William IV of Britain's daughter Elizabeth survives.

I think Henry IX works because Albert and Philip came afterwards and William III and Philip of Spain are the most prominent male consorts in a country without an established constitution to standardize it.

Philip of Spain was titled King of England as Mary insisted upon it, despite the protestations of Parliament (and only held it for Mary's lifetime) whilst William III wasn't King Consort but King Regnant in his own right.

Given the Glorious Revolution and the lack of absolute monarchy at this point, I would imagine that Parliament are going to stick to their opinions re the title of the consort.
 
I'm not entirely sure why we're using King Consort as the title for Prince Henry - as that's never really been the title used.

Philip of Spain and William III were both exceptional cases for various reasons. As such i think the templates we should be using here are George of Denmark, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Philip Mountbatten who have all been termed Prince Consort.
George was a foreigner as was Albert, whilst Philip simply was given what he was given. Henry is a bona fide Englishman why wouldn’t he be given the title?
 
As for the French royal family I think it'd look something like this:

Charles X of France (b.1778: d. 1846) m Marie Caroline of Naples and Sicily (b.1798)

Issue:

Louise Marie, Princess of France (b.1819)

Henri V of France (b. 1820)

Louis, Duke of Bordeaux (b. 1822)

Maria Clementina of France (b.1825)

Maria Theresa of France (b.1828)

Charles, Duke of Angouleme (b. 1831)

Louise Elisabeth (b.1834)
 
Who could be considered good spouses for the children of Liz II?

I don't think we've planned out the political situation enough to adequately predict the situation going forward - we probably want to figure out the Belgium situation a little more, consider Greece, Russia and France in a little more detail.
 
I don't think we've planned out the political situation enough to adequately predict the situation going forward - we probably want to figure out the Belgium situation a little more, consider Greece, Russia and France in a little more detail.

Aha this is very true.

Re Greece, I think Leopold would likely have a better grasp over the political situation than Otto did,if he marries someone from one of the great powers, perhaps he can balance things. I definitely don't see the constant twoing and throwing over monarchy or republic. I also think Britain might be more inclined to the Megali idea under Leopold than they were under Otto or George I.

I think re France if you remove otl Charles X you remove the foundations for the July Revolution, which can only be a good thing for France.
 
Who could be considered good spouses for the children of Liz II?

I like it:

William (b. 1839)

Mary, Princess Royal (b. 1842)

George (b. 1844)

Henry Frederick (b. 1847)

William, Prince of Orange (1840-1879) - died before he could inherit the Netherlands, if he marries Mary and has a kid before he dies succession in the Netherlands becomes interesting

Princess Louise of Prussia (1838-1923)

Should we also consider Catholic brides or members of the British aristocracy?
 
William, Prince of Orange (1840-1879) - died before he could inherit the Netherlands, if he marries Mary and has a kid before he dies succession in the Netherlands becomes interesting

Princess Louise of Prussia (1838-1923)

Should we also consider Catholic brides or members of the British aristocracy?

In the amended list

I'm thinking this for the line of kids for Queen Elizabeth II:

Elizabeth II of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (b.1820: d. 1892) m Henry William, King Consort and Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (b.1817: d. 1892)

Issue:

William V of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (b. 1840)

Adelaide, Princess Royal (b.1841)

Frederick William, Duke of York and Albany (b. 1844)

Sophia (b. 1848)

Henry William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews (b. 1855)

Like otl Edward VII, William V would have a brief tenure in the armed forces, never actually actively, serving. He would however unlike Edward, be a lot more studious and less philandering, working hard, and learning his duties. A decent politician, but slightly dour of humour.

His brother Frederick, would join the Army, at his father's insistence. And would rise to the rank of Field Marshal after a long and good career. He'd be the opposite to his brother, a bit of a womaniser, cheery, jovial and a natural born leader.

Henry William, would enter the navy and be a rise to be an Admiral of the Fleet, he'd spearhead reforms that would improve Britain's naval performance toward the end of the century.

Adelaide, Princess Royal would be like a combination of her mother and father, hard working, but also cheery and a bit of a flirt.

Princess Sophia, would be shy, fiercely so. But also very prideful.

I think William of the Netherlands would be great for Adelaide, and it would strengthen ties there.

Louise of Prussia could be a good bride for William V.

Catholic brides are unfortunately out due to the Act of Settlement 1701 which prevented marriage between members of the royal family to catholics if they wanted to keep their place in the line of succession.

Members of the aristocracy could be good.
 
Sorry I missed the expanded list.

Mary Greenville, 11th Lady Kinloss (1852-1944) - daughter of the 3rd Duke of Buckingham and and Chandos

Princess Louise of Sweden (1851-1926)

Frederick VIII of Denmark (1843-1912)

Alexandra of Denmark (1844-1925)
 
Sorry I missed the expanded list.

Mary Greenville, 11th Lady Kinloss (1852-1944) - daughter of the 3rd Duke of Buckingham and and Chandos

Princess Louise of Sweden (1851-1926)

Frederick VIII of Denmark (1843-1912)

Alexandra of Denmark (1844-1925)

No worries :)

Hmm, Mary Greenville or Louise of Sweden for the Duke of York seems appropriate. Sophia could marry Frederick VIII
 
In the amended list



I think William of the Netherlands would be great for Adelaide, and it would strengthen ties there.

Louise of Prussia could be a good bride for William V.

Catholic brides are unfortunately out due to the Act of Settlement 1701 which prevented marriage between members of the royal family to catholics if they wanted to keep their place in the line of succession.

Members of the aristocracy could be good.
A Catholic bride is acceptable, she just need to convert before the wedding (something who was already the rule in both Russia and Austria) for preserving her husband-to-be's place in the line of succession
 
A Catholic bride is acceptable, she just need to convert before the wedding (something who was already the rule in both Russia and Austria) for preserving her husband-to-be's place in the line of succession

Would many Catholic brides convert during this period?
 
I think Henry would be simply Prince-Consort.

George was a foreigner as was Albert, whilst Philip simply was given what he was given. Henry is a bona fide Englishman why wouldn’t he be given the title?

Oh why do you think that? Surely being an Englishman he'd have more claim to the King Consort mantle?

Henry William of Gloucester would be without any doubt King Henry IX. He is a full member of the English Royal family by birth so he will be King Consort when married to the Queen of England. Not giving him the title of King would be pretty stupid in my opinion
 
Would many Catholic brides convert during this period?
This is the big trouble... If the alliance is needed (or maybe they are proxies brides, aka nieces or cousins or inlaws of the Emperor/King of France/Spain) they can be willing to do it
 
Henry William of Gloucester would be without any doubt King Henry IX. He is a full member of the English Royal family by birth so he will be King Consort when married to the Queen of England. Not giving him the title of King would be pretty stupid in my opinion

Agreed with you there.
This is the big trouble... If the alliance is needed (or maybe they are proxies brides, aka nieces or cousins or inlaws of the Emperor/King of France/Spain) they can be willing to do it

Hmm, would the Orleans family count as proxies for the Bourbon mainline, or are they too close to the throne?
 
Henry William of Gloucester would be without any doubt King Henry IX. He is a full member of the English Royal family by birth so he will be King Consort when married to the Queen of England. Not giving him the title of King would be pretty stupid in my opinion

Except at this point the British nobility system was inherently patriarchal and the 'rank' of King - whether consort or otherwise - would have been deemed to outrank that of Queen. Out of the only three previous examples - Mary, Mary II and Anne - both Mary's are exceptional circumstances. Mary II and William III were both regnant in their own rights - neither was a consort in the sense of the title - and with Mary I, they weren't initially sure what title to give Philip but settles on King of England (for the duration of his wife's life) against parliamentary advice.

Anne's husband never used Prince Consort as a title, just his own Princely title and his ducal one. Going further, Albert wasn't even styled as Prince Consort for over a decade post marriage.

Looking at international cases, it looks like Prince Consort is the title usually given but Britain doesn't have an official title. In a case like this - I'm tempted to say that neither title gets used, and Henry just uses his Dukedom/Princedom as titles.
 
Top