The Fall Of The Old World

[Tmckay]

Yeah but if you kept Edward’s age the same that shouldn’t be a problem.

Would it not be awkward even for 1800's that an 11 year old was pregnant and raised questions?

 

[RedKing]

Would it not be awkward even for 1800's that an 11 year old was pregnant and raised questions?

But if you kept Edward’s age the same (he was born in the 1840s) there should be no problem (unless I am missing something).

 

[Tmckay]

But if you kept Edward’s age the same (he was born in the 1840s) there should be no problem (unless I am missing something).

I stated Edward was born 1830 so Victoria would've given birth at 11

 

[RedKing]

I stated Edward was born 1830 so Victoria would've given birth at 11

Oh I see. You could always go back and change that or youb could remake the thread if you want.

 

[Tmckay]

Oh I see. You could always go back and change that or youb could remake the thread if you want.

I'll give it a thought

 

[RedKing]

I'll give it a thought

I personally think the timeline is fine as is.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I don't really understand what you mean by no to all four?

I mean there wouldn't be any sense to any of those matches for Albert to remarry. In fact, Albert remarrying will be the excuse that the regency council needs to chuck him out of England. Particularly if his remarriage is against English interests (and given Anglo-Russian rivalry and the general English attitude to France those wouldn't help). Not to mention how Albert's family is pretty much tied to the Orléans' family (with four (half) Coburg-Orléans matches: Léopold of Belgium and Louise d'Orléans; Marie d'Orléans to the prince of Württemberg (Leopold's nephew, brother to Albert's stepmom); the duc de Nemours to Victoria of Coburg-Kohary, and Clémentine to Victoria's brother, August), so Albert would not be topping any lists to marry the French Emperor's daughter.

 

[Tmckay]

Perhaps I should've stated at the start, but this TL does have a lot of prior butterfly affects which I intend on exploring through flashback chapters, as such, I am going to use an asterik near a character when they're first mentioned. The asterik* will indicate that a character's backstory is not the same as OTL. For example Victoria was born 1810. Albert may or not remarry. However, if he does so the candidate I choose will either be an entirely fictional one or someone who shares a name with someone from OTL but is not the same. For example, Charles Darwin will become Jack The Ripper in this timeline so he would have an asterik. Some historical characters will be butterflied away. I understand that some, if not all of this TL is likely highly ASB at times making it unenjoyable. For that I genuinely apologise, I am trying to do my research in between returning to college and A-Levels, as The UK's COVID restrictions loosen up as well as writing this and relaxing. I understand I may not meet the standards you have or that others have written on here, hopefully one day, I will. For now though, I'm just a novice writer, imagining and wanting to share that with you! I am new to all of this and likely will annoy the more intelligent among you as history isn't a strong point of mine. As such anyone willing to PM me links they think is relevant or who wants to put links on here would be genuinely appreciated.

@Kellan Sullivan

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If Victoria's born in 1810, she cna't be the same person as OTL. Since her mother's first husband was still alive (he only died in 1814). The only reason that Edward of Kent married Victoria of Coburg in the first place was due to her brother, the widower of Princess Charlotte's influence. Leopold of Coburg (in 1810) was still bedding Hortense de Beauharnais. He only went over to the Allied side when the Allies rode into Paris. George IV disliked him, but the only reason Leopold got into Charlotte's company was because Ekaterina Pavlovna (who disliked George) allowed them to "meet up" at her place.

So to get Victoria of Coburg into England for an 1810 birth is massively difficult - if not ASB.

Not to mention that her marrying Albert is impossible since Albert would be nine years younger than her. Albert's DOB can't be moved any earlier, since his mother was born in 1800.

Better just to leave Victoria born when she was,

And then you can tie this in. Shooter's name is (Wil)Liam. And he was from Ireland. So it can work:

William Hamilton — June 19, 1849
On the evening of the official commemoration of her birthday, Queen Victoria rode through Hyde and Regent’s Park with three of her children, including the future King Edward VII. Standing in nearly the identical position as Edward Oxford nine years earlier, 24-year-old unemployed bricklayer William Hamilton fired a pistol at the royal carriage as it descended Constitution Hill on its return to Buckingham Palace. The queen was unharmed as the head keeper of Green Park subdued the shooter. Hamilton, who had been forced to immigrate from Ireland to London in the 1840s at the onset of the Great Hunger, told the police he had fired the gun loaded only with powder “for the purpose of getting into prison, as he was tired of being out of work.” The shooter pled guilty and was banished to the prison colony of Gibraltar for seven years.

 

[Tmckay]

If Victoria's born in 1810, she cna't be the same person as OTL. Since her mother's first husband was still alive (he only died in 1814). The only reason that Edward of Kent married Victoria of Coburg in the first place was due to her brother, the widower of Princess Charlotte's influence. Leopold of Coburg (in 1810) was still bedding Hortense de Beauharnais. He only went over to the Allied side when the Allies rode into Paris. George IV disliked him, but the only reason Leopold got into Charlotte's company was because Ekaterina Pavlovna (who disliked George) allowed them to "meet up" at her place.

So to get Victoria of Coburg into England for an 1810 birth is massively difficult - if not ASB.

Not to mention that her marrying Albert is impossible since Albert would be nine years younger than her. Albert's DOB can't be moved any earlier, since his mother was born in 1800.

Better just to leave Victoria born when she was,

And then you can tie this in. Shooter's name is (Wil)Liam. And he was from Ireland. So it can work:

Thank you, I think I am going to rewrite this, I do appreciate it I apologise if I can off as dramatic in my response

 

[Tmckay]

This is going to be rewritten due to being extremely inaccurate and ASB though the general premise will remain. I will link the revised and hopefully much better thread, when it's ready, here 😀

 

[Virginia Liberal]

Enjoying your TL very much. I have one question, in the Albert chapter he mentions that britain stopped the CSA in 1820. Is this a reference to an American Civil War. If so that is odd because as of 1820 there 0 call for Secession by any states. The New English states had though about it during the War of 1812 but it died quickly. The North South Divide didn't start down the road towards Civil War till after the Mexican War (some would say the Texas Annexation but the two are close enough to the same thing ).

 

[Tmckay]

Enjoying your TL very much. I have one question, in the Albert chapter he mentions that britain stopped the CSA in 1820. Is this a reference to an American Civil War. If so that is odd because as of 1820 there 0 call for Secession by any states. The New English states had though about it during the War of 1812 but it died quickly. The North South Divide didn't start down the road towards Civil War till after the Mexican War (some would say the Texas Annexation but the two are close enough to the same thing ).

Hey, so it was supposed to be a reference to Turtledove's How Few Remain.

 

[Tmckay]

There's been two actually. In the chapter on Albert which was a story chapter, I mentioned The Americas and a USA and CSA, directly referencing Henry Turtledove's works. In this one about Thomas, Agrabah is mentioned which is were Aladdin takes place.

@Virginia Liberal