William IV of Britain has sons

A query.

So I was doing some reading on William IV and his wife Adelaide, and I saw that in 1822, they had stillborn twin sons. Now my question is say that these sons survive, I imagine that as they were born during the reign of George IV, one boy would likely be called George and the other would be titled William?

Now assuming Frederick Duke of York and ALbany, still dies as otl in 1827, when William IV ascends the throne in 1830, his eldest son would be Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay and later Prince of Wales, I assume his second son would be titled Duke of York and Albany. Who might these two royal princes marry?

Secondly, by the time of William IV it was increasingly becoming apparent that the power for the monarch to form a government against the will of the electorate was diminishing, but say something happens that reduces confidence in the politicians, would the King become the natural substitute for them?

I guess what I am asking is how might William IV having sons go onto change and shape British politics for the rest of the 19th century?

Especially if we were to have say his oldest son be in the centre when it comes to politics, whilst his brother is more liberal.
 
So both brothers are born on 8 April 1822.

George, Prince of Wales, is married to Princess Sophie of the Netherlands, (8th April 1824) the only daughter of King William II of the Netherlands and of his wife Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna of Russia. This links Britain with two nations, that will assist in future developments. The reason, I picked Sophie because it links to the OTL William IV, who favoured the suit of Prince Alexander of the Netherlands, second son of the Prince of Orange to Princess Victoria. It is also sweet to have the two royals share a birthday.

Prince William, Duke of York and Albany is Princess Elisabeth of Saxe-Altenburg (26th March 1826) fourth daughter of Joseph, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg and his wife Duchess Amelia of Württemberg. Her older sister Marie, is married to William's cousin, Prince George of Cumberland.

Family Tree
William IV (21 August 1765 – 20 June 1837) {m. 1818} Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen (13 August 1792 – 2 December 1849)
George V (8 April 1822 - 9 July 1880) {m. 1838} Princess Sophie of the Netherlands (8 April 1824 - 23 March 1897)
William V (31 July 1844 - 20 November 1894) {m. 1869} Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia (17 October 1853 – 24 October 1920)
George VI (15 October 1874 - 6 February 1954) {m.} Princess Louise of Denmark (17 February 1875 – 4 April 1906)
Mary, Princess Royal (10 February 1897 – 1 October 1938)
William VI (20 February 1898 – 13 July 1974) {m.} Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott (25 December 1901 – 29 October 2004)
George, Prince of Wales (18 December 1941 – 28 August 1972)
William VII (born 26 August 1944) {m.} Princess Christina of the Netherlands (18 February 1947)
George, Prince of Wales (17 June 1977)
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (6 July 1979)
Prince Henry (born 8 October 1981)​
Princess Louise (19 December 1899 – 2 May 1925)​
Mary Princess Royal (29 October 1875 - 18 July 1938)
Princess Victoria (25 November 1876 - 2 March 1936)
Princess Sophie (1 September 1878 - 16 April 1942)
Princess Elizabeth (20 April 1884 - 13 July 1966)​
Sophie, Princess Royal (20 January 1849 - 6 May 1922)
Princess Elizabeth (29 March 1851 - 26 April 1859)
Princess Adelaide (28 February 1854 - 10 July 1908)​
Prince George, Duke of York & Albany (8 April 1822 - ) {m. 1843} Princess Elisabeth of Saxe-Altenburg (26 March 1826 - 2 February 1896)
Prince George, Duke of York and Albany (16 November 1852 - 24 February 1931)
Prince William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews (27 June 1855 - 30 November 1939)
Major changes
- No abdication crisis of 1936
- Without Victoria coming to the throne, her daughter doesn't marry Frederick, Crown Prince of Prussia, meaning no Wilhelm II looking for WAR!!!
 
Alright brilliantly done there. I do wonder what this means for Hannover, as well as for Victoria herself, does she still marry her German prince or does she go ahead and marry Prince Alexander of the Netherlands?

And with there being no Wilhelm II, I imagine that means a very changed world war one?
 
And with there being no Wilhelm II, I imagine that means a very changed world war one?
Wilhelm wasn't quite the insane militarist he is sometimes portrayed as and tried to talk Tsar Nicholas out of a Russian mobilisation and hesitated over the violation of Belgium's borders. He was on the other hand a cack handed amateur at international diplomacy. A more resolute and confident Kaiser might have overruled his generals in 1914 (see Gray Tide in the East) or a more diplomatic one might not have given the Daily Telegraph interview and avoided the Anglo-German Naval Race. Possibly signed the Anglo-German convention in 1912. And a more liberal Kaiser might have left the matter to his Reichstag and Chancellor and not been seen as warmonger in chief at all.
 
Wilhelm wasn't quite the insane militarist he is sometimes portrayed as and tried to talk Tsar Nicholas out of a Russian mobilisation and hesitated over the violation of Belgium's borders. He was on the other hand a cack handed amateur at international diplomacy. A more resolute and confident Kaiser might have overruled his generals in 1914 (see Gray Tide in the East) or a more diplomatic one might not have given the Daily Telegraph interview and avoided the Anglo-German Naval Race. Possibly signed the Anglo-German convention in 1912. And a more liberal Kaiser might have left the matter to his Reichstag and Chancellor and not been seen as warmonger in chief at all.

Alright interesting. Would you say then that with a POD in 1822, there is no guarantee whatsoever of there being a world war one? Though I suppose blows could happen due to Hannover?
 
I suspect that there would have been a "Great War" somewhere, sometime. The machine gun had already been around for over 30 years by 1914 (including pre Maxim types like the Gatling), the aeroplane was militarily capable (to a limited degree) from about 1912 on. Observation balloons were trialled in the ACW in the 1860s, Military capable dirigible airships available from 1908 and Britain could have had the tank by 1914 if there had been anyone about the War Office with a bit of nous in 1908. Likewise Austria and/or Germany (there was a bright Austrian inventor too) Poison gas and gas masks late Edwardian technology too. Any major European war would have brought these together. But it wouldn't have been our WWI and for our reasons. Britain and Germany against France and Russia? Austria and France against Germany? Germany and Italy against France? Possibly worse, possibly more limited in scope. It would be down to more things than who sat on what throne, but Royalty were still heavily engaged in international diplomacy up to 1914 (OTL) so there would certainly have been changes whether for better or for worse.
But remember that (say) a limited war between Austria and Italy over an Albanian casus belli between 1917 and 1919 with various Balkan states getting embroiled for reasons of territorial acquisition and old grudges in which 650,000 perished would be the BIG War for a Europe that had seen nothing more major than the Prusso-Danish, Prusso-Austrian and Franco-Prussian Wars since 1815. And maybe not even those with a more liberal line of Hohenzollerns? From our superior knowledge we know that their twentieth century Europe would have got off incredibly lightly, but to that TL it would have been the seminal negative event of the twentieth century - a deterrent and a warning to all students of international affairs.
 
I suspect that there would have been a "Great War" somewhere, sometime. The machine gun had already been around for over 30 years by 1914 (including pre Maxim types like the Gatling), the aeroplane was militarily capable (to a limited degree) from about 1912 on. Observation balloons were trialled in the ACW in the 1860s, Military capable dirigible airships available from 1908 and Britain could have had the tank by 1914 if there had been anyone about the War Office with a bit of nous in 1908. Likewise Austria and/or Germany (there was a bright Austrian inventor too) Poison gas and gas masks late Edwardian technology too. Any major European war would have brought these together. But it wouldn't have been our WWI and for our reasons. Britain and Germany against France and Russia? Austria and France against Germany? Germany and Italy against France? Possibly worse, possibly more limited in scope. It would be down to more things than who sat on what throne, but Royalty were still heavily engaged in international diplomacy up to 1914 (OTL) so there would certainly have been changes whether for better or for worse.
But remember that (say) a limited war between Austria and Italy over an Albanian casus belli between 1917 and 1919 with various Balkan states getting embroiled for reasons of territorial acquisition and old grudges in which 650,000 perished would be the BIG War for a Europe that had seen nothing more major than the Prusso-Danish, Prusso-Austrian and Franco-Prussian Wars since 1815. And maybe not even those with a more liberal line of Hohenzollerns? From our superior knowledge we know that their twentieth century Europe would have got off incredibly lightly, but to that TL it would have been the seminal negative event of the twentieth century - a deterrent and a warning to all students of international affairs.

Alright very interesting.

The reason I ask is that I've always been curious about how constiutional monarchs must feel when they see Politicians doing things out of greed and avarice, and not doing what they said they would do. I've often wondered at the struggle the crowned heads of state must go through on a daily basis, with these things.

So this idea stems from that as well as an interest in seeing how a France that has a constiutional monarch also develops as well
 
Well I hope you can develop an interesting timeline out of it :) As I said earlier, pre 1914 monarchs had much more involvement in politics and diplomacy. Look at Edward VII and the Entente Cordiale. He wasn't the only driver of course but he helped. Now imagine how different the twentieth century would have been if he had loved to go to Baden and adored his German nephew!

I suspect that constitutional monarchs develop a certain healthy cynicism. There is a tension it is true but it isn't unique to them. Judges must often feel huge contempt for the decisions of juries and civil servants and soldiers have to go through an even worse struggle - we don't just have to witness such behaviour, we have to assist in implementing it.:(
 
Well I hope you can develop an interesting timeline out of it :) As I said earlier, pre 1914 monarchs had much more involvement in politics and diplomacy. Look at Edward VII and the Entente Cordiale. He wasn't the only driver of course but he helped. Now imagine how different the twentieth century would have been if he had loved to go to Baden and adored his German nephew!

I suspect that constitutional monarchs develop a certain healthy cynicism. There is a tension it is true but it isn't unique to them. Judges must often feel huge contempt for the decisions of juries and civil servants and soldiers have to go through an even worse struggle - we don't just have to witness such behaviour, we have to assist in implementing it.:(

Och aye. I do wonder, how might the liberal wars in Portugal influence events world wide, if for example Miguel wins.

If you don't mind me asking, are you a soldier yourself?
 
Also how might France develop in this scenario
With a longer lasting constitutional monarchy?

Might we see the British crown have the ability toe influence things in Britain ?
 
If you don't mind me asking, are you a soldier yourself?

Even worse, a civil servant! British Crown still quietly quite influential up until the 1970s and even today the PM would have to pick her quarrels with the Queen rather carefully. HM is still respected, the political class not especially.
 
Even worse, a civil servant! British Crown still quietly quite influential up until the 1970s and even today the PM would have to pick her quarrels with the Queen rather carefully. HM is still respected, the political class not especially.

Oh my.

And oh that's quite interesting, what happened in the 70s to stop their influence?

Do you think it's better for them to be quietly influential or publicly influential?
 
Changing political circumstances, Labour Party moved a bit further left, Conservative Party became more business orientated rather than preserve of the landed classes, society generally became less deferential, some decision making migrated to Brussels. Didn't help that her last choice of PM (Douglas-Home) then lost the election. Thereafter Conservatives joined Labour in electing their party leader. Which reduced Royal influence still further.

Most European monarchies retreated from public politics during the C19th to a greater or lesser extent. Politics getting both more rough and tumble with a larger political class and also more professional with developing technologies needing to be employed and understood. Private influence is partly down to the character of the wearer. The Queen has behaved with the utmost constitutional propriety all her life and is massively more politically experienced than any of her Ministers. So when she does privately warn, it is taken quite seriously. If she and Prince Charles both dropped dead this morning, Prince William just wouldn't have the same clout. Constitutionally his position would be exactly the same, but Theresa May would be hugely more politically experienced than he.
 
Okay interesting. Hmm, I wonder, in a scenario where France restores the ancient regimen-through a variety of things-, what knock on consequences could this have for Britain and the Hannoverians?
 
The "when" would be fairly important. Do you envisage:-
1) Strangling revolution in its cradle, e.g. Louis orders the Swiss Guard to deal with the Parisian mobs;
2) Successful Counter-Revolution (early) - flight to Varennes succeeds;
3) Successful Counter-Revolution (late) -de Batz engineers a royalist restoration; or
4) Bourbon restoration by victorious anti-French alliance (either as OTL or slightly earlier, possibly without the Hundred Days)?

How things would be regarded both within and without France could vary considerably dependant on the option chosen.
 
The "when" would be fairly important. Do you envisage:-
1) Strangling revolution in its cradle, e.g. Louis orders the Swiss Guard to deal with the Parisian mobs;
2) Successful Counter-Revolution (early) - flight to Varennes succeeds;
3) Successful Counter-Revolution (late) -de Batz engineers a royalist restoration; or
4) Bourbon restoration by victorious anti-French alliance (either as OTL or slightly earlier, possibly without the Hundred Days)?

How things would be regarded both within and without France could vary considerably dependant on the option chosen.

Hmm. I was thinking perhaps the First Coalition War goes very badly for Republican France, combined with a Reign of Terror that sees mass executions, the lack of the freedoms promised to the people, the reign lasting until 1796. And perhaps a Successful COunter revolution or a royalist victory during the war of the first coalition.
 
In that case, George IV might be more willing to allow the Whigs into office, particularly if Charles James Fox still alive. Relatively liberal as a young prince, the French Revolution pushed him towards a more conservative stance. That being said, the playboy prince will still effectively diminish the political capital of the monarchy by being hugely unpopular and more interested in having a good time than in government.

Could also see the development of "progressive" yet antidemocratic political ideologies following the excesses of the Reign of Terror.
 
In that case, George IV might be more willing to allow the Whigs into office, particularly if Charles James Fox still alive. Relatively liberal as a young prince, the French Revolution pushed him towards a more conservative stance. That being said, the playboy prince will still effectively diminish the political capital of the monarchy by being hugely unpopular and more interested in having a good time than in government.

Could also see the development of "progressive" yet antidemocratic political ideologies following the excesses of the Reign of Terror.

Alright interesting. I was wondering, if one were to have this as a timeline of events for Britain, how might things play out?

1796: George, Prince of Wales's wife dies giving birth to a stillborn daughter.

1800: George III dies from a brain tumour.

1802: During a particularly heavy night of entertainment and drinking, George IV's heart gives way and the young King dies.
 
Alright interesting. I was wondering, if one were to have this as a timeline of events for Britain, how might things play out?

1796: George, Prince of Wales's wife dies giving birth to a stillborn daughter.

1800: George III dies from a brain tumour.

1802: During a particularly heavy night of entertainment and drinking, George IV's heart gives way and the young King dies.

Nice beginning. Will you take it further?
 
Top