, it sounds like a quintessential modern retrospective rationalisation, like the Churchillian declaration on regnal numbering.
 
The PoW title is conferred upon the heir presumptive - that is, when it's a dead cert that the holder will either ascend to the throne or die. Young Alexander could only be Prince of Wales when he is first-in-line to the throne, so his father must either be dead, or King himself for that to happen.

For the record, you mean heir apparent, not presumptive. The heir presumptive is an heir who is not a direct descendent of the monarch, or who otherwise is not the eldest son (i.e. a daughter with no brothers would be presumptive). They are heir presumptive because they are the heir presuming that no alternative with a better claim is born. The heir apparent is an heir who cannot be displaced from his first-in-line position for any reason.

Otherwise, yes, your points are valid.
 
From memory George VI himself ruled out conferring the style on the Princess Elizabeth.

Titles and Styles of our imaginary male Victoria.

There is no formalised use of the royal styles until the letters patent of Queen Victoria in the 1860s and George V's in 1917.
Custom would suggest Royal Highness was only used by the children of the sovereign and not always.
It seems that William IV extended Royal Highness to all line male grandchildren on his accession.
So our imaginary prince would be at birth.

His Highness Prince Alexander of Kent, Prince of Hannover, Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg etc.
On death of his father.
His Highness, the Duke of Kent, Prince of Hannover etc

In 1830 on accession of his uncle William IV
His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, Prince of Hannover etc.
 
The "highest of England and Scotland" rule for regnal numbers is pretty new, formulated during the reign of Elizabeth II in response to grumbling (and occasional bits of vandalism) in Scotland about how she couldn't be Elizabeth II in Scotland because they'd never had an Elizabeth I. It had the virtue of rationalizing the past practice since the Act of Union (before that, monarchs had separate regnal numbers in each kingdom) while not preferencing one kingdom over the other.

The Prince of Wales title seems to have been very closely associated with the Heir Apparent at least as far back as the War of the Roses. The only time it's been granted to anyone other than the monarch's eldest surviving son or the heir of the monarch's dead son was in 1460, when Richard of York had briefly secured a settlement with Henry VI where he or his heir would inherit when Henry VI died. Still, I don't think it was ever formally codifed; instead, the reigning monarch creates the title for his heir apparent, usually when the heir is a few years old. It then merges with the crown upon succession and is created again when appropriate. So William IV could make Alexander the Prince of Wales if he wanted to, but very probably wouldn't.
 
Top