Queen Charlotte of Britain?

maverick

Banned
Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales, born in 1796, was the only daughter of King George IV of Great Britain and upon his death in 1830, would have succeeded him...

Charlotte was married to the man that in 1830 IOTL become King of Belgium, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg Gotha...

Now, IOTL Charlotte died in the middle of an unsuccesful childbirth in 1817...13 years before Leopold became King of Belgium and before the death of her father, George IV...henceforth, the King's brother was crowned as King William IV...

But what if Charlotte had lived?

Seven years earlier, there's a female Queen of the British Empire, also with a Belgian consort and also with Ernest Augustus becoming King of Hannover...

But what are the effects of this Queen in power? long term effects are hard to predict, of course, with all the alternate princes...

Also, does Leopold still become King of Belgium if his wife is the heir presumptive or even the Queen of the UK in 1830?
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
I've always been interested in this, but I haven't really uncovered anything substantial yet.
 

Fearless Leader

Donor
Well first off, Ernest Augustus wouldn't be King of Hanover right away following the death of George IV the Hanoverian throne would pass to OTL's William IV who would be William I of Hanover. Following his death assuming he dies on schedule it would go to either one of his sons (they'd have to survive unlike OTL) or Ernest Augustus.

With Charlotte on the English throne I'd wager that you'd see Parliament begin to play a bigger role in British politics earlier as well as a decreased role for the Monarchy. Depending on who becomes PM this could result in a minorly different British policy with perhaps later butterflies...
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Fearless Leader said:
With Charlotte on the English throne I'd wager that you'd see Parliament begin to play a bigger role in British politics earlier as well as a decreased role for the Monarchy.
Click to expand...
In the short run yes...but when Chartism blows up, I wonder if the monarchy might be with the people against the Tory establishment...
 

Xen

Banned
maverick said:

Also, does Leopold still become King of Belgium if his wife is the heir presumptive or even the Queen of the UK in 1830?
Click to expand...


Absolutely not! Leopold was not the first choice, and there would be the fear of other European nations of Belgium becoming joined by the UK. There are however plenty of alternatives, Louis-Philippe's second oldest son I believe was the first choice, then there is always the Hapsburg's or even a member of the Bourbon-Parma dynasty, or for an interesting twist, Albert, the OTL husband of Queen Victoria.
 

Nekromans

Xen said:
Absolutely not! Leopold was not the first choice, and there would be the fear of other European nations of Belgium becoming joined by the UK. There are however plenty of alternatives, Louis-Philippe's second oldest son I believe was the first choice, then there is always the Hapsburg's or even a member of the Bourbon-Parma dynasty, or for an interesting twist, Albert, the OTL husband of Queen Victoria.
Click to expand...

:eek:

But that's exactly what I thought of the situation when I was pondering it the other day!

Get the hell out of my mind!
 

pompejus

Wit a POD in 1817 the Belgian revolution could easily been butterflied away. The country of Belgium even more easily. There are varius other ways the Belgian revolution could be resolved: More equality for the Belgians, more autonomy for the Belgians, the division of Belgium between the Netherlands anf France (and possibly Prussia), Belgium in personal union with the Netherlands or the Belgian revolution is simply crushed by the Dutch (which it basicly was before France got involved).
If the Belgian revolution still happens and is resolved in the same way (an independent Belgian country), the king will probably be a noble the British trust to keep its distance from France, so probably not a French noble. Most likely it will be a German noble with good ties to Britain, Albert does not seem an unlikely choice.
 
V-J

V-J

Fearless Leader said:
With Charlotte on the English throne I'd wager that you'd see Parliament begin to play a bigger role in British politics earlier as well as a decreased role for the Monarchy.
Click to expand...

Mmm, not sure about that tbh. In any case it kind of depends on what Charlotte's political opinions were - which I'm not sure anyone knows conclusively about, altough I would guess like most aristocratic girls of her generation, they would be distinctly Whiggish.

Tbh I can't see many changes arising (apart from the obvious Belgian butterflies) out of this but if there were then the most obvious would be a slightly earlier reform act. Which would be no bad thing.
 

Nekromans

Thande said:
Well Victoria certainly took a larger role in government in later life than the late Hanoverians did, whose example one would presume Charlotte would cleave to.
Click to expand...

Well, George III was fairly involved. Until he went mad. Then George IV was a hedonist, and William IV was an old man. Charlotte, on the other hand, was a rebellious young woman with parent problems. Sound familiar?
 
V-J

V-J

Thande said:
Well Victoria certainly took a larger role in government in later life than the late Hanoverians did
Click to expand...

That's not really true - although it would depend by what you mean by 'taking a role'. Victoria basically limited herself in later life to generally pissing about with individual ministerial appointments in her own little clucking, matronly way (Who was it she 'vetoed' as Home Secretary but was fine with as Chancellor?) - that's a good deal different to the sort of power which George III et al had, where entire governments could be dispensed with at the King's pleasure. (And George III certainly took a very strong interest in the government)
 
Last edited:

maverick

Banned
Please do...

Until then, all we have is the record of her husband as King of Belgium as a guide...I think their marriage was not particularly unhappy, though I could be wrong...that could mean they had similar minds and ideas...

If the Queen is indeed moderate and whiggist, she might simply support Grey and the Reform act of 1832...

In any case, as a side effect, would Leopold still play a role uniting the prospective King Albert of Belgium to Victoria?
 

maverick

Banned
That is crazy

Anyhow...after checking that and Brittanica-6, it was mentioned...

"The Georgian period never ended"

What would that mean in a world in which Charlotte is Queen?

What's the alternate to the Victorian period?
 

Justin Pickard

maverick said:
That is crazy

Anyhow...after checking that and Brittanica-6, it was mentioned...

"The Georgian period never ended"

What would that mean in a world in which Charlotte is Queen?

What's the alternate to the Victorian period?
Click to expand...

A combination of the free-wheeling, liberal-whiggish party attitude of the Georgians (gentlemanly gambling & duels at dawn), the aristocracy's "faddish" commitment to a conspicuous patronage of science and technology (think of the current upper class' taste for fancy cars and planes), and a more compassionate and benevolent - if slightly paternalist - approach towards the colonies and the poor. As one example, in TTL, Charles Dickens becomes a writer for an engineering journal.
 

maverick

Banned
Justin Pickard said:
A combination of the free-wheeling, liberal-whiggish party attitude of the Georgians (gentlemanly gambling & duels at dawn), the aristocracy's "faddish" commitment to a conspicuous patronage of science and technology (think of the current upper class' taste for fancy cars and planes), and a more compassionate and benevolent - if slightly paternalist - approach towards the colonies and the poor. As one example, in TTL, Charles Dickens becomes a writer for an engineering journal.
Click to expand...

Is that a plausible result of Charlotte living? that'd be cool...
 

chornedsnorkack

Fearless Leader said:
Well first off, Ernest Augustus wouldn't be King of Hanover right away following the death of George IV the Hanoverian throne would pass to OTL's William IV who would be William I of Hanover. Following his death assuming he dies on schedule it would go to either one of his sons (they'd have to survive unlike OTL)
Click to expand...
They´d have to be born.

As of 6th of November, 1817, George III had 12 living children and exactly one living grandchild, being Charlotte.

George prince of Wales was married to Caroline but estranged, and unlikely to remarry (in OTL, he did not in the 9 years as widower, and Caroline lived in 1817). Frederick of York was married, estranged, childless and unlikely to remarry.

William of Clarence was separated from Mrs Jordan and looking for a wife since 1811 - with no success. He WAS the obvious soon king of Hanover for all those years - because Charlotte could not inherit and no sons of George or Frederick were expected - but he could not find a queen for Hanover. Only when Charlotte died did he get married to Adelaide, as prospective Queen of Ukogbai. If Charlotte survived, William would not marry in 1818.
Neither would Edward of Kent - and assuming that he dies in 1820 as per OTL, he´d die childless, with no Victoria TTL.
Fearless Leader said:
or Ernest Augustus.
Click to expand...
True. He married in 1815. His son George would be born in 1819 as per OTL, but the marriage was in place before butterflies from Charlotte´s death.
Fearless Leader said:
With Charlotte on the English throne I'd wager that you'd see Parliament begin to play a bigger role in British politics earlier as well as a decreased role for the Monarchy. Depending on who becomes PM this could result in a minorly different British policy with perhaps later butterflies...
Click to expand...

No differences before 1830, since George IV reigns as per OTL.

But in 1830, instead on an elderly and childless William IV, you get a 34 year old happily married Queen who has a son of 12, and perhaps more children.

What would Queen Charlotte do differently? Wouldn´t her very popularity as the young harbinger of hopes prompt her to act on her own to deliver on those hopes, rather than let Parliament badger her into those?
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Nekromans said:
Well, George III was fairly involved. Until he went mad. Then George IV was a hedonist, and William IV was an old man. Charlotte, on the other hand, was a rebellious young woman with parent problems. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

V-J said:
That's not really true - although it would depend by what you mean by 'taking a role'. Victoria basically limited herself in later life to generally pissing about with individual ministerial appointments in her own little clucking, matronly way (Who was it she 'vetoed' as Home Secretary but was fine with as Chancellor?) - that's a good deal different to the sort of power which George III et al had, where entire governments could be dispensed with at the King's pleasure. (And George III certainly took a very strong interest in the government)
Click to expand...

I said late Hanoverians, i.e. George IV (and in OTL William IV).
 

Lord Grattan

V-J said:
That's not really true - although it would depend by what you mean by 'taking a role'. Victoria basically limited herself in later life to generally pissing about with individual ministerial appointments in her own little clucking, matronly way (Who was it she 'vetoed' as Home Secretary but was fine with as Chancellor?) - that's a good deal different to the sort of power which George III et al had, where entire governments could be dispensed with at the King's pleasure. (And George III certainly took a very strong interest in the government)
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to Lord Palmerston. Victoria had problems w/him as Foreign Secretary but was okay w/him as Prime Minister.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top