WI:George VI has a son

After watching the phenomenal Netflix series, The Crown, I thought of a question: what if HM George VI had another child, a boy, on November 20th, 1933. Let's call him Alexander. He is much closer to the ATL Princess Elizabeth (OTL HM Elizabeth II) in personality, being more calm, collected, and shy. He however does share Princess Margaret's rebellious spirit of sort, much more willing to go outside the box and wanting to bring the monarchy into a modernity more quickly. (If you want it more simply, He's a lot like Robert Kennedy.)

Let's assume George VI dies on schedule on February 6th, 1952, two months after Alexander's 18th Alexander decides to keep his name as King out of respect for his late father, as Edward VII did. How does this decision go over with the court and the aristocracy, considering the new King is the first to bear that name in English history. However there were three Alexanders that ruled in Scotland. Alexander III's death without an heir, set in to motion the Scottish Wars of Independence. How would this go over with the Scots?

How might King Alexander's relationship with Winston Churchill go?

When would it be expected for Alexander to get married? Who might he possibly marry?

I can see Alexander approving the marriage of Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend at least initially. After learning from Churchill that it would not be approved, perhaps it might be negotiated down towards a civil ceremony?

Overall what might be the effect of having an 18 year old boy coming to the throne instead of a 25 year old young woman in Modern British culture and history? Obviously butterflies will be prominent, but up until the Suez Crisis, what might be different?
 
Last edited:
The first in English History, but not British - he would also be Alexander IV (I think) of Scotland.
My mistake and after looking it up, Alexander III of Scotland had a son who was named Alexander, he was the last surviving heir. He died at the age of 9, thus setting the course of the Scottish Wars of Independence, so the name may not go over well with Scots. OTL HM Queen Elizabeth II had her own issues with her regal name.

Wikipedia said:
within Scotland [did] the title Elizabeth II cause[d] controversy as there had never been an Elizabeth I in Scotland. In an act of sabotage, new Royal Mail post boxes in Scotland, bearing the royal cypher EIIR, were vandalised, after which, to avoid further problems, post boxes and Royal Mail vehicles in Scotland bore only the Crown of Scotland. A legal case, MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396), was taken to contest the right of the Queen to title herself Elizabeth II within Scotland, arguing that to do so would be a breach of the Act of Union. The case, however, was lost on the grounds that the pursuers had not title to sue the Crown and the numbering of monarchs was part of the Royal Prerogative, and thus not governed by the Act of Union. It was suggested by Winston Churchill that future British monarchs should be numbered according to either their English or Scottish predecessors, whichever number is higher.

If Scots did that to The Queen, then I can only imagine what they do to the King. It wouldn't get to terrorism obviously. Maybe Churchill's suggestion becomes a law in Parliament? The aristocracy might get uppity about pandering to the Scots though.
 
Top