Question: How difficult is it to change a European ruling dynasty after WWI?

Harald Sigurdson II

To be more specific, I noticed that UK/GB/England etc is ruled, and has been ruled for 301 years, by two German dynasties, Hanover and Windsor, before that a Scottish dynasty, and many French ones. In contrast, the Capetians and cadets have ruled many countries since 987 and still do.

Is it possible to change the ruling house of England after the Great War? What about a dynasty from the following countires taking their place:
1.) England
2.) A Capetian cadet (Bourbons)
3.) Norway (even though their dynasty is related to England's)
4.) France (and Quebec:))
5.) America (Roosevelt or Bush, anyone?)
 

Maniakes

A "King Ralph" scenario (where the first several dozen people in the line of succession all die off at about the same time), while vanishingly unlikely, could hypothetically pass the British throne to the King of Norway (#60 in the line of succession as of 2001), one of the pretenders to the Romanian throne (#81 as of 2001), or various other European royal/noble houses after them. See http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2001.html

Setting aside the line of succession and replacing the dynasty outright is very, very unlikely in the 20th or 21st century. You'd need a cross-party political consensus to force a constitutional crisis, and the military (which swears their oaths to the crown) would need to acquiesce. Getting that kind of broad support to replace the entire dynasty without just chucking the monarchy and establishing a republic is a very difficult needle to thread.
 
black angel

black angel

PhilippeO said:
To change Dynasty is simple, the King or Queen simply have to declare a new dynastic name.

George V change it from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917.

Queen Elizabeth II could choose
- Mountbatten
- Windsor
- Mountbatten-Windsor
- Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
- Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Oldenburg
- any other english name she fancy :D
Click to expand...

in fact the Queen has already done this, though I'm unsure if any one will do it, she issued letters patten that her heirs would be the Mountbatten-Windsors, her husband having been some what put out (and his Uncle Lord Mountbatten having a very found wish to see his family as the royal house) that his children wouldn't have his name ("I'm the only man in the nation who can't give his own children his name!") that said the issue seems to have been dropped and while none of the line of the Queen have yet to need formal last names, informally when they've needed last names they've ether gone with their titles (i.e. Wales or York) or just Windsor, such as Prince Edward's Daughter who is called Lady Louise Windsor (officially her last name is Mountbatten-Windsor, but she's not called that)
 
Uhura's Mazda

Uhura's Mazda

Banned
black angel said:
in fact the Queen has already done this, though I'm unsure if any one will do it, she issued letters patten that her heirs would be the Mountbatten-Windsors, her husband having been some what put out (and his Uncle Lord Mountbatten having a very found wish to see his family as the royal house) that his children wouldn't have his name ("I'm the only man in the nation who can't give his own children his name!") that said the issue seems to have been dropped and while none of the line of the Queen have yet to need formal last names, informally when they've needed last names they've ether gone with their titles (i.e. Wales or York) or just Windsor, such as Prince Edward's Daughter who is called Lady Louise Windsor (officially her last name is Mountbatten-Windsor, but she's not called that)
Click to expand...

I think Grandchildren of the Sovereign or Prince of Wales are members of the House of Windsor, with titles instead of surnames. while Mountbatten-Windsor kicks in for later generations (in the male line, so the only Mountbatten-Windsors for the next fifty years or so will be Viscount Severn's kids - I don't know whether one of the Princesses could keep her name on marriage and pass it down...?)
 
Tom Colton

Tom Colton

If Italy and the NDH were run with slightly more sense, the House of Savoy would replace the Yugoslav monarchs as Kings of Croatia.
 

British Republic

Banned
black angel said:
in fact the Queen has already done this, though I'm unsure if any one will do it, she issued letters patten that her heirs would be the Mountbatten-Windsors, her husband having been some what put out (and his Uncle Lord Mountbatten having a very found wish to see his family as the royal house) that his children wouldn't have his name ("I'm the only man in the nation who can't give his own children his name!") that said the issue seems to have been dropped and while none of the line of the Queen have yet to need formal last names, informally when they've needed last names they've ether gone with their titles (i.e. Wales or York) or just Windsor, such as Prince Edward's Daughter who is called Lady Louise Windsor (officially her last name is Mountbatten-Windsor, but she's not called that)
Click to expand...

What I don't get is when they are not being referred to under their "official" titles (for passports, court cases or military service) why not actually use their last times rather than by their titles, calling yourself "Private Wales" makes no sense, there is nothing wrong with "Windsor-Mountbatten" in my view.
 

RPW@Cy

British Republic said:
What I don't get is when they are not being referred to under their "official" titles (for passports, court cases or military service) why not actually use their last times rather than by their titles, calling yourself "Private Wales" makes no sense, there is nothing wrong with "Windsor-Mountbatten" in my view.
Click to expand...

Mountbatten-Windsor. The usual protocol with military rank and nobility is that the rank precedes the title rather than the name (as in Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, not FM Arthur Wellesley). As Prince Harry's formal title is His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales, I suspect "Captain Wales" (or whatever) is simply a contraction of this.
 

Welshroyalhistory

British Republic said:
What I don't get is when they are not being referred to under their "official" titles (for passports, court cases or military service) why not actually use their last times rather than by their titles, calling yourself "Private Wales" makes no sense, there is nothing wrong with "Windsor-Mountbatten" in my view.
Click to expand...

Its the social norm amongst the aristocracy, royalty etc. They use their titles to supplement or replace their actual names.

You will see for example that the Dukes of Westminster and Devonshire will sign their signatures Gerald Westminster or Andrew Devonshire, rather than using their surnames Grosvenor or Cavendish.

HRH The Duke of Gloucester will sign his name either simply Richard or Richard Gloucester, not Windsor. The same with the Duke of Kent. Princess Alexandra is a Princess of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and that is her official title but she is always styled as Princess Alexandra of Kent, which is entirely illogical but its always been the royal way.

The current heir to the Duke of Devonshire has always been known socially and professionally as Bill Burlington. His birth name is William Cavendish but his first title at birth was Earl of Burlington and he has used that as a surname his entire life, even though he is no longer Earl of Burlington but actually he is entitled to be styled as Marquess of Hartington, a title he has not taken up use of.

Its a quirk of the ruling classes.
 

Halagaz

Hungary could have replaced the Habsburgs with a King from Italy after or instead of its post-WWI revolutionary conflicts. Or from one of the Scandinavian monarchies.

Tom Colton said:
If Italy and the NDH were run with slightly more sense, the House of Savoy would replace the Yugoslav monarchs as Kings of Croatia.
Click to expand...

And Montenegro might have become a Kingdom under the Romanov dynasty, if the candidates were a bit more enthusiastic.

Of course, neither this Montenegro nor NDH would have lasted very long...
 

British Republic

Banned
Welshroyalhistory said:
Its the social norm amongst the aristocracy, royalty etc. They use their titles to supplement or replace their actual names.

You will see for example that the Dukes of Westminster and Devonshire will sign their signatures Gerald Westminster or Andrew Devonshire, rather than using their surnames Grosvenor or Cavendish.

HRH The Duke of Gloucester will sign his name either simply Richard or Richard Gloucester, not Windsor. The same with the Duke of Kent. Princess Alexandra is a Princess of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and that is her official title but she is always styled as Princess Alexandra of Kent, which is entirely illogical but its always been the royal way.

The current heir to the Duke of Devonshire has always been known socially and professionally as Bill Burlington. His birth name is William Cavendish but his first title at birth was Earl of Burlington and he has used that as a surname his entire life, even though he is no longer Earl of Burlington but actually he is entitled to be styled as Marquess of Hartington, a title he has not taken up use of.

Its a quirk of the ruling classes.
Click to expand...

Well personally I find it bizzare, do they use this for passports for example. To me that creates potential issues with identification or legal causes for example.

Thanks however for telling me.
 

wietze

Netherlands - easy, queen wilhelmina had only 1 child, if something happens to her, the netherlands needs to find new royals, or fall back to some republic style.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Looking at the OP you have some potentials if the UK loses the war disastrously. Due to the nature of dynastic marriages, most of these options are actually German still!

1) Revolution and the revolutionary government looks for a suitable puppet king

2) German conquest where Berlin looks for a scion of the ruling house that is pro-German - the Duke of Albany (attainted) and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha could be a good choice

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

wietze

British Republic said:
Well personally I find it bizzare, do they use this for passports for example. To me that creates potential issues with identification or legal causes for example.
Click to expand...

the government is the one issuing passports, if the government of the country accepts this style of naming, then it will likely show up in the passport, and no problem there.
And artists have used stage names/aliases for ages, so don't see the problem
 

British Republic

Banned
wietze said:
the government is the one issuing passports, if the government of the country accepts this style of naming, then it will likely show up in the passport, and no problem there.
And artists have used stage names/aliases for ages, so don't see the problem
Click to expand...

Oh I see, well thanks for explaining.
 

Alternate History

Banned
You could have the Carlists outmaneuver and topple the Falangists in the early Franco era, maybe? If that succeeds, well, you've replaced the Bourbons with one of their own cadet branches. Still, it's a dynasty change of sorts. I'm not sure if the Carlists have the strength to deal with the Falange, though, and maybe you'd need to wait until after Franco dies.

(This is a response to the thread title, not the original post...)
 

Welshroyalhistory

wietze said:
the government is the one issuing passports, if the government of the country accepts this style of naming, then it will likely show up in the passport, and no problem there.
And artists have used stage names/aliases for ages, so don't see the problem
Click to expand...

Royal passports are treated different. Official titles are used but surnames are not.

dianapassportRS.jpg


bilde


Look at how Diana signed her name. No surname. Most royals do this. Of course the Queen is the exception, she signs her name Elizabeth R.
 

Welshroyalhistory

Harald Sigurdson II said:
To be more specific, I noticed that UK/GB/England etc is ruled, and has been ruled for 301 years, by two German dynasties, Hanover and Windsor, before that a Scottish dynasty, and many French ones. In contrast, the Capetians and cadets have ruled many countries since 987 and still do.

Is it possible to change the ruling house of England after the Great War? What about a dynasty from the following countires taking their place:
1.) England
2.) A Capetian cadet (Bourbons)
3.) Norway (even though their dynasty is related to England's)
4.) France (and Quebec:))
5.) America (Roosevelt or Bush, anyone?)
Click to expand...

An American dynasty is ASB, although the media were keen to marry Prince Charles off to Trisha Nixon, so that could have produced a semi American dynasty in the highly unlikely event it happened.

The problem with the Capetians or any French dynasty is they are almost certain to also be Catholics, which is also borderline ASB.

A Norwegian monarch is not so impossible but is unlikely. King Olav V was a first cousin of King George VI. King Olav was in the top 10 in line of succession to the British throne at the time of his birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top