WI: Prince Eddy survives

I just saw this awesome video and I can't help but wonder, what if Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence survived and succeeded his father instead of his brother George? Given his horrible reputation, could he have driven the UK to abolish the monarchy and become a republic? Would World War I still happen? Would things be different for the Irish? (Eddy was secretly for home rule). Also being an American, how different would things be in the US?
 
I just saw this awesome video and I can't help but wonder, what if Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence survived and succeeded his father instead of his brother George? Given his horrible reputation, could he have driven the UK to abolish the monarchy and become a republic? Would World War I still happen? Would things be different for the Irish? (Eddy was secretly for home rule). Also being an American, how different would things be in the US?

OK much of the horrible reputation was added after his death. There's no proof he went to gay brothels or had anything to do with Jack the Ripper, to name the most prominent black legends. And of all nations, the United Kingdom is the LEAST likely to remove its Monarchy.
 
Not if butterflies cause them to lose World War I, or TTL's equivalent.

How would a different King cause them to lose WWI? I mean the monarch wasn't the leading General of the British army, so I can't see the correlation. And as to the Irish part, wouldn't that be better in the long run? If the King supports Irish free rule then we could see the House of Lords bow to the inevitable. Maybe Ireland will retain a British King.
 
How would a different King cause them to lose WWI? I mean the monarch wasn't the leading General of the British army, so I can't see the correlation.

The loss would not exactly be the kings fault. Remember, IOTL Prince Eddy died in 1892 and WWI did not start until another 22 years so butterflies resulting from Eddy's survival can cause history to be completely different.
 
The loss would not exactly be the kings fault. Remember, IOTL Prince Eddy died in 1892 and WWI did not start until another 22 years so butterflies resulting from Eddy's survival can cause history to be completely different.

Considering how little we know about Prince Albert Victor's politics it would be highly up in the air. He could be Pro-French like his father or pro-German. If Pro-German we could see a neutral or Central Britain. I think it depends on Belgium. If Germany still invades Belgium the British will probably still get involved. But if they don't well they might be armed neutral. Not to mention the German Navy problems. That was the other problem between England and Germany. Last year we had a discussion about having Prince Albert Victor being allowed to marry his original pic for a bride, Hélène d'Orléans (she wanted to convert but was stopped from doing so by her father and the Pope). It was very interesting and if you want I can find the link.
 
One side point: AV may have inherited his mother's progressive deafness (otosclerosis, IIRC), which, if the condition progressed as did his mother's, would have left him profoundly deaf by 1910. Would this have had any effect on his reign or upon anything else for that matter (e.g. more research on the causes of deafness, reducing the marginalization/institutionalization of deaf kids, etc.)?
 
One side point: AV may have inherited his mother's progressive deafness (otosclerosis, IIRC), which, if the condition progressed as did his mother's, would have left him profoundly deaf by 1910. Would this have had any effect on his reign or upon anything else for that matter (e.g. more research on the causes of deafness, reducing the marginalization/institutionalization of deaf kids, etc.)?

I've never read anything that suggested Albert Victor inherited his mother's deafness. Besides didn't she go deaf after an illness? Anyway, I doubt it would matter much. George V of Hanover was blind and you didn't see anything much different about his reign.
 
I've never read anything that suggested Albert Victor inherited his mother's deafness. Besides didn't she go deaf after an illness?

From what I (a complete layperson - my interest in Alexandra's deafness came from having had a Deaf mother) have read, the diagnosis is considered fairly solid and is widely accepted in medical circles. Descendants of her sisters have been definitively diagnosed, and her symptoms (and those of her mother were textbook. Even the onset was textbook - she developed it after a difficult pregnancy, which is extremely common (it's even known as "pregnancy deafness" in some areas of the Deaf community).

Hereditary otosclerosis is not caused by an illness - if you don't carry the genetic mutation, you won't get it - but it seems that (like type 1 diabetes, celiac disease, etc. etc. etc.) the disease needs to be "triggered" by an environmental factor as well. As I mentioned above, difficult pregnancy is a common trigger, but so is measles.

This is incidentally why clinical otosclerosis pops up fairly irregularly; it's an autosomal dominant disease but most people who carry one of the genes will never develop it because they're never exposed to a trigger. What's more, only ten percent of those who do develop it are affected seriously enough to seek a diagnosis. The incidence is thought to have been greater before the introduction of the measles vaccine.

Sir Henry Ponsonby believed that AV was becoming deaf shortly before his death. How reliable his testimony is I don't know. Reliable biographies of AV (and, sadly, the unreliable ones) repeat Ponsonby's claim.
 
Last edited:
One side point: AV may have inherited his mother's progressive deafness (otosclerosis, IIRC), which, if the condition progressed as did his mother's, would have left him profoundly deaf by 1910. Would this have had any effect on his reign or upon anything else for that matter (e.g. more research on the causes of deafness, reducing the marginalization/institutionalization of deaf kids, etc.)?

From what I (a complete layperson - my interest in Alexandra's deafness came from having had a Deaf mother) have read, the diagnosis is considered fairly solid and is widely accepted in medical circles. Descendants of her sisters have been definitively diagnosed, and her symptoms (and those of her mother were textbook. Even the onset was textbook - she developed it after a difficult pregnancy, which is extremely common (it's even known as "pregnancy deafness" in some areas of the Deaf community).

Hereditary otosclerosis is not caused by an illness - if you don't carry the genetic mutation, you won't get it - but it seems that (like type 1 diabetes, celiac disease, etc. etc. etc.) the disease needs to be "triggered" by an environmental factor as well. As I mentioned above, difficult pregnancy is a common trigger, but so is measles.

This is incidentally why clinical otosclerosis pops up fairly irregularly; it's an autosomal dominant disease but most people who carry one of the genes will never develop it because they're never exposed to a trigger. What's more, only ten percent of those who do develop it are affected seriously enough to seek a diagnosis. The incidence is thought to have been greater before the introduction of the measles vaccine.
...snip...

Very interesting. Have any of Alexandra's descendants been afflicted w/otosclerosis?


This could have important consequences during his (I like to think that he would have used the regnal name Edward VIII) reign, - whether or not his 1891 bout w/the flu triggers the disease. mild hearing loss or severe deafness.
 
Top