Plausibility Check: English King and Indian Princess?

Hello, I am working on my timeline and I have hit a dilemma. To sum things up the King of Britain is currently stuck in exhile during the (very) early 1800s. I am currently trying to figure out whether or not it would be possible for him to marry an Indian Wife or not. I realise it wasn't all that uncommon for men working there to, but this is the King. What do you good folks think?
 
I would think so long as she was Anglican, it would be fine. And came from a Royal familly as well, obviously.

DaV had it happen in his British Imperialism in the 19th century timeline. Have you read it?
 
Even if she's Anglican, racism will probably preclude such a scenario until the 1950s at the earliest. She would also have to have a noble title, but that's not hard: India had more than 600 princely states.
 
Weel, if she comes from a Royal indian family able to claim a link the Arya conquerors, racism might be overcome after 1850, because the idea of an "Aryan" race including most Europeans and many Indians was already on the air. And in the first half of the 19th century there was not that much racism towards high-caste Indians in any case.
I think that is possible IF she is Protestant Christian AND her family has a good enough of prestige, antiquity and actual strength. The "Aryan" ancestry claim might help if the cultural environment of the TL is prepared to take the Aryan myth into account.
It does not necessarily mean she has to be an Indo-Aryan language speaking, even if that would better. Many believed that high caste people in Dravidian-speaking India were Aryans as well.
 
I would think so long as she was Anglican, it would be fine. And came from a Royal familly as well, obviously.

DaV had it happen in his British Imperialism in the 19th century timeline. Have you read it?

DaV= DaValdron?:confused:

To all: So she would have to be Anglican to begin with or merely convert?
 
Even if she's Anglican, racism will probably preclude such a scenario until the 1950s at the earliest. She would also have to have a noble title, but that's not hard: India had more than 600 princely states.

Much as it is regrettable I would have to agree with this. Parliament would probably refuse permission for the marriage, as much as anything. There would probably be a fair amount of racism from the Indian side, too, since British royalty (and indeed Europeans in general) aren't part of the caste system therefore are technically outside of the realms of what Indians are supposed to marry into, in that period at least (or so is my understanding).

Also I'd raise the idea that it would have to be carefully done to avoid favouritism too - you can't be seen to be marrying "any old Princess from a minor state" if that minor state is your vassal, because it smacks of behind-the-scenes deals. The other princely states would cry unfair and claim that the state which was marrying into British royalty by offering benefits it shouldn't be offering and receiving economic benefits it shouldn't receive - it would be a bit like a major multinational CEO marrying a director's daughter - the other directors would surely presume that that director was going to have a protected career and receive favouritism in the boardroom over the marriage.
 

Thande

Donor
If it's in exile I think it would be fine. For people crying 'racism', that's a relatively recent phenomenon. The EIC actively encouraged its white personnel to marry Indian women and have mixed-race children.
 
If it's in exile I think it would be fine. For people crying 'racism', that's a relatively recent phenomenon. The EIC actively encouraged its white personnel to marry Indian women and have mixed-race children.

After the British government took over the whole of India in the 1850s, they implemented very strict social segregation between the British and Indian elites. They got along well professionally, and some Indian elites received schooling in Britain or high positions in the colonial bureaucracy, but the British avoided social relations with Indians, especially sex and marriage.


To all: So she would have to be Anglican to begin with or merely convert?


She could be a convert. If memory serves, she could also believe in another branch of Christianity, but if she did the prince would have to forfeit his place in the line of succession.
 

MrP

Banned
After the British government took over the whole of India in the 1850s, they implemented very strict social segregation between the British and Indian elites. They got along well professionally, and some Indian elites received schooling in Britain or high positions in the colonial bureaucracy, but the British avoided social relations with Indians, especially sex and marriage.

This complements Thande's post well. The EIC favoured integration, and the government, on taking over from the EIC, oversaw a period one might view as a backlash. But both situations are IOTL. The OP posits a situation in which Britain's establishment's norms will be thrown into confusion. I think there is scope in such a situation both for a segregation-happy British occupying elite and a more conciliatory and alliance-building British government.
 
Hello, I am working on my timeline and I have hit a dilemma. To sum things up the King of Britain is currently stuck in exhile during the (very) early 1800s. I am currently trying to figure out whether or not it would be possible for him to marry an Indian Wife or not. I realise it wasn't all that uncommon for men working there to, but this is the King. What do you good folks think?

Reminds me of the scenario I once posted here, the Sino-Hispanic empire...I think this is as ASB as that..
 
Parliament would probably refuse permission for the marriage, as much as anything.
The only person that has any authority to withhold permission for a royal marriage is the Sovereign. While I agree that such an Anglo-Indian union is highly improbable, it is only so due to historical attitudes and social conditioning.

Legally, however, there is no impediment. By the terms of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, all male line descendants of a monarch must receive the permission of the reigning Sovereign to wed if they are under the age of 25. The only other stipulations regarding marriage, by the terms of Act of Settlement of 1701, are that all persons in the line of succession may not wed a Roman Catholic. Parliament has no legal authority to exercise any sort of control over royal marriages per se, aside from passing a bill concerning them (which must receive royal assent anyway).
 
Top