Why did Victoria succeed William IV?

I suspect it was just the practicalities. And the fact that both George and Frederick had a great horror of being thought ridiculous or laughed at .

The Dss. of York only died in 1820. Conventions of the day required a seemly interval before marriage - not a precisely fixed term, but probably a couple years ( mourning itself was at least a year) . By then the Duke would have been 60. Not definitely too old to sire a child, but the likelihood would be fast diminishing. And by 1825 he was suffering from the heart failure that killed him in 1827. Not a very big window.

Also, though the idea seems ASB when applied to one of his family, he really didn't seem all that interested in sex. If he had remarried I'm sure it would have been a "it's your duty" thing. Add all that to the difficulty of finding a princess or widow young enough to have children ( preferably without any already) , and the Duke's fear of people mocking an old man marrying a girl young enough to be his daughter.

George, similar, though less so. He had few more years, but on the other hand, he was decidedly more unattractive personally than Frederick. And a lot more vain and sensitive . I believe that George did instruct his ambassadors to quietly put out feelers to see if a suitable prospect could be found, but they were discouraging.

Still all said and done both Edward and William managed. So it could have been done.

So for both brothers it was almost a question of vanity. Well if one or both were to remarry, who would be considered candidates for royal wives? And, second, sense a Regency would no doubt be necessary, who would serve as Regent? The Widow or a Royal brother, like the Duke of Clarence?
 
Well, for George, a matter of vanity, and who on earth would want to marry him? And for Frederick, lack of time and inclination.


I have no idea of candidates. neither Edward nor William found it easy. One ended up with a rather objectionable widow, the other with a 25 year old (very old for the time, her parents were probably getting desperate) , though Adelaide proved to be a good queen and quite a nice woman.

Regencies, there is no rule it all depends on the circumstances and personalities. The question is rather how the power is split between Regent and regency council.
 
With regard any regency one would assume given Parliament's view on the death of George IV it would be similar to the Regency Act passed then.
It specified the monarch's powers would rest with the Duchess of Kent (if Victoria inherited before her 18th birthday) or with Queen Adelaide if she produced a child (who would have come ahead of Victoria in the succession).
The only real limits to the regents power was they were not permitted to grant royal assent to bills relating to the succession or amend the succession or the acts relating to the religious settlements.
No regency council was proposed
 
I guess King Stephan could be used as precedent. Though that didn't go smoothly so it might be a good argument to just keep it in one line.
 
Top