WI No Elizabeth II in 1952?

WI Succession laws in UK barred completely females and instead of Elizabeth II as Queen you had King Henry IX (formerly Duke of Gloucester) as King? How the reign of King Henry IX would look like? Any thoughts?
 
You'd totally alter everyone from where Elizabeth I would have reigned, thus butterflying World History beyond recognition.
 
If Britain still uses salic law in 1952, it is logically to assume that it had been in place in the past.

This would mean (depending when they started using it again):

No Queen Victoria, thus the separation between Britain and Hannover never happens (it happened due to Hannover having salic laws).

During the glorious revolution no need for the compromise with William, because under salic laws he would have been first in line of succession.

No Elizabeth I, no bloody mary and you can go on and on.

All these things would change history far beyond recognition.
 
Prince Charles is already born. Is he the heir? What happens between 1952 and the time he becomes of age in the sixties?

Actually he isn't if the law is adopted before 1948, but in any case Salic Law would exclude him as well as his mother.
 
WI Succession laws in UK barred completely females and instead of Elizabeth II as Queen you had King Henry IX (formerly Duke of Gloucester) as King? How the reign of King Henry IX would look like? Any thoughts?

The Duke of Gloucester was a dull staid man who would have been a model King in the format of his brother George VI and father George V. Much like George VI, King Henry IX would have been heavily overshadowed by his vivacious and elegant wife Alice, who died in 2004 and remains the oldest living royal ever in British royal history living to the age of 102.
What is interesting is what would have happened to the Gloucesters’ two sons. The eldest William, was a handsome playboy, he had affairs with married women and at the time of his death in 1972 seemed to be having a very serious dalliance with a divorced Hungarian noblewoman.
William would have been an incredibly popular Prince of Wales in the 1960s but his behaviour; reminiscent of that of his uncle Edward VIII would have perhaps concerned the old guard. Assuming he predeceased his father as he in fact did in 1972 by being killed in an airplane accident, King Henry IX is succeeded on his death in 1974 by King Richard IV.
Richard is the current Duke of Gloucester, an architect by profession; he married a Danish lady Birgitte. They have been married for nearly 40 years and have three children.
The current Duke and Duchess of Gloucester are arguably the most low key members of the British royal family, there has been zero scandal attached to them, they undertake hundreds of public engagements each year and receive almost no media coverage. They are model royals.
King Richard and Queen Birgitte would be extremely likeable and respected.
 
For argument's shake lets say that Salic Law is established in UK around early 20th century...

Establishing an environment where Salic Law is introduced poast Queen Victoria is arguably ASB, or at the very least it's highly unlikely. Liberals would be against it because of the restrictions (at a time when laws were generally being liberalised), while Conservatives would apose it on the grounds that it would have excluded Victoria (one of the most fondly remembered monarchs) from being Queen had it been introduced earlier.

As unlikely as it is, I see a Republic as more plausible than an introduction of Salic Law.
Imho, the (best) way of preventing Elizabeth II's reign without change in succession beforehand, is for her and Margaret to be in the wrong place at the wrong time at any point between 1940 and 1941...
 
Imho, the (best) way of preventing Elizabeth II's reign without change in succession beforehand, is for her and Margaret to be in the wrong place at the wrong time at any point between 1940 and 1941...
This is a far more realistic PoD in bringing the Duke of Gloucester to the throne as Henry IX...
 
Establishing an environment where Salic Law is introduced poast Queen Victoria is arguably ASB, or at the very least it's highly unlikely. Liberals would be against it because of the restrictions (at a time when laws were generally being liberalised), while Conservatives would apose it on the grounds that it would have excluded Victoria (one of the most fondly remembered monarchs) from being Queen had it been introduced earlier..

In fact, for a really plausible one you have to go back to the Tudors.

If Henry VIII had a younger brother, he might well have made him heir (failing a son) in preference to his daughters.

A longer shot might be 1714. George i being from Germany, where Salic Law was the norm, might have sought to introduce it in Britain, though whether Parliament would have agreed is another matter.
 
In fact, for a really plausible one you have to go back to the Tudors.

If Henry VIII had a younger brother, he might well have made him heir (failing a son) in preference to his daughters.

A longer shot might be 1714. George i being from Germany, where Salic Law was the norm, might have sought to introduce it in Britain, though whether Parliament would have agreed is another matter.

As Hannover was Salic, it would be the best POD for this.
 
Top