WI Prince Albert died aboard K-3?

In December 1916, HMSubmarine K-3, with Prince Albert of York (later KG6), took an unexpected plunge while diving and bottomed. It took about 20 minutes to unstick her.

WI the incident had been more serious, and the Prince had drowned?

How much would it have affected Britain's future?

How much the future of the British Royal Family?

Or does it scarcely matter?
 
In December 1916, HMSubmarine K-3, with Prince Albert of York (later KG6), took an unexpected plunge while diving and bottomed. It took about 20 minutes to unstick her.

WI the incident had been more serious, and the Prince had drowned?

How much would it have affected Britain's future?

How much the future of the British Royal Family?

Or does it scarcely matter?
Matters a lot to the family but it has little impact upon events in the wider world. Just wheel in the next Royal and carry on.
 
Given how many other people died in unlucky and unpleasant circumstances between 1914 and 1916, itwould most likely be presented as he unfortunate price of a junior royal doing his duty like everyone else and with a reference to the long history of other royals serving in both war and in peace.
Politically, there is no possibility of pulling royals from combat duty as it would undermine the Royal family's credibility and undermine morale for every other family with serving family members.
 
Politically, there is no possibility of pulling royals from combat duty as it would undermine the Royal family's credibility and undermine morale for every other family with serving family members.
George V had four other sons.

The eldest ("David", the future Edward VIII) had been commissioned in the Grenadier Guards just before the war, but Kitchener refused to let him serve at the front, lest he be captured. He visited the front anyway.

The second was Albert ("Bertie", the future George VI).

The third was Henry (born 1900), a schoolboy who did not enter the service during the war.

The fourth was George (born 1902), who also did not serve in the war.

The fifth son, John (born 1905), was an epileptic.

So "Bertie"was the only royal to see action OTL, and would certainly be ITTL .
 
If King Edward VIII abdicates as in the OTL in 1936, we get King Henry IX and Queen Alice, possibly followed by King William V unless he predeceases his father as in the OTL so we get King Richard IV and Queen Birgitte in 1974 until the present day.
 
In December 1916, HMSubmarine K-3, with Prince Albert of York (later KG6), took an unexpected plunge while diving and bottomed. It took about 20 minutes to unstick her.
Well, actually, K-3 stuck her bow in the 50-meter deep bottom, but the stern of her 100-meter long hull was out of the water. So it wasn't a really serious incident.
WI the incident had been more serious, and the Prince had drowned?

How much would it have affected Britain's future?

How much the future of the British Royal Family?

Or does it scarcely matter?
Leaving aside butterflies, it means the next in line after Edward is the third son Henry, who was reputed to be a promiscuous bisexual drug user. He had allegedly cleaned up his act by WW II, and died in a plane crash while travelling on military duty.
[corrected thanks to Opo.]
That was actually the fourth son, George. Henry was much less problematic. Though like Edward a notorious ladies' man, he married respectably and fathered two children.

But in the 1920s and 30s, ISTM the prospect of Henry George would mean very heavy additional pressure on Edward to marry and beget heirs.
 
Last edited:
Politically Albert's death wouldn't change much. But there would be intresting consueqences for the royal family.

If Edward VIII still abdicates over Wallis Simpson, his younger brother Henry becomes kingHenry IX. He would be succeeded by his older son William V (assuming that he is not killed on airplane accident like in OTL). He would be still king of Great Britain. William wouldhas different education since he would be first on line of succession already since his birth. In OTL prince William had prophyria, same disease which George III probably suffered and caused his mental illness, so if William would still has that not sure how it would affect things.
 
I'm not entirely sure how successful a King Henry IX in this PoD would be - at least, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't attain the same levels of popularity as his OTL niece. But his reign would be quite an interesting one.

Personality wise, Henry wasn't exactly a cheerful chap. He was quite dour, gloomy and bad tempered which was no doubt exacerbated by a drinking problem he developed in the 1930s - which brings us to Beryl Markham. Henry had a love affair with the Kenyan aviator Beryl Markham in the 1920s and 30s and was quite cavalier about it. He didn't seem to care that people knew and committed the cardinal sin of leaving a pretty blatant paper trail. Queen Mary stepped in and managed to both end the affair and retrieve most of the evidence (at huge personal expense). She then insisted he marry immediately in case the newspapers broke the story as they were planning.

Which is how we would get Queen Alice here and I would go out on a limb and say that she might well prove to be the monarchy's biggest asset. At least, she would boost it's popularity in the face of yet another dull King in the model of George V. In the OTL, Alice was extremely popular with the public in the 30s, 40s and 50s and when the Duke was sent to Australia as Governor-General, she drew enormous crowds whilst he mostly confined his activities to military engagements. I don't think it's any secret that their marriage was one of convenience but she was determined to make it work even though he wasn't an easy man to live with. She kept herself busy by embracing her public role despite her intense shyness and I can see the public taking to Alice in the same way perhaps they took to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (though it must be said Alice was nowhere near as calculating or difficult as Elizabeth behind the scenes) and if he's going to be successful as King in terms of public affection, the donkey work is going to fall to his Queen consort.

The 60s/70s would be the most interesting development in this WI though. Henry suffered a stroke whilst driving back from the state funeral of Winston Churchill in 1965, crashing his car and nearly killing Alice who had fallen asleep on the journey. In this POD as King and Queen, they're not driving themselves but the Duke's lifestyle undoubtedly leads to the same medical emergency. From '65 onwards, Henry was partially paralysed and couldn't speak. Alice nursed him devotedly but he wasn't seen in public ever again. In this WI, you either have a regency or an abdication with the Prince of Wales (William) stepping up to the plate. But he's got his own problems. As has been mentioned, he was diagnosed with porphyria (though we have no idea how intense his symptoms were) but perhaps most important was his relationship with Zsuzsi Starkloff.

Starkloff was a Hungarian model and former airline stewardess who started her relationship with William in the late 1960s. William was devoted to Zsuzsi and even though the wider Royal Family was opposed to them marrying on the grounds that she was a Catholic and he was expected to become a working member of the Royal Family, Henry and Alice were quite supportive and received Starkloff at Barnwell. Their advice was that the couple should wait a while until the mood changed - they last met in 1970 because it was made clear to William what he'd have to sacrifice to marry Zsuzsi and almost immediately ran into the arms of Nicole Sieff - a divorcee. The question is how these relationships impact his life when he's Prince of Wales, how Henry and Alice might react and what public opinion would be considering William's enormous popularity.

If we stick with the OTL events, in 1972, William was killed in an air crash - if the relationship with Starkloff is still ongoing, you've just given conspiracy theorists a new project - and just two years later, Henry suffered another stroke and died. In this PoD, Henry IX (if William was regent) would be succeeded by his second son who becomes King Richard IV. He's only been married to Queen Birgitte for two years here with the couple's first child (a son) born just months after the accession. Which would increase the work load on other members of the Royal Family quite a bit and this POD, you actually don't have that many working royals in the fray at all.

In 1974, you'd have Queen Alice, the Queen Mother (if she chooses to use that style), King Richard IV and Queen Birgitte, but as to other royals who can cut ribbons etc? You're only left with three; Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent. If Michael marries the same way (and it's doubtful here because Lord Mountbatten's influence is severely curtailed), he takes himself out of the running when he marries in 1978 - bringing the Royal Family to just five working members. That's not necessarily a bad thing but realistically you might expect public engagements to be cut because of a lack of manpower which in the 1970s, isn't exactly ideal when people start to ask about value for money and the continued role of the monarchy. But then, perhaps a smaller Royal Family is more advantageous in this situation?
 
Top