What if King George VI didn't die in 1952?

RNG

Banned
What if King George VI didn't die in 1952? What if he lived into the seventies, or possibly the eighties, or at a the nineties even, because he never took up smoking for some reason, what would his long reign, 1936-70's,80's,90's[???], change? How would his attitudes affect a post war world, would Britain be better off, the same, or worse, what about the rest of the world?
 
Longer living George VI hardly would change much if anything. British monarch was almost powerless on this time.
 
On a personal scale, I wonder how he would have related to Charles if he had lived longer given that both he and Charles were bullied at school. I wonder whether or not he would have spoken up to Prince Philip about it.
 
Interesting point @GSD310, certainly if that were to happen it could result in K. G. VI playing a greater influence in the young prince. Possibly he could end up replacing the role of Lord Mountbatten. This would certainly change his perceptions of his pressure to marry as L.M. did increase such in otl. Charles' personality would change immensely depending upon the death date of his grandfather.
 
Last edited:
Interesting point @GSD310, certainly if that were to happen it could result in K. G. VI playing a greater influence in the young prince. Possibly he could end up replacing the role of Lord Mountbatten. This would certainly change his perceptions of his pressure to marry as L.M. did increase such in otl. Charles' personality would change immensely depending upon the death date of his grandfather.

It is very well documented that George VI disliked Prince Philip and didn't think much of him, so it is very likely that the King would be very blunt and at least somewhat forceful when it comes to this issue, as the personality of a future King of England would be deeply changed by this. Maybe the King would, however unlikely this may be, have even demanded that Charles be enrolled in Eton as opposed to Gordonstoun. I would imagine that in this scenario, Lord Mountbatten would be reduced in power by a lot, and may try to remain in the Naval Command for a longer duration to keep as much influence as possible. I do also believe that Prince Philip may lose some sway, as if the King were to die in, say, 1977, the Queen and Prince Philip would have been married for 30 years, and would have a much less vulnerable relationship than in 1952, when they had been married for five years and were still working out some early rough patches in their marriage.
 

kernals12

Banned
The only difference I can see is that Elizabeth won't be as iconic an institution as she is IOTL. Netflix didn't produce a series about the reign of George V (which despite being far shorter than his granddaughters' was arguably more eventful).
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
What if King George VI didn't die in 1952? What if he lived into the seventies, or possibly the eighties, or at a the nineties even, because he never took up smoking for some reason, what would his long reign, 1936-70's,80's,90's[???], change? How would his attitudes affect a post war world, would Britain be better off, the same, or worse, what about the rest of the world?
I don't believe he would live past 1990, he would've been 94 at that point.
 
I don't believe he would live past 1990, he would've been 94 at that point.

That is a good point, he was a very heavy smoker (but who wasn't in the 30s and 40s?) and he got lung cancer in his 50s, so even saying another 10 healthy years would be more than a little outlandish, although the question is death, so there is always room for the Queen to take over in a Regency if George becomes very ill with a disease that drags out. If the POD is the doctors finding the lung cancer earlier and George surviving, I still don't see him realistically going beyond 80 years old, if even that.
 
I don't know. Elisabeth's first decade was pretty much defined by Great Britain loosing all its colonies, or just releasing them into the New Commonwealth. With an old was hero still nominally on power, would this have happened later, or would it just have happened more violently?
 

kernals12

Banned
I don't know. Elisabeth's first decade was pretty much defined by Great Britain loosing all its colonies, or just releasing them into the New Commonwealth. With an old was hero still nominally on power, would this have happened later, or would it just have happened more violently?
George VI was monarch when Britain lost India, which represented the vast majority of people living under British rule. And the Queen holds no political power, it's the Prime Minister who's in charge. The people in the colonies did not look at World War 2 as heroic, some Indian Nationalists teamed up with the Nazis for independence. To them, Britain was a tyrannical nation and as such they didn't see why Germany was worse.
 
Yeah, I agree that while you would certainly get a big difference in the Royal Family's personal history, you probably wouldn't get that big of a difference in world history.
 
It is very well documented that George VI disliked Prince Philip and didn't think much of him, so it is very likely that the King would be very blunt and at least somewhat forceful when it comes to this issue, as the personality of a future King of England would be deeply changed by this. Maybe the King would, however unlikely this may be, have even demanded that Charles be enrolled in Eton as opposed to Gordonstoun. I would imagine that in this scenario, Lord Mountbatten would be reduced in power by a lot, and may try to remain in the Naval Command for a longer duration to keep as much influence as possible. I do also believe that Prince Philip may lose some sway, as if the King were to die in, say, 1977, the Queen and Prince Philip would have been married for 30 years, and would have a much less vulnerable relationship than in 1952, when they had been married for five years and were still working out some early rough patches in their marriage.
Would say that the opposite could have happened: for sure Elizabeth and Philip had rough patches during the 50s, but the unique position of being a young royal couple made their marriage, as an institution, as something almost indestructible, was it would be almost imaginable a royal divorce that time, specially involving a so young Queen. The rough patches and crisis were managed always with the fixed idea of a lifelong marriage.
With George VI still around, let us say until the early 1960s, Elizabeth could have decided to take more focus into Charles' education and preparation as a future King than having to sort out the intermittent Philip's crisis and demands....that, combined with the fact that Philip would be much off the spotlights for a good part of the 1950s and much freer to enjoy London's amenities at that time, would have a negative effect on the couple, making then more distant and impersonal. Maybe Elizabeth's marriage would become something like OTC King Juan Carlos and Sofia, on which a divorce was impossible but couple life was kept to a minimum.
 
This does also bring another question: will Princes Andrew & Edward be born in this universe? If so, will it be earlier? I can see a possible third child in the 50s, but probably not a fourth. I think alternate names could be Prince William or Princess Victoria (although the fact that the last Princess Vicky was the mother of the Kaiser may put an end to that).
 
This does also bring another question: will Princes Andrew & Edward be born in this universe? If so, will it be earlier? I can see a possible third child in the 50s, but probably not a third. I think alternate names could be Prince William or Princess Victoria (although the fact that the last Princess Vicky was the mother of the Kaiser may put an end to that).
IMHO, where the OTL 1950s marriage crisis have in fact helped the couple on the long run and George VI dies somewhere between 1960-1965, Elizabeth would be probably busy being groomed and refined to become Queen or even acting as regent during the illnesses of her father (in OTL this improvement of her skills took place, in fact, after her accession to the throne), so a third child would be butterflied away. The focus would be on the approaching Elizabeth reign and in the grooming of Charles as a future King. Maybe, given the chauvinist approach of such time, some would even about an Elizabethan interregnum between two great Kings: George VI and George VII (Charles).
 
IMHO, where the OTL 1950s marriage crisis have in fact helped the couple on the long run and George VI dies somewhere between 1960-1965, Elizabeth would be probably busy being groomed and refined to become Queen or even acting as regent during the illnesses of her father (in OTL this improvement of her skills took place, in fact, after her accession to the throne), so a third child would be butterflied away. The focus would be on the approaching Elizabeth reign and in the grooming of Charles as a future King. Maybe, given the chauvinist approach of such time, some would even about an Elizabethan interregnum between two great Kings: George VI and George VII (Charles).

While I agree with the majority of that, I think (however naïve it may be) that there is a chance that the Queen and Prince Philip may be like others in rough marriages and have another child to try to save it, and while we all know now that their marriage was never that bad (and I do know that it really could never fail because of the divorce issue), all sources say that at the time, they were fighting constantly. Also, do we even know if Philip will be made a Prince of the UK?
 
While I agree with the majority of that, I think (however naïve it may be) that there is a chance that the Queen and Prince Philip may be like others in rough marriages and have another child to try to save it, and while we all know now that their marriage was never that bad (and I do know that it really could never fail because of the divorce issue), all sources say that at the time, they were fighting constantly. Also, do we even know if Philip will be made a Prince of the UK?
Most probably Philip would be made Prince as part of Elizabeth's accession to the throne, even as courtesy to the Queen and as father of the next British King...
 
He didn't receive the title of Prince until 1957 in the real world, though. Until then he was just HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

There's no reason that this would have been accelerated should his father in law survive. Perhaps it would have even been delayed given it was George V who narrowed down the title of Prince and Princess to male line descendants and their children to the grandchildren of the monarch.

A great grandchild would theoretically loose the Prince title unless they were in the lineage of the heir apparent. Prince Harry's children will be unlikely to be a Prince or Princess for example.

I can see any appointment of Phil as a Prince occurring uch later if George survives.
 
Question: in such scenario, what happens with Princess Margaret? Even more spoiled or a more balanced person?
 
The people in the colonies did not look at World War 2 as heroic, some Indian Nationalists teamed up with the Nazis for independence. To them, Britain was a tyrannical nation and as such they didn't see why Germany was worse.

This is not wrong, but on the other hand, 2.5 million Indians fought for the British, and there were many Indian leaders who supported helping them in exchange for independence.
 
Question: in such scenario, what happens with Princess Margaret? Even more spoiled or a more balanced person?

George VI was resistant to letting Lilibet marry so young in real life, he wanted to retain the four person family unit that had sustained them for so long as long as he could. She was insistent enough that he eventually relented - what might have happened had he lived for longer and therefore outlived his mother is that when Lizzie did become Queen (let's say c. 1974 to allow him the same vague lifespan as his elder brother) it would likely see the formation of the House of Mountbatten rather than a continuation of the House of Windsor, given that Queen Mary was one of the major players in the opposition to the House of Mountbatten becoming reality.

As for Margaret, I could see her continuing to be very spoiled. Without the stress of her father's death, it might never push her and Peter Townsend together although there are rumours the relationship sparked during the South African Tour of 1947 when she was seventeen.

At the very least George VI's survival would have balanced the Queen Mothers hand in family business. I don't think he would have allowed the Townsend/Margaret relationship for much the same reason she opposed It, though, and in this they were both influenced by their experiences of Edward VIII and Wallis and the abdication.

Does this make her relationship with Billy Wallace more likely to succeed in the long term, and it would probably mean Anthony and Margaret neither meet nor marry.

Would Margaret end up marrying John Turner after accompanying her father and mother on a Canadian Tour in 1957 (in real life she went solo). Surely at 27, the King would have to concede that it was about time for Margaret to settle down.

Or Colin Tenant?

I've been reading several books on Margaret and she fascinates me.
 
Top