WI: Victoria and Albert childless?

The descendants of the Duke of Cambridge did not have succession rights due to his marriage, which was in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act.

Quite true. His wife Sarah Fairbrother was an actress who had bastards by two other men before he met her, then two more bastards of his, and was pregnant with a third child of his when they married. That was in 1847, by which time Vicky and Bert had five children.

While Vicky and Bert are childless, and the Cumberland line (Ernst Augustus and descendants) is excluded, the heir presumptive is the Duke of Sussex, who is 70 and childless. He died in 1843. After him is Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (died 1850); it was his son George, later the 2nd Duke, who married Sarah. Adolphus has two daughters as well: Augusta (1822) and Mary (1833).

Possible impacts of Victoria's childlessness include George getting his chain yanked. The question is when the lack of children becomes a worry. Sarah got her hooks into George in 1840; their first child was born in 1843. If Cumberland (d. 1851) and his son aren't wanted, then George becomes de facto heir apparent (his father won't want it). The powers-that-be in Britain may tell him to knock it off, buy/scare off Sarah, and marry him to someone respectable.

If George is a lost cause by the time the problem demands a solution, his sisters are potential answers. They both married German princelings, Augusta in 1846 and Mary in 1866.

One thing that might trigger the worries is if Victoria has a difficult first pregnancy ending in stillbirth or miscarriage with complications that either nearly kill her or appear to injure her fertility. That could happen as early as 1840.

The other question is when, if ever, the British considered excluding the Cumberland line. Victoria's accession in 1837 ended the union of crowns with Hanover, and British leaders were nearly all pleased, AIUI. But Ernst Augustus was still heir presumptive until Victoria's first child in 1840. Was anything done or talked of then? Later on it was moot because of Victoria's large brood.

If Victoria still lives until 1901 - Augusta succeeds, aged 79, or passes the succession to her only son, Adolphus (1848-1904). (Though Victoria's very different life will no doubt butterfly Augusta's life.)
 
Quite true. His wife Sarah Fairbrother was an actress who had bastards by two other men before he met her, then two more bastards of his, and was pregnant with a third child of his when they married. That was in 1847, by which time Vicky and Bert had five children.

While Vicky and Bert are childless, and the Cumberland line (Ernst Augustus and descendants) is excluded, the heir presumptive is the Duke of Sussex, who is 70 and childless. He died in 1843. After him is Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (died 1850); it was his son George, later the 2nd Duke, who married Sarah. Adolphus has two daughters as well: Augusta (1822) and Mary (1833).

Possible impacts of Victoria's childlessness include George getting his chain yanked. The question is when the lack of children becomes a worry. Sarah got her hooks into George in 1840; their first child was born in 1843. If Cumberland (d. 1851) and his son aren't wanted, then George becomes de facto heir apparent (his father won't want it). The powers-that-be in Britain may tell him to knock it off, buy/scare off Sarah, and marry him to someone respectable.

If George is a lost cause by the time the problem demands a solution, his sisters are potential answers. They both married German princelings, Augusta in 1846 and Mary in 1866.

One thing that might trigger the worries is if Victoria has a difficult first pregnancy ending in stillbirth or miscarriage with complications that either nearly kill her or appear to injure her fertility. That could happen as early as 1840.

The other question is when, if ever, the British considered excluding the Cumberland line. Victoria's accession in 1837 ended the union of crowns with Hanover, and British leaders were nearly all pleased, AIUI. But Ernst Augustus was still heir presumptive until Victoria's first child in 1840. Was anything done or talked of then? Later on it was moot because of Victoria's large brood.

If Victoria still lives until 1901 - Augusta succeeds, aged 79, or passes the succession to her only son, Adolphus (1848-1904). (Though Victoria's very different life will no doubt butterfly Augusta's life.)

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the whole Cumberland line would be excluded in any situation, especially as Ernest Augustus dies in 1851. Even if his son was also somehow so hated as to be removed from the succession by Parliament, it seems most likely that they'd go on to the next Cumberland, since there's nothing questionable about the legitimacy of the line.

Unless there's a separate POD where Ernest Augustus converts to Catholicism. That would do it.
 
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the whole Cumberland line would be excluded in any situation, especially as Ernest Augustus dies in 1851. Even if his son was also somehow so hated as to be removed from the succession by Parliament, it seems most likely that they'd go on to the next Cumberland, since there's nothing questionable about the legitimacy of the line.

Unless there's a separate POD where Ernest Augustus converts to Catholicism. That would do it.

The Hanover line was small.

Ernst August only had the one son, George V of Hanover, he was blind from a young age. He had a son Ernst August, known best as the Duke of Cumberland and two daughters. One of his daughters Frederica ended up living in the UK due to her making an unequal marriage. She had a very good relationship with Victoria and lived in a grace and favour residence provided by the British Queen. Neither of George V’s daughters left descendants.

Assuming that the succession becomes a major issue of discussion in the early 1850s (of course it would be discussed before but as the 50s dragged on and Victoria was in her mid 30s, the chances of her conceiving for the first time would be small and chatter would increase rapidly), Ernst August is gone, his only son is King of Hanover and is Victoria’s heir.
The British government do not want to see a British monarch also King of Hanover again. It seems to me there are a couple of options;

i)Suggest to George V that he renounce his Hanoverian throne if he wants to retain the prospect of becoming King of the UK. Highly unlikely he would agree to this I think.
ii)His daughters Frederica and Marie cannot succeed to Hanover and so Ernst August must succeed to Hanover, which leaves the same problem if the UK government is determined to avoid another personal union,
iii)Frederica becomes heiress presumptive to the UK.

The problem with this scenario is that it ignores that George, Duke of Cambridge is British and by 1856 is Commander-in-Chief of the British Army is going to have a lot of support. Is the British government going to take a risk on a random German Princess over a British candidate?

Even if he refused to marry a suitable bride, it could be agreed that one of his sisters would be his heir. His younger sister Fat Mary, was extremely popular with the masses, to the point it irritated Victoria. She would go to marry and have several sons, all of them raised in the UK. She also had a daughter Mary, who would go onto marry George V of the UK and was grandmother to Queen Elizabeth II.
 
Certainly Ernst was relatively unpopular in Britain - certainly between 1837 and 40 in particular (largely because he was heir presumptive)

The issue of exclusion is difficult and whilst Victoria herself was certainly not fond of her uncle (she had several difficulties with him in the 30s and 40s over her grandmother's jewels, precedence arguements etc) she and her surviving relations would not necessarily welcome a bill altering the succession.

Given Victoria's authoritarianism and her reluctance to admit a personal fault I can't see even a favoured PM being able to bring her to acknowledge publicly she can't produce an heir which makes any exclusion bill very difficult.

Both Victoria's surviving uncles would have been exceptionally reluctant to take the throne in preference to the Cumberland/Hannovers.

The Duke of Sussex might have been prefereable to Parliament but he was old and without legitimate issue as the above posts mention.

The Duke of Cambridge was also old but at least had children even if his heir was embroiled in an invalid marriage.

If Victoria and Albert have a stillbirth or series of miscarriages - and it becomes known that the Queen's unlikely to produce an heir in the early 1840s then it might be early enougth to prevent George of Cambridge's marriage however given his nature his marriage is going to be pretty difficult for his wife. If he can't be detached then it is unlikely the Queen is going to approve Augusta of Cambridge's 1843 marriage to the heir of Mecklenburg Strelitz.
 
Certainly Ernst was relatively unpopular in Britain - certainly between 1837 and 40 in particular (largely because he was heir presumptive)

The issue of exclusion is difficult and whilst Victoria herself was certainly not fond of her uncle (she had several difficulties with him in the 30s and 40s over her grandmother's jewels, precedence arguements etc) she and her surviving relations would not necessarily welcome a bill altering the succession.

Given Victoria's authoritarianism and her reluctance to admit a personal fault I can't see even a favoured PM being able to bring her to acknowledge publicly she can't produce an heir which makes any exclusion bill very difficult.

Both Victoria's surviving uncles would have been exceptionally reluctant to take the throne in preference to the Cumberland/Hannovers.

The Duke of Sussex might have been prefereable to Parliament but he was old and without legitimate issue as the above posts mention.

The Duke of Cambridge was also old but at least had children even if his heir was embroiled in an invalid marriage.

If Victoria and Albert have a stillbirth or series of miscarriages - and it becomes known that the Queen's unlikely to produce an heir in the early 1840s then it might be early enougth to prevent George of Cambridge's marriage however given his nature his marriage is going to be pretty difficult for his wife. If he can't be detached then it is unlikely the Queen is going to approve Augusta of Cambridge's 1843 marriage to the heir of Mecklenburg Strelitz.

Mmmm. Victoria herself did not marry until 1840 and her first child was born in 1841.

I think we are looking at the late 1840s/early 1850s before there is any real acknowledgement that Victoria and Albert are not going to have a living child.

Augusta's marriage will be unaffected. Her younger sister Mary Adelaide had a very difficult time getting a husband due to her size, she is going to be a lot more desirable.

You still have to overcome the Personal Union aspect if you want the actual line of succession to be totally respected.
 
Britain has been in personal union for a century, it is not like returning to the status quo is going to be something all scary and strange. They could deal with it. Fundamentally, I can't see the Cumberland's excluded. Ernst Augustus was unpopular, though he still had his supporters, but that won't be an issue, the later Hannovers could be tolerated.
 
Marriage in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act is an irrelevance if the Monarch and the Prime Minister agree to repeal the act. It was relatively new, brought in by George III who was pissed off at his brothers marrying beneath their royal dignity and having to accord royal status to their wives.

A repeal of the Act would legitimise both the Cambridge and Sussex lines, and place them back in the line of succession.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Marriage in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act is an irrelevance if the Monarch and the Prime Minister agree to repeal the act. It was relatively new, brought in by George III who was pissed off at his brothers marrying beneath their royal dignity and having to accord royal status to their wives.

A repeal of the Act would legitimise both the Cambridge and Sussex lines, and place them back in the line of succession.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The Sussex line was extinct by 1866.

While I agree in principal regarding the RMA, I struggle to believe Queen Victoria and the British government in the 1850s or 1860s would legitimise the descendants of George, Duke of Cambridge given their mother's background. Aside from her children with the Duke, she had two living illegitimate children by two different men.

If we are going down the route of legitimising illegitimate descendants, I think its more likely that one of the illegitimate descendants of William IV would be selected, they had married into the British aristocracy and produced a whole slew of potential aristocratic candidates, a generation removed from their own scandalous ancestor, Dorothea Jordan.
 
Britain has been in personal union for a century, it is not like returning to the status quo is going to be something all scary and strange.

No, it's something that is seriously irritating and very familiar.

They could deal with it.

But they don't want to. If you had to wear a pair of shoes that chafed for a long time, and then you got new shoes, would you want to go back to the old shoes - even if the new shoes wore out suddenly?
 
No, it's something that is seriously irritating and very familiar.



But they don't want to. If you had to wear a pair of shoes that chafed for a long time, and then you got new shoes, would you want to go back to the old shoes - even if the new shoes wore out suddenly?

But was everyone hostile to the idea? No. If they absolutely positively, could not tolerate the king ruling in Hanover, you know what they would do? They would tell the heir to the throne that he must abdicate his Hanoverian throne to become king of Britain. He would do so, because Britain is far more of a prize than a country that in the words of one of her kings 'isn't bigger than a 3 penny bit'.
 
Just my cents about the 2e duke of Cambridge - after Vicky and Fritz were married, she attempted to set up Princess Alexandrine of Prussia first with her brother, the Prince of Wales, and then with the 2e duke of Cambridge. She wasn't attractive enough for Bertie, and I can't remember what the reason was that Cambridge turned her down, but Alexandrine later ended up married to (I think) an alcoholic Mecklenburger prince, despite the fact that she had been considered as a match for the duke of Aosta (OTL Amadeo I of Spain).
 
Just my cents about the 2e duke of Cambridge - after Vicky and Fritz were married, she attempted to set up Princess Alexandrine of Prussia first with her brother, the Prince of Wales, and then with the 2e duke of Cambridge. She wasn't attractive enough for Bertie, and I can't remember what the reason was that Cambridge turned her down, but Alexandrine later ended up married to (I think) an alcoholic Mecklenburger prince, despite the fact that she had been considered as a match for the duke of Aosta (OTL Amadeo I of Spain).

Do you have a source for this? Other than wikipedia I mean.

By the time Vicky had become a Prussian Princess, her mother's cousin the Duke of Cambridge had been "married" for over a decade and had three children. He was also 22 years older than Alexandrine. He had neither great fortune or position, although he had a prominent position in the Army, it did not pay massively well and Victoria's child bearing had reduced the Cambridge branch to near irrelevancy, a factor, together with her obesity that made it difficult for George's sister Mary Adelaide to find a husband.

Vicky must have been insane if she thought that such a marriage would take place, why would Alexandrine's parents permit such a marriage.
 
I also found it a bit odd, but Addy's parents were divorced and shacked up with significant others, so she was being raised by FWIV and Queen Elise. However I think Addy was in the same position in Berlin Katya was in St. Petersburg.

That said, Nikolai was thrashing around quite a bit to find a match for Ollie, what with offers to Hesse-Kassel, Bavaria, Baden, and even to Archduke Stephan in Hungary. Olga was more laissez faireabout the whole matter. But if Wilhelm I is insistent on a Russian match, what about the illl-fated Alexandra Alexandrovna or Princess Alexandra or Ekaterina Petrovna of Oldenburg?
 
Queen Victoria married Prince Albert in 1840. It is April of 1844. The Queen is still childless. She and Albert have a happy consolation. Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is visiting. In mid April Ernest and Albert are out riding. Prince Albert has a riding accident. He is killed. Ernest greatly consoles his sister-in-law.
Ernest returns to England in December. He proposes to the Queen on December 24th, Christmas Eve. Victoria accepts.
Victoria and Ernest marry in May of 1845.
In June of 1846, Albert Edward, The Prince of Wales, is born.
In September of 1847, Prince Ernest, the heir of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, is born.
In 1849, Louise Victoria, the Princess Royal is born.
 
Queen Victoria married Prince Albert in 1840. It is April of 1844. The Queen is still childless. She and Albert have a happy consolation. Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is visiting. In mid April Ernest and Albert are out riding. Prince Albert has a riding accident. He is killed. Ernest greatly consoles his sister-in-law.
Ernest returns to England in December. He proposes to the Queen on December 24th, Christmas Eve. Victoria accepts.
Victoria and Ernest marry in May of 1845.
In June of 1846, Albert Edward, The Prince of Wales, is born.
In September of 1847, Prince Ernest, the heir of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, is born.
In 1849, Louise Victoria, the Princess Royal is born.

Ernst was widely believed to be unable to father children.
 
Well you have to wonder whether Prussia would seriously be prepared to attack Hanover in such circumstances, where its king was heir apparent to the British throne. Has huge ramifications for German unifcation.

I don't think so, George V would be heir apparent, but Queen Victoria would still be young enough that producing another heir would not be out of the question.
 
I don't think so, George V would be heir apparent, but Queen Victoria would still be young enough that producing another heir would not be out of the question.

Prussia attacked Hanover in 1866.

Victoria was 48 at the time. Albert died in 1861.

If Victoria had not concieved by the end of the 1840s, the government would be forced to address it.
 
Prussia attacked Hanover in 1866.

Victoria was 48 at the time. Albert died in 1861.

If Victoria had not concieved by the end of the 1840s, the government would be forced to address it.

What change do you think would occur? I don't think Hannover would be in an alliance with Britain, and Victoria would still be young enough that it would seem likely that she would outlive George.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Victoria and Ernest marry in May of 1845.
In June of 1846, Albert Edward, The Prince of Wales, is born.
In September of 1847, Prince Ernest, the heir of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, is born.

? Why does second son become heir ?
 
Top