WI: Princess Charlotte of Wales was born male?

On another note, given that my 1st thoughts for a title to be conferred upon Prince George (if one were bestowed upon him prior to assuming the titles associated w/being heir to the throne in 1820), Duke of Edinburgh and Duke of Cambridge are (w/o additional butterflies) unavailable, perhaps the title Duke of Windsor or Duke of St. James or Duke of Greenwich could be created for him. Actually, my 1st thought would be for him to be named Duke of Lancaster - which I know would not ever happen, even though bestowing that title upon him would assure that it would without a doubt eventually merge w/the crown.
 
On another note, given that my 1st thoughts for a title to be conferred upon Prince George (if one were bestowed upon him prior to assuming the titles associated w/being heir to the throne in 1820), Duke of Edinburgh and Duke of Cambridge are (w/o additional butterflies) unavailable, perhaps the title Duke of Windsor or Duke of St. James or Duke of Greenwich could be created for him. Actually, my 1st thought would be for him to be named Duke of Lancaster - which I know would not ever happen, even though bestowing that title upon him would assure that it would without a doubt eventually merge w/the crown.

The new Dukedoms are intriguing, especially Duke of Greenwich. I can't see Saint James since the Palace was in London. And IDK about Windsor. Was there ever a title associated with Windsor before Edward VIII? As for the Duchy of Lancaster, it couldn't be granted. The Monarch was automatically the Duke of Lancaster, just like the Monarch's eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall. The title can't be separated. Going threw the old Royal Dukedoms some options might be the Dukedom of Hereford, created for the future Henry IV of the Dukedom of Kendall, created for a short-lived son of James II.
 
The new Dukedoms are intriguing, especially Duke of Greenwich. I can't see Saint James since the Palace was in London. And IDK about Windsor. Was there ever a title associated with Windsor before Edward VIII? As for the Duchy of Lancaster, it couldn't be granted. The Monarch was automatically the Duke of Lancaster, just like the Monarch's eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall. The title can't be separated. Going threw the old Royal Dukedoms some options might be the Dukedom of Hereford, created for the future Henry IV of the Dukedom of Kendall, created for a short-lived son of James II.

Once he attains his majority, he'd be granted a Dukedom, it was traditional for sons of the King, minus the Prince of Wales. Grandsons were granted titles as well, typically. They wouldn't create a 'new' Dukedom perse, but rather reuse one of the other typical royal dukedoms. The Hannoverians also often sometimes granted two Dukedoms -- an English and a Scottish one. At this time, the following Dukedoms exist: York & Albany, Clarence & St, Andrews, Kent & Strathearn, Cumberland & Teviotdale, Sussex, and Cambridge. There's also Gloucester & Edinburgh, who is a great grandson of George II. The Duchy of Lancaster is a subsidary title of the monarch, so cannot be granted, while Cornwall and Rothesay are attached to the title of Prince of Wales.

Possibilities include: Albemarle (granted to a grandson Edward III, as well as in the Jacobite peerage but not recognized, also to George Monck but the title died out), Hereford, Bedford, and Somerset

I think Somerset or Bedford would be likely. Kendal seems less likely as it was an Irish title, as was Connaught, and were not granted until Victoria's time. If a Scottish title is granted as well, perhaps Avondale (as a Duchy it had not been granted yet, and wasn't IOTL until 1890). Or he could simply be granted an English Duchy; after all, Hannoverian practice did not always include an English and Scottish Duchy, or an Irish one could be used in place of a Scottish one, with Kendal and Connaught being likely options.

A list is here.
 
A thought just occurred to me. Hanover would remain in personal union with Britain in such a scenario. Anyone have any ideas how a Hanover tied to Britain would change German Unification? And for that matter, would Britain still support Belgian independence? George IV was very involved in creating the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. So would his son offer aid to the Dutch, especially if he's married to a Dutch Princess?
 
A thought just occurred to me. Hanover would remain in personal union with Britain in such a scenario. Anyone have any ideas how a Hanover tied to Britain would change German Unification? And for that matter, would Britain still support Belgian independence? George IV was very involved in creating the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. So would his son offer aid to the Dutch, especially if he's married to a Dutch Princess?

I always thought that German unification could still occur, with Hannover joining the Empire yet still having the same King as the King of Britain. After all, a personal union implies a shared monarch but seperate governments, and by the 19th century the Hannoverians had a Viceroy. If Britain and Prussia have good relations (I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's hard to tell how things would be down the line), Britain would probably be fine with Hannover joining a North German Confederation or something similar once Austria is pushed out of the German picture.

The Dutch is also an interesting issue; it depends how William I rules and if he still sticks his foot in his mouth. If the King is sympathetic and we have a Tory government, I think we'd see quiet British support for the Dutch: ie, not recognizing the Belgian government as legitimate, perhaps instituting a blockade, too. But they wouldn't get militarily involved I don't believe.
 
I always thought that German unification could still occur, with Hannover joining the Empire yet still having the same King as the King of Britain. After all, a personal union implies a shared monarch but seperate governments, and by the 19th century the Hannoverians had a Viceroy. If Britain and Prussia have good relations (I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's hard to tell how things would be down the line), Britain would probably be fine with Hannover joining a North German Confederation or something similar once Austria is pushed out of the German picture.

The Dutch is also an interesting issue; it depends how William I rules and if he still sticks his foot in his mouth. If the King is sympathetic and we have a Tory government, I think we'd see quiet British support for the Dutch: ie, not recognizing the Belgian government as legitimate, perhaps instituting a blockade, too. But they wouldn't get militarily involved I don't believe.

So we could have a less centralized Germany? Or at least in regards to Hanover. George V or another King might end up giving Hanover to a second son or brother at some point if it becomes necessary. But that's assuming Prussia still beats Austria. With a POD in 1796 anything could change.

As for the Belgian Question, I can see a blockade, diplomatic support for the Dutch and maybe a "volunteer" regiment or two, like they had in the Liberal Wars and Carlist Wars. What would be interesting is how the Great Powers respond. I might be wrong but I think Prussia and Austria were also pro Dutch with Britain and July Monarchy France supporting Belgium. With Britain joining with Prussia and Austria what would France do in such a scenario? Send military aid to the Belgians? Threaten an open war? Or back down entirely? When looking at much of the July Monarchies foreign policy, with the acceptation of the Affair of the Spanish Marriages, I'm inclined to think that France would back down.
 
So we could have a less centralized Germany? Or at least in regards to Hanover. George V or another King might end up giving Hanover to a second son or brother at some point if it becomes necessary. But that's assuming Prussia still beats Austria. With a POD in 1796 anything could change.

As for the Belgian Question, I can see a blockade, diplomatic support for the Dutch and maybe a "volunteer" regiment or two, like they had in the Liberal Wars and Carlist Wars. What would be interesting is how the Great Powers respond. I might be wrong but I think Prussia and Austria were also pro Dutch with Britain and July Monarchy France supporting Belgium. With Britain joining with Prussia and Austria what would France do in such a scenario? Send military aid to the Belgians? Threaten an open war? Or back down entirely? When looking at much of the July Monarchies foreign policy, with the acceptation of the Affair of the Spanish Marriages, I'm inclined to think that France would back down.

Well, the German Empire was a federal state; Bavaria for instance got several concessions to join in, for instance maintaining their army (under federal control only during war), their own postal service, ect. Hannover could go to a second son as you said, or remain tied to Britain with the Kingdom getting similar concessions in a federally structured Germany. Either way Hannover would be would of the constituent kingdoms in this scenario I think, not annexed to Prussia. But a lot can happen from 1796.

Austria and Prussia were pro-Dutch, yes. As for France, it's kind of strange. They were actually probably hoping to incorporate Belgium or pieces of Wallonia, especially considering one of Louis-Philippe's sons was offered the crown. I don't see France threatening war if it has no outside support, and in 1830 the July Monarchy is still on shaky footing: this is assuming we still get him on the throne. The direct Bourbons definitely put their foots in their mouths, but it was mainly Charles X. If he somehow dies before his elder brother, things could play out differently, although the successor in that case would be Angoulême, who was married to Marie-Antoinette. He was a stuttering mess and she was super conservative but liked by the people for some odd reason.
 
Well, the German Empire was a federal state; Bavaria for instance got several concessions to join in, for instance maintaining their army (under federal control only during war), their own postal service, ect. Hannover could go to a second son as you said, or remain tied to Britain with the Kingdom getting similar concessions in a federally structured Germany. Either way Hannover would be would of the constituent kingdoms in this scenario I think, not annexed to Prussia. But a lot can happen from 1796.

Austria and Prussia were pro-Dutch, yes. As for France, it's kind of strange. They were actually probably hoping to incorporate Belgium or pieces of Wallonia, especially considering one of Louis-Philippe's sons was offered the crown. I don't see France threatening war if it has no outside support, and in 1830 the July Monarchy is still on shaky footing: this is assuming we still get him on the throne. The direct Bourbons definitely put their foots in their mouths, but it was mainly Charles X. If he somehow dies before his elder brother, things could play out differently, although the successor in that case would be Angoulême, who was married to Marie-Antoinette. He was a stuttering mess and she was super conservative but liked by the people for some odd reason.

The only reason I was reluctant about about Hanover is because it would essentially tie Britain into a permanent Alliance with Prussia. And such an alliance might not go over well in Britain. Hanover would essentially be a Hostage for good behavior. Though I wonder if we could end up seeing Hanover become a rival to Prussia and Austria in terms of trying to unify Germany? If we get a pro-German King in Britain we might see something along the lines of three alliances in Germany: Southern States allied with Austria, northern-Central states around Hanover and Northern-most states around Prussia. Not very likely mind you but possible.

As for France, well this is my area of expertise:D. Louis-Philippe wanted to place the Duc de Nemours on the Belgian throne. And failing that I assume annex parts of Wallonia and Flanders (read the Talleyrand Partition plan). The French Prince was rejected by the Great powers as was the Talleyrand plan. Personally I think both plans were an attempt to shore up popular support at home. France seemed to be fairly divided about the change in government outside of Paris. But yes Charles X definitely suffered from foot-in-mouth syndrome. However, Louis XIX would have been a, in my opinion, good monarch. He was an admirer of the British Parliament from his time in English exile. So wee could see a strengthened French Parliament, at least to the point of the Parliament under the Orleans. Ans Louis XIX was a military hero from his actions in the French Intervention in Spain. Oh and Louis XIX was married to Marie-Therese Madame Royale, not Marie Antoinette. Madame Royale was her daughter.
 
The only reason I was reluctant about about Hanover is because it would essentially tie Britain into a permanent Alliance with Prussia. And such an alliance might not go over well in Britain. Hanover would essentially be a Hostage for good behavior. Though I wonder if we could end up seeing Hanover become a rival to Prussia and Austria in terms of trying to unify Germany? If we get a pro-German King in Britain we might see something along the lines of three alliances in Germany: Southern States allied with Austria, northern-Central states around Hanover and Northern-most states around Prussia. Not very likely mind you but possible.

As for France, well this is my area of expertise:D. Louis-Philippe wanted to place the Duc de Nemours on the Belgian throne. And failing that I assume annex parts of Wallonia and Flanders (read the Talleyrand Partition plan). The French Prince was rejected by the Great powers as was the Talleyrand plan. Personally I think both plans were an attempt to shore up popular support at home. France seemed to be fairly divided about the change in government outside of Paris. But yes Charles X definitely suffered from foot-in-mouth syndrome. However, Louis XIX would have been a, in my opinion, good monarch. He was an admirer of the British Parliament from his time in English exile. So wee could see a strengthened French Parliament, at least to the point of the Parliament under the Orleans. Ans Louis XIX was a military hero from his actions in the French Intervention in Spain. Oh and Louis XIX was married to Marie-Therese Madame Royale, not Marie Antoinette. Madame Royale was her daughter.

Yeah, Marie-Therese. Not sure why I wrote her mother's name, haha. But she was well liked, and that's good to hear about Louis XIX, I wasn't sure as there wasn't much information on him and he was largely in his father's shadow, not to mention in 1830 he had that brief twenty minutes as King where I think Marie-Therese was trying to convince him not to abdicate but he saw the writing on the wall and did so. She was cold to a lot of people, and she's largely the reason the Count of Chambord ended up so conservative, as she raised him and his sister essentially.

And that's a pretty interesting scenario for Germany and how it could play out. You're probably right that if they still shared a King Hannover would be "hostage" in a sense if part of a unified Germany.
 
Yeah, Marie-Therese. Not sure why I wrote her mother's name, haha. But she was well liked, and that's good to hear about Louis XIX, I wasn't sure as there wasn't much information on him and he was largely in his father's shadow, not to mention in 1830 he had that brief twenty minutes as King where I think Marie-Therese was trying to convince him not to abdicate but he saw the writing on the wall and did so. She was cold to a lot of people, and she's largely the reason the Count of Chambord ended up so conservative, as she raised him and his sister essentially.

And that's a pretty interesting scenario for Germany and how it could play out. You're probably right that if they still shared a King Hannover would be "hostage" in a sense if part of a unified Germany.


Yeah there is very scarce info about the last Bourbon Royal Family, at least in English. For instance, some of the journals of Henri V were published a few years ago in French. It really makes me want to learn French. But most of the Info I have about him is from Marie-Therese by Susan Nagel. Its the only modern biography I've been able to find on Madame Royale. But apparently she didn't try to persuade Louis XIX to keep the throne. She wanted Henri V on the throne and sort of got her way, for 5 days at least. And the coldness was also misreported. She was very vibrant to close friends and apparently had a great sense of humor. But yes she was very distant in Public and never felt comfortable in Paris. Which is understandable considering what happened to her family. But yes she was very conservative, though even Madame thought Charles X went too far, and was the primary reason of the Duc de Bordeaux's conservatism.
 
Yeah there is very scarce info about the last Bourbon Royal Family, at least in English. For instance, some of the journals of Henri V were published a few years ago in French. It really makes me want to learn French. But most of the Info I have about him is from Marie-Therese by Susan Nagel. Its the only modern biography I've been able to find on Madame Royale. But apparently she didn't try to persuade Louis XIX to keep the throne. She wanted Henri V on the throne and sort of got her way, for 5 days at least. And the coldness was also misreported. She was very vibrant to close friends and apparently had a great sense of humor. But yes she was very distant in Public and never felt comfortable in Paris. Which is understandable considering what happened to her family. But yes she was very conservative, though even Madame thought Charles X went too far, and was the primary reason of the Duc de Bordeaux's conservatism.

Yes, I have that book on Madame Royale! It's the only thing in English on her actually. There are some older things in English in google books that I could recommend. The French Restoration is one of my interests, French history in general but the Restoration especially is interesting, and the end of the ancien regime.

Ones that come to mind are The Private Life of Marie Antoinette, Madame Campans Memoirs, The History of the Restoration in France by Alphonse de Lamartine in 4 Volumes, The Duchess of Berry and the Revolution of 1830, The Duchess of Berry and the Court of Charles X, Charles the Tenth and Louis Philippe, The Duchess of Berry and the Court of Louis XVIII.

These can all be found on google books, are within the public domain as are usually issues from the 19th century or early twentieth, and completely free to download to your account and read from your computer or phone/whatever through google play. I have TONS of history books in the public domain on tons of subjects, the courts of Louis XIV, XV, and XVI, Charlotte of Wales herself, Elizabeth I, Mary Stuart.... ect, all free. One thing to keep in mind is they aren't modern literature, so can hold biases of the period they were written, will not contain new information, but they are in English, and on subjects such as the Restoration, have lots of stuff, considering that period isn't well covered in English. Susan Nagel's book was only released back in 2011? And there's virtually nothing on Louis XVIII and Charles X, except in broad books that cover 19th century century history. Same goes for Charlotte, there are lots of memoirs with info on her, you can get the memoir of her companion Miss Knight. It's all helpful, has information, and in many ways is more personal. The books of the Duchess of Berry concerning the Courts of Louis XVIII and Charles X have tons of information on the personal life of the Duchess during her short marriage and her life following Berri's assassination and how the court functioned. There's some political info (I think the book concerning the Duchess of Berry and the Revolution of 1830 would have more of that, but I've only scanned it. I did read the first volume of the series, of the Duchess and Louis XVIII's court and loved it.)

But you hit the nail on the head. Cold in public; there were retorts on the Bourbons return to Paris that she was very cold, but around her family she was very nice. No doubt returning to France was traumatizing, but she did love the country: there's a reason why she married Angoulême and not the Archduke Charles. It was her mother's wish as she didn't want her daughter to leave the country, even though Louis XVIII tricked her. Angoulême wrote her love letters prior to their meeting, but they were actually written by Provence. But she still married him, and despite his stuttering and supposed impotence (which was apparently not true, as she miscarried during their English and exile and I've heard of a second pregnancy during the Restoration, but it was actually the onset of menopause), they got along and became friends.

There's a reason why Napoleon called her the only man in her family, too. Her actions in Bordeaux were very brave, she intended to stand up to Napoleon; it was only when the troops in the city said they would not intervene or fight against him, that she left. She probably felt that the French people were "ungrateful" in a sense towards her family upon their return.

There's also the fact that the 1820s was filled with men claiming to be her brother, the shallow graves of her parents being uncovered... it would be mentally straining on anyone. She even apparently met with the wife of her brother's goaler, the cruel shoemaker who made would get him drunk and make him sing revolutionary songs, ect. The woman was old at this point, and told Madame Royale her brother was not dead, had indeed been switched out... I think Susan's book covers it, but I don't recall. But all the claimants claiming to be her brother, it was hard on her. She never admitted he was dead, but she never claimed that her uncle was usurping the crown, and supported Chambord's claim.
 
Top