WI: British Republic Established in the 1870s Through Royal Deaths?

Following the death of Queen Victoria's mother and husband in 1861, Victoria went in to a depression fueled isolation, and just barely performed the functions of Queen of the British Empire. This was at the same time that rumours were circulating that the Crown Prince (the future King Edward VII) was having an affair with an Irish actress. Afterwards, rumours also circulated that the Queen was having a romantic affair with her manservant. Victoria remained in a funk with little-to-no public appearances while a republican movement grew in strength until 1871, when the Crown Prince survived a case of typhoid fever and the Queen recovered from a serious illness brought on by an abscess, after which she emotionally recovered and returned to her Queenly duties.

But what if the Royal Family's bad luck hadn't ended? What if the antiseptic spray used to heal the Queen in 1871 hadn't been available, causing her death, and the Crown Prince becomes King, only to die a few months later of typhoid fever? That would leave seven year old Prince Albert Victor as 'King' and the Queen's second son, Alfred, as Regent.

But let's complicate it further and say that the 1868 assassination attempt against Alfred succeeds. That leaves Prince Arthur, who's off in Canada pursuing a military career, as Regent.

But let's make it even worse!


Arthur takes a bullet fighting Fenian rebels in Canada in 1870, and Prince Leopold becomes Regent instead. Regent Leopold, a noted hemophiliac, stubs his toe and his head explodes, leaving none of Victoria's sons left. At this point, I don't know who the Regent would be. Princess Alice? George V of Hanover? Some other royal relative?

Would this series of unfortunate events be enough to strengthen the republican movement sufficiently to allow the adoption of a British Republic inspired by the French Third Republic, or would this almost comically poorly timed series of deaths only strengthen the popularity of the monarchy through sympathy?

tl;dr rocks fall, Victoria and her sons die. Republic?
 
Maybe?

The next in line is Vicky, wife of the heir to the soon to be German Empire. To call that awkward is a massive understatement. It was bad enough when the King was also King of Hannover. Queen Victoria II would have some really advantages, but the disadvantages might push Britain to a revolution.
 
Maybe?

The next in line is Vicky, wife of the heir to the soon to be German Empire. To call that awkward is a massive understatement. It was bad enough when the King was also King of Hannover. Queen Victoria II would have some really advantages, but the disadvantages might push Britain to a revolution.
That would certainly be a sticky situation, but I'm a bit fuzzy on succession laws. For that to happen would all of Edward VII's children have to die, or just his two sons?
 
That would certainly be a sticky situation, but I'm a bit fuzzy on succession laws. For that to happen would all of Edward VII's children have to die, or just his two sons?

Gah, I didn't read closely enough. No, Albert Victor would be a very popular king, though he'd likely lose even more of the royal powers. There's likely to be a regency council, including Alexandra who won't be interested in anything.
 
That would certainly be a sticky situation, but I'm a bit fuzzy on succession laws. For that to happen would all of Edward VII's children have to die, or just his two sons?
Any legitimate descendant of Edward VII (barring Catholicism) comes before his sister.
 
That would certainly be a sticky situation, but I'm a bit fuzzy on succession laws. For that to happen would all of Edward VII's children have to die, or just his two sons?
Victoria, (former) Princess Royal and Crown Princess of Prussia came after all the offspring of her brothers and her sisters (and their children) after her and her children, so the line of succession at that point will be:
King Albert I
HRH The Prince George, The Duke of York
HRH the princess Louisa, Princess Royal
HRH the princess Victoria
HRH the princess Maud
The Crown Princess of Prussia (Victoria) and her descendants
The Grand Duchess of Hesse and by Rhine (Alice) and her descendants
The princess Helena (married to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein)
The princess Louisa (unlikely to be already married to her OTL husband in that situation)
The princess Beatrice, still unmarried.
Following the British rules I think who the most likely regent will be either Princess Helena or Dowager Queen Alexandra
 
This reminds me of a certain film...

MV5BNjI5N2Y4YWEtYThmOC00ODA0LTlhMGYtNmE3MmVmNjNhYWQyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDI2NDg0NQ@@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg


I think your best bet is actually a bit earlier in the century. Have Edward Oxford's assassination attempt on Victoria succeed in 1840, and this guy becomes King:

220px-Ernest_Augustus_I_of_Hanover.PNG


The reactionary's reactionary.

Now, it's generally suggested that Ernest would be driven from the throne, and replaced with someone who isn't about to crush parliamentary pseudo-democracy, but in the circumstances, especially if Ernie fights, I can imagine a movement to just set up a republic instead.
 
This reminds me of a certain film...

MV5BNjI5N2Y4YWEtYThmOC00ODA0LTlhMGYtNmE3MmVmNjNhYWQyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDI2NDg0NQ@@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg


I think your best bet is actually a bit earlier in the century. Have Edward Oxford's assassination attempt on Victoria succeed in 1840, and this guy becomes King:

220px-Ernest_Augustus_I_of_Hanover.PNG


The reactionary's reactionary.

Now, it's generally suggested that Ernest would be driven from the throne, and replaced with someone who isn't about to crush parliamentary pseudo-democracy, but in the circumstances, especially if Ernie fights, I can imagine a movement to just set up a republic instead.


Why? There's Sussex, Cambridge and a host of more distant relatives. Admittedly the latter are mostly foreigners, but we've had foreign kings before and survived them.
 
Following the death of Queen Victoria's mother and husband in 1861, Victoria went in to a depression fueled isolation, and just barely performed the functions of Queen of the British Empire. .......................snip..............................

tl;dr rocks fall, Victoria and her sons die. Republic?

errrrr........Queen Victoria. Queen Vic was nothing if not productive when it came to heirs.

I mean it's not like we haven't had an unpopular Monarch in the past. The interesting thing would be that if this all kicks off in 1871 the heir to the British throne would be Princess Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia, Crown Princess of the German Empire. And from Victoria II's death in 1901 the Emperor of the United Kingdom, Germany and India would be Wilhelm II!

Butterflies for WW1 or what??!!

EDIT - of course others are correct - Berties kids (and the children of any other sons who predeceased Victoria) would take precedent
 
Why? There's Sussex, Cambridge and a host of more distant relatives. Admittedly the latter are mostly foreigners, but we've had foreign kings before and survived them.

I meant that King Ernest might discredit the monarchy as an institution, especially if he fights any attempt to replace him.
 
...I'm not sure I see how this series of events would equate to growing support for a Republic.

Firstly, you'd have Edward VII's young sons (aged 7 and 6) and three daughters (2, 1, and possibly posthumous depending on when in 1871 he dies) in line to the throne before you even have to think about anyone else.

Straight off there you have a wave of sympathy - apart from the general sympathy that would go with the children losing their father and the country losing two monarchs in the same year, this is an age that valourised children. The Victorians LOVED stories of children in moral or emotional settings, and the story of the "Poor Orphaned (they used this term at the time even if only one parent was dead) Princes) would be played out over newspapers and magazines for months and years to come.

Secondly, Queen (now Queen Mother) Alexandra was a HUGELY popular figure. She was heavily involved in an array of worthy causes, from relieving poverty to caring for the disabled, without being politically inclined one way or the other. Now, ITTL, she's also a grieving widow with five small children. She's going to lend considerable weight to the Monarchial cause.

Third, why are we assuming that Regency Councils only have to be comprised of other Royals? At the time a regency would have involved any number of people - until the 1937 Act the regent themselves didn't need to even be a Royal necessarily or in line the the throne. Victoria's Mum was her planned regent before she turned 18.

Fourth, think about the context. 1871 is the same year as the Paris Commune and the chaos of the end of the Third Empire in France. Britain was patting itself on the back for its political stability - even if there is an uptick in Republican sympathy (and I don't see how) it would be matched by a swing against caused by terror at what was happening in France. The short matter is, those who want a Republic aren't anywhere near power in 1871 and those politicians in power have nothing to gain from pushing for one even if they were interested.
 
Top