WI No Victoria?

What would be the monumental and possible changes to British, European, and world history if either

1. Victoria wasn't born in the first place
2. Victoria had a male counterpart who would succeed his father and/or uncle?
 
Book!!!

I recommend that you read the book:Becoming Queen Victoria: The Tragic Death of Princess Charlotte and the Unexpected Rise of Britain's Greatest Monarch

This book should explain most of the questions you are asking.

Had Charolette not died in Childbirth,England would have had King Leopold and Queen Charolette.(thus butterflying away victoria's birth)

Her death led to teh terrible reigns of the Prince regent,George IV, and William IV.

After three terrible rulers, the English people looked to victoria as the best hope of Britain.

So lets say she still rises to the throne, at age 18, but like Charolette, she dies in childbirth, that means theking of Hanover, Ernest Augustus I becomes King of England.

It is very likely that had that happened, there would have been a revolution in England, and the monarchy would have been abolished.

Victoria was the hope of of England after the death of Charolette, so if she died, the people would probally been one step closer to revolution.

wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandanavian Emperor
 
Had Charolette not died in Childbirth,England would have had King Leopold and Queen Charolette.(thus butterflying away victoria's birth)

Her death led to teh terrible reigns of the Prince regent,George IV, and William IV.

I think you have your lines crossed. Charlotte was the daughter of George IV. Her death was a tragedy, yes, but if she had survived, George IV would still have had his reign first. Only William IV would have been skipped, and by and large William's reign wasn't that bad, it's just that he was a man's man and not one for eloquent society, nor one for politics. He was hardly the fop and dandy spending absurd amounts of money and interfering in everything that his brother was. Neither of them had very long reigns anyway. Also, Leopold would be King of Belgium yes, but in Britain he would only be Prince Regent. The reigning monarch in Britain must always have a superior rank to their spouse (ignoring foreign ranks), and the spouse has no claim to the throne, so a regnant King marries a Queen, but a regnant Queen marries a Prince Consort.

After three terrible rulers, the English people looked to victoria as the best hope of Britain.

Three? Who is the third? I hope you're not referring to George III, because while he had his harsh stances on America and such, and while he went down with porphyria (not madness) he was in fact quite a strong King, and well-respected by the country.

So lets say she still rises to the throne, at age 18, but like Charolette, she dies in childbirth, that means theking of Hanover, Ernest Augustus I becomes King of England.

It is very likely that had that happened, there would have been a revolution in England, and the monarchy would have been abolished.

Victoria was the hope of of England after the death of Charolette, so if she died, the people would probally been one step closer to revolution.

wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandanavian Emperor

Disagree that the monarchy would have been abolished, disagree there would be revolution. The monarchy was far too deep-rooted to just be gotten rid of because of Ernest Augustus. Rather Ernest would have been shut out of government by Parliament and gradually reduced to a figurehead (though still more powerful than Elizabeth II) so that he couldn't interfere. Abolishing the monarchy would be a drastic step - one that no doubt some would advocate, but which would divide the country if it were to be tried, and would end up in a political stalemate. Far more likely Parliament just manipulate the King and force him to sign away his ability to interfere.
 
Leopold wouldn't have accepted, or been offered, the crown of Belgium (or of Greece before that) if he were already Prince Consort, or possibly even king, of Great Britain - it was up to parliament whether the wife of a queen regnant should become king of England (yes for Philip of Spain and William III, no for the Danish bloke and later Albert)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
It should also be noted that is Charlotte survived to assume the throne in all likelihood Leopold would not have become King of Belgium, but rather Archduke Charles of Austria-Teschen (I have a feeling the British would have eventually conceded to a Habsburg with a candidate of their own, if only because the other two candidates were French).

EDIT: Damn Grey Wolf beat me.
 
Leopold wouldn't have accepted, or been offered, the crown of Belgium (or of Greece before that) if he were already Prince Consort, or possibly even king, of Great Britain - it was up to parliament whether the wife of a queen regnant should become king of England (yes for Philip of Spain and William III, no for the Danish bloke and later Albert)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Would Leopold have become Prince consort (as Prince Albert did) or Duke of "X" (as Prince Philip did) or King (as Philip of Spain did)?
 
it was up to parliament whether the wife of a queen regnant should become king of England (yes for Philip of Spain and William III, no for the Danish bloke and later Albert)

Not quite. Philip of Spain only kind of got the throne. Parliament was desperately unhappy with his demands of being made King (he demanded it, it wasn't something he would have been considered for otherwise) and didn't want him to have any power because Spain was the dominant power of the age and they feared being annexed to the Hapsburg domains. While there was nothing they could do to stop Mary being Queen, and Philip and Mary's children (of which thankfully they had none) being legitimate heirs to England and the Hapsburg lands, they didn't want Philip to have power, and while Mary wanted to grant him the right, Parliament stepped in to cause trouble and prevent him from having his wish - with retrospect they were wise to do so, since Philip showed his hand after Mary's death by trying to claim the throne of England by right of marriage to a deceased Queen, which was never legal and was always what Parliament had foreseen. Consequently, they approved Mary's marriage to Philip (something that Parliament did have a right to do) but only approved Philip the nominal title of King of England, and made part of the law that Philip would only have the throne as an husbandly advisor to Mary, NOT as actual King. If you want a better citing (complete with a quotation of the Act of Parliament), I recommend reading this passage.

William again was a different case. In William's case, Parliament did not want to give him any power but in his case, William said that he would not come to England unless he was made King in equal right. Under the circumstances, facing the possibility of losing the chance to get rid of James II, Parliament again broke precedence to grant him his wish - backed up by the fact that his wife agreed with his stance and signed the law to make it legal after James had been gotten rid of. Still, the fact is that husbands to reigning Queens are not supposed to be given the throne. The unifying factor in Philip II of Spain and William's cases are that both of them complained and threw their toys out of the pram because English law said they couldn't be King. In Philip's case, Parliament stepped in to say it would never happen. In William's case Parliament stepped in to say that it would. You only need to look to Victoria and Elizabeth II's reigns to see what happened when the Prince Consorts did not try extorting their wives for power: they did not ask for the throne, and consequently they did not get it.
 
Last edited:
SavoyTruffle said:
What would be the monumental and possible changes to British, European, and world history if either

1. Victoria wasn't born in the first place
2. Victoria had a male counterpart who would succeed his father and/or uncle?

1) If Victoria wasn't born, then that would butterfly her children and descendants. This butterflies a lot of people, most notably all British Kings from Edward VII to Elisabeth II and Wilhelm II of Germany.

If things go OTL, then after the reigns of Victoria's two uncle, George IV and William IV, you would have their youngest brother, Ernst-Augustus. However, given Ernst-Augustus' reputation as a reactionnary monarch OTL, Britain would probably face many problems.

Ernst-Augustus being a man, the Personnal Union between England and Hanover wouldn't thus end immediately. This would probably affect the Bismarckian policy of a united Germany. I'm not saying Bismarck won't try to achieve German Unification under Prussia, just that he will have one more opponent than Austria and France.

2) If Victoria is born as a boy, then you would have an 18 year old teenage boy with Victoria's personna succeeding his uncle William IV in 1837 and ruling up to 1901.
Victoria being a boy in that scenario (possible names in my opinion : George, Edward, Henry, William), then she won't marry Albert of Saxe-Cobourg Gotha (for obvious reasons), which once again butterflies Victoria's children and descendants.
Ernst-Augustus also gets no chance to rule Hannover, since the ATL male version of Victoria has no problem with Hannoverian Salic Law. This will once again probably play on Bismarck's policy of a United Germany.
And lastly, this means the House of Hannover doesn't stop ruling Britain in 1901 : OTL, since Victoria was female, her son Edward VII was of the Saxe-Cobourg Gotha Dynasty (the bloodline of Albert).

If the ATL male counterpart as the same personna as Victoria, it would be interresting to see how Franco-British relations fare under Napoleon III. OTL, Napoleon III and Victoria had a quite good relationship, even if Nappy III was a catastrophe in his foreign policy (he made good inner policies though).

EMPEPEROR OF SCANDANAVIA said:
Had Charolette not died in Childbirth,England would have had King Leopold and Queen Charolette.(thus butterflying away victoria's birth)

Her death led to teh terrible reigns of the Prince regent,George IV, and William IV.

Butterflying away Charlotte's death doesn't mean George IV won't acceed the throne as Charlotte was George IV's daughter. As for William IV, he wouldn't rule England, but he would rule Hannover before giving the throne to his brother Ernst-Augustus.

Of course, you (or we, depending on the point of view) may have the wrong Charlotte in mind. William IV aslo had a daughter named Charlotte in 1819, but she was a stillborn child. He also had another daughter (named Elisabeth) in December 1820 but she died in March 1821. These two weren't William's only children but all the others were the illegitimate Fitzclarence and thus had no right on the crown.
On the other hand, making William IV's daughter Charlotte survive wouldn't butterfly both his reign and the one of his elder brother Georges IV.
 
Not quite. Philip of Spain only kind of got the throne. Parliament was desperately unhappy with his demands of being made King (he demanded it, it wasn't something he would have been considered for otherwise) and didn't want him to have any power because Spain was the dominant power of the age and they feared being annexed to the Hapsburg domains. While there was nothing they could do to stop Mary being Queen, and Philip and Mary's children (of which thankfully they had none) being legitimate heirs to England and the Hapsburg lands, they didn't want Philip to have power, and while Mary wanted to grant him the right, Parliament stepped in to cause trouble and prevent him from having his wish - with retrospect they were wise to do so, since Philip showed his hand after Mary's death by trying to claim the throne of England by right of marriage to a deceased Queen, which was never legal and was always what Parliament had foreseen. Consequently, they approved Mary's marriage to Philip (something that Parliament did have a right to do) but only approved Philip the nominal title of King of England, and made part of the law that Philip would only have the throne as an husbandly advisor to Mary, NOT as actual King. If you want a better citing (complete with a quotation of the Act of Parliament), I recommend reading this passage.

William again was a different case. In William's case, Parliament did not want to give him any power but in his case, William said that he would not come to England unless he was made King in equal right. Under the circumstances, facing the possibility of losing the chance to get rid of James II, Parliament again broke precedence to grant him his wish - backed up by the fact that his wife agreed with his stance and signed the law to make it legal after James had been gotten rid of. Still, the fact is that husbands to reigning Queens are not supposed to be given the throne. The unifying factor in Philip II of Spain and William's cases are that both of them complained and threw their toys out of the pram because English law said they couldn't be King. In Philip's case, Parliament stepped in to say it would never happen. In William's case Parliament stepped in to say that it would. You only need to look to Victoria and Elizabeth II's reigns to see what happened when the Prince Consorts did not try extorting their wives for power: they did not ask for the throne, and consequently they did not get it.

True enough, and of course both were rulers who had that standing, and IIRC William III was also a descendant of the Stuarts

Leopold was going to be created Duke of Kendal IIRC but that need not have been the end of it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Leopold was going to be created Duke of Kendal IIRC but that need not have been the end of it

Just a courtesy title, surely? It's pretty customary for men marrying into the British royal family to be given a title to give them some standing in the British social hierarchy.
 
1) If Victoria wasn't born, then that would butterfly her children and descendants. This butterflies a lot of people, most notably all British Kings from Edward VII to Elisabeth II and Wilhelm II of Germany.

If things go OTL, then after the reigns of Victoria's two uncle, George IV and William IV, you would have their youngest brother, Ernst-Augustus. However, given Ernst-Augustus' reputation as a reactionnary monarch OTL, Britain would probably face many problems.

Ernst-Augustus being a man, the Personnal Union between England and Hanover wouldn't thus end immediately. This would probably affect the Bismarckian policy of a united Germany. I'm not saying Bismarck won't try to achieve German Unification under Prussia, just that he will have one more opponent than Austria and France.

2) If Victoria is born as a boy, then you would have an 18 year old teenage boy with Victoria's personna succeeding his uncle William IV in 1837 and ruling up to 1901.
Victoria being a boy in that scenario (possible names in my opinion : George, Edward, Henry, William), then she won't marry Albert of Saxe-Cobourg Gotha (for obvious reasons), which once again butterflies Victoria's children and descendants.
Ernst-Augustus also gets no chance to rule Hannover, since the ATL male version of Victoria has no problem with Hannoverian Salic Law. This will once again probably play on Bismarck's policy of a United Germany.
And lastly, this means the House of Hannover doesn't stop ruling Britain in 1901 : OTL, since Victoria was female, her son Edward VII was of the Saxe-Cobourg Gotha Dynasty (the bloodline of Albert).

If the ATL male counterpart as the same personna as Victoria, it would be interresting to see how Franco-British relations fare under Napoleon III. OTL, Napoleon III and Victoria had a quite good relationship, even if Nappy III was a catastrophe in his foreign policy (he made good inner policies though).

Just a note - Ernest Augustus had 2 younger surviving brothers, Sussex and Cambridge, of which the latter had legitimate children

It is certainly possible that King Ernest I of Great Britain's reign could have led to a revolution, but it could be more 1830 French-style than 1848 with the Cambridge line picking up the throne. Ernest's son George was blind, and people would not have worried about missing him out.

Sussex even if still alive at Ernest's forced abdication would most probably step aside as he was not a well man

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
True enough, and of course both were rulers who had that standing, and IIRC William III was also a descendant of the Stuarts

Leopold was going to be created Duke of Kendal IIRC but that need not have been the end of it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Had he become Duke of Kendal in this "Charlotte lives" scenario would Leopold (likely, probably, perhaps) have become Prince Consort after Charlotte became Queen? Why didn't Prince Philip become Prince Consort after Elizabeth II became queen?
 
Had he become Duke of Kendal in this "Charlotte lives" scenario would Leopold (likely, probably, perhaps) have become Prince Consort after Charlotte became Queen? Why didn't Prince Philip become Prince Consort after Elizabeth II became queen?

He is prince consort, which is why he has the title Prince.
 
Had he become Duke of Kendal in this "Charlotte lives" scenario would Leopold (likely, probably, perhaps) have become Prince Consort after Charlotte became Queen? Why didn't Prince Philip become Prince Consort after Elizabeth II became queen?

He might not make much fuss about the title; the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's already bore the title Dukes of Saxony. Albert himself refused a peerage, stating "It would almost be step downwards, for as a Duke of Saxony, I feel myself much higher than as a Duke of York or Kent."
 
Prince Consort was a title invented for Albert, there was no tradition of it. He had been made a Royal Highness before marriage, and following the precedent of Queen Anne's husband Prince George of Denmark might have been made Duke of somewhere appropriate (which would have been a substantive not courtesy title), but for whatever reason it was decided not to. So for 17 years after marriage he was just HRH Prince Albert, then Victoria decided to honour his public service and show her own affections with the, so far, unique to him title of Prince Consort.

So there is no reason to think that Leopold had Charlotte lived to be Queen would have been Prince Consort, in fact the idea though not impossible as it wasn't a hard title to dream up is anachronistic. He quite likely would have been given a dukedom at some stage, but in the end he just got the Royal Highness style; curiously, only after Charlotte had already died. King Consort I think is most unlikely. The precedents were Philip of Spain in England, spouse of a reviled monarch who himself became England's greatest enemy, and Darnley in Scotland, a complete waste of space remembered with fondness only by his mother. Also the sickly youth Francis II of France, who never left there in his short life. So not encouraging, and in fact the precedent of Prince George was more recent.

And was followed with the present consort, rather than that of Albert. George did not have to be made a Royal Highness since he already was one; the Duke of Edinburgh was born so but had renounced it, so had to be created afresh, his present peerage also being conferred. So it would be fair to say that the precedents are very mixed; having been done two out of the last three times, probably that of Prince George and now Prince Philip will be followed in future.

All that aside, the implications of no Victoria would as already said have been vast. Although not wielding executive power her influence on her ministers was considerable, likewise on the mood of the age named after her, evem in countries where she never reigned. The genealogical implications would also be enormous, the lack of her children and grandchildren making a real and immediate difference to the European history in which they played so important a part. Really the only way to keep the complications under control would be to slot someone else in as a surrogate Victoria, in which case why even bother with the project.
 
Top