Pax Anglo-Germanica

Glen

Moderator
It's a fair criticism, but the timeframe still allows for the deal to go through before Bertie's set can settle into power.

However, it might require some more elaboration on the politics to show both the friction between sovereign and parliament after this deal, and its resolution in the end. Actually this is less of a problem for this thread than it is for the Anglo-German Alliance where war with France actually breaks out! Therefore, I will cc this to that thread as well.

Glen,

whilst I entirely agree that this is what they should have done, and we would have been delivered from most of the evils of the 20th entury, there is a problem.

For reasons that are not entirely clear Edward VII was violently anti-German, despite the fact his brothers ruled German states and he spoke English with a german accent. It may have been with his dissolute ways he did not get on with his parents, but mainly because he had fallen in with ardent Imperialist enthusiasts who were part of his "Set" at Marlborough House - Lord Esher was one - and also connected to the Roundtable - , Sir Charles Dilke another.

He had also been a protege of Palmerston in his youth.

This meant he was an ardent advocate of the Triple Entente, - an entente with France, and adopting the idea of certain Imperialists of the '90's, an alliance with Russia. He used his position as king to actively promote these, although clearly with the support of a cliche of leading politicians.

He is credited with getting the French Entente "in the bag" when the French thought it was too soon, and the critical meeting with Isvolsky in Copenhagen in spring 1905.

So instead of the assassination of WII he will have to be removed and Albert II, his son, become king in his stead.

"Bertie", Prince of Wales falls downstairs in a high class Paris bordello in 1896 and the details of the accident are covered up.

He is the "knave" card in all of this and the outcome of events and not his much-maligned nephew.
 

chronos

Banned
Glenn,

whilst I don't disagree, i have been shocked by what I have come across on the net, as i was by the documents you posted on the axis forum.

It turns out WII complained about his uncle getting them not because he misunderstood the British system, but because it was true.

Edward and his clients and allies in the Marlbourgh House set would go all-out to prevent the alliance being finalised, and the evidence is that they did on two occasions.

This appears to be because of his Imperial Federation and "Anglo-Saxonism" views derived from those of his associates like Lord Esher of Roundtable founding fame. Also he was a pronounced francophile with many contacts in that country, as the result of many dissolute visits to Paris to visit the "establishments".

So really Edward has to be removed instead of his eldest son - amazing how history turns on chance events - as the prime "fixer" of the anti-German faction by some unfortunate accident. Not difficult with his frequent visits to the continent and private forays around Paris.
 

Glen

Moderator
Been reading up a bit. It seems to me so far that Edward VII is more anti-WII than he is anti-German per se. The death of WII should remove a big obstacle to an alliance.
 

Irioth

Banned
Been reading up a bit. It seems to me so far that Edward VII is more anti-WII than he is anti-German per se. The death of WII should remove a big obstacle to an alliance.

Or the death of EVII. He got a very nasty case of appendicitis just before his crowning ceremony, by 1902 or 1903, and he delayed the operation (very risky by 1900s surgical standards) for fear of upsetting the ceremony. Something goes just a little worse here, hey presto, the throne shifts to George V. How was he, about Germany ?
 

Glen

Moderator
The world is falling more and more under Anglo-German dominance. I wonder how far it can be pushed before someone pushes back....
 
Top