And same did all other royal families on that time. Only just OTL George V allowed British royals to marry non-royals.
WI George the IV had a son
- Thread starter Somedevil
- Start date
And same did all other royal families on that time. Only just OTL George V allowed British royals to marry non-royals.
Okay I was not thinking a commoner but someone like a daughter of a Baron or Duke. Since lets be honest the Hanoverers needed some more British blood in there family. I also wonder if the right mariage is made if it holds off the reunification of Germany
And I was NOT talking about commoners. Daughters of Dukes or Earls also were seen as unacceptable then…
Not true. Victoria was the first to allow member of her family to marry in the aristocracy (her daughter Louise and her granddaughter Louise of Wales)
And if they existed they would be most likely discarded like Diana Spencer and Sarah Lennox before them
Well this brings up something. What if Sarah Lennox had married George the III ?
This is an interesting WI for me because I've had to explore many of the same themes for my own TL. What I would say is that the Hanoverians did not consider they needed more British blood because they considered that they were British. That had been drummed into them for long enough by George III who very firmly rejected his own personal connections to Germany and during his long reign, he never visited his "other" Kingdom in Hanover for precisely this reason.
We don't have to speculate either on whether a George V would have taken a commoner bride. George III introduced the Royal Marriages Act to prevent exactly that and it's clear from the marriages of his children that he really wasn't going to relent. Princess Augusta fell in love with General Sir Brent Spencer but Augusta knew she'd never be allowed to marry him because they were of unequal rank. And it's that which George III really meant when he introduced the RMA in 1772. It wasn't about preventing Catholics from marrying in, we already had the Act of Settlement for that. He wanted his sons and daughters to marry equally.
Which most did (when pushed) and it fell to George's wife Queen Charlotte to find suitable brides for them. Which ironically she did in the German courts because they were guaranteed (almost) to be Protestant and used to the way the game was played. Any son of George IV, regardless of his father's unorthodox history in this department, would have been bound by exactly the same restrictions and pushed into exactly the same corners of Europe to find a wife.
The only reason this relaxed a little under Queen Victoria was because she was incredibly selfish and wanted to keep as many of her children close to her as possible in her widowhood. She honoured the marriages Prince Albert arranged but otherwise, she wanted broke German princelings or wealthy British peers for her daughters because she knew they wouldn't wander too far. If we're talking about when things changed because the BRF actually thought it a good idea to introduce a little new blood then yes, it would have been during the reign of King George V.
But even then, they didn't just scour the peerage for anyone with 'Lady' before her name. You had to have some in with the court. For example, Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott was found for Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (we won't go into why...) but it wasn't so much her status as the daughter of a Duke that made her acceptable. It was because her grandmother had served Queen Victoria and Queen Alexandra as Mistress of the Robes and the Buccleuchs were considered reliable and decent.
All in all, royal marriages are quite tricky things and in the 1840s, the marriage market was quite restricted. Most were too young or too old (or already married) but that doesn't mean a GV in this WI would be allowed to settle for less. They would have found him someone. Whether he liked her or not.
We don't have to speculate either on whether a George V would have taken a commoner bride. George III introduced the Royal Marriages Act to prevent exactly that and it's clear from the marriages of his children that he really wasn't going to relent. Princess Augusta fell in love with General Sir Brent Spencer but Augusta knew she'd never be allowed to marry him because they were of unequal rank. And it's that which George III really meant when he introduced the RMA in 1772. It wasn't about preventing Catholics from marrying in, we already had the Act of Settlement for that. He wanted his sons and daughters to marry equally.
Which most did (when pushed) and it fell to George's wife Queen Charlotte to find suitable brides for them. Which ironically she did in the German courts because they were guaranteed (almost) to be Protestant and used to the way the game was played. Any son of George IV, regardless of his father's unorthodox history in this department, would have been bound by exactly the same restrictions and pushed into exactly the same corners of Europe to find a wife.
The only reason this relaxed a little under Queen Victoria was because she was incredibly selfish and wanted to keep as many of her children close to her as possible in her widowhood. She honoured the marriages Prince Albert arranged but otherwise, she wanted broke German princelings or wealthy British peers for her daughters because she knew they wouldn't wander too far. If we're talking about when things changed because the BRF actually thought it a good idea to introduce a little new blood then yes, it would have been during the reign of King George V.
But even then, they didn't just scour the peerage for anyone with 'Lady' before her name. You had to have some in with the court. For example, Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott was found for Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (we won't go into why...) but it wasn't so much her status as the daughter of a Duke that made her acceptable. It was because her grandmother had served Queen Victoria and Queen Alexandra as Mistress of the Robes and the Buccleuchs were considered reliable and decent.
All in all, royal marriages are quite tricky things and in the 1840s, the marriage market was quite restricted. Most were too young or too old (or already married) but that doesn't mean a GV in this WI would be allowed to settle for less. They would have found him someone. Whether he liked her or not.
Last edited:
And yet his son did attempt to marry a Catholic which if not invalidated by the RMA would have triggered the Act of Settlement and removed him from the succession; and we'd have had King Frederick.
Last edited:
Absolutely but the point is, George IV in the OTL couldn't contract that marriage and remain in the line of succession nor more than a son of his could have followed suit and hope to become King. That was how tight George III tied the knots with the double insurance policy of the RMA and the AoS.
Oh I see! I'll hold back on that one as I don't want to put too many spoilers out there for what I have planned for my own TL where Hanover is still in personal union.
VVD0D95
Banned
Assuming Prussia even has rhe desire or ability to unite Germany with a pod this early is perhaps reaching a bit.
It's not that early being Prussia already was making some moves by the time George the V becomes king.
To be fair the Prussian idea of the Zollverein was pretty extensive by 1836, so not unreasonable to think that in a world with a gender-flipped Charlotte, who would likely have a teenage child of his own, that the Hanover Steuerverein which effectively folded into the Zollverein later on IOTL could fold earlier ITTL because of an ongoing Hanoverian/British personal union. Hanover wouldn't face the democratic setbacks that it endured under Cumberland, and 1848 could turn out completely differently as a result.
As a bride for male!Charlotte, I propose a surviving Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, daughter of Tsar Alexander and Louise of Baden. Her religion might prove an issue though...