If our POD is 1817ish, there's no reason Sussex can't marry and have a son either.
Wasn't Sussex already married though? Albeit morganitcally
If our POD is 1817ish, there's no reason Sussex can't marry and have a son either.
With the POD, his wife may die from a multitude of ways, and so he may remarry in the hope of an heir, as Charlotte had recently died alsoWasn't Sussex already married though? Albeit morganitcally
This is true, who might he marry given his age abd place in the succession?With the POD, his wife may die from a multitude of ways, and so he may remarry in the hope of an heir, as Charlotte had recently died also
That could be quite good, but what would spur George iii to recognise the marriage?Or his marriage to Augusta Murray is recognised by his father and his children Frederick and Augusta declared legitimate. They had no children IRL - but what if Frederick married and did produce a son, this son would be the Duke of Sussex (after Adolphus dies in 43 and Frederick dies in 48 [IRL, Frederick did campaign to inherit his father's titles, but Parliament refused]) and eventual possible match for his "cousins", Victoria or Elizabeth
I wonder if this will mean better child rearing in the upper classes.so I imagine her approach to family would be vastly different than a woman who grew up under the Kensington system and didn't know how to emotionally engage with her own children.
That could be quite good, but what would spur George iii to recognise the marriage?
This is true, Augustus asks, George gives consent that's twoAsking him first - it was annulled on the grounds that permission had to be granted for everyone within a certain number of places of the throne.
Augusta was a member of the nobility so there couldn't have been much more to it than that.
"How dare you not ask me once? - How dare you not ask me twice?" George digs his heels in and refuses to recognise the marriage.
Did they take their cues from the crown?I wonder if this will mean better child rearing in the upper classes.
Interesting, so could we see the development of a liberal but still powerful crown?I'd lean towards Sussex in this case as his liberalism seems like it could have been passed down to a subsequent grandchild and that could be an interesting match for Elizabeth who, although liberal and a reformist, would have been brought up more in line with the ascent to power when it became clear that her father would become King when the Duke of York dies. Any Sussex children would have been far down the line of succession.
At Elizabeth's birth (assuming Sussex has his father legitimize his children/marriage):
George III
- George IV
- Frederick, Duke of York and Albany
- William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews
-- Elizabeth of Clarence
-- Alexandrina of Kent
- Ernest, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale
-- George of Cumberland
- Augustus, Duke of Sussex
-- Augustus of Sussex
-- Augusta of Sussex
This might be a way to get Britain the Dutch East Indies.To chip in my 5c: William was all for a match with the Netherlands rather than Hannover for his niece, why would he be of a different mindset for his daughter? Marry Elizabeth to the second son of Willem II, his first son can marry as OTL.
Besides, Parliament will prefer the idea of a Dutch marriage (to a "landless" prince) to being saddled with Hannover for another generation. If the Dutch Succession still looks shaky as OTL, then I could imagine that things would be resolved in a similar fashion to how Coburg was dealt with OTL. The eldest son gets Britain, second son the Netherlands (this is what was agreed on for Princess Charlotte and Willem II's marriage IIRC.
Possible dowry?This might be a way to get Britain the Dutch East Indies.
Interesting,g also as a result of the game, yes England!Indeed.
And feeding once more into the potential Tudor cultural revival, wealth, and naval prowess of Lizzy Two.Interesting,g also as a result of the game, yes England!
Oh? How so?And feeding once more into the potential Tudor cultural revival, wealth, and naval prowess of Lizzy Two.
Well, we are talking about an era in which a female monarch exercising an anywhere near meaningful role would be controversial, and an age too in which nationalism is in vogue. Young Elizabeth, and those around her, will be cognizant of both facts, and, while the Tudors were not a great dynasty in net terms, Elizabeth I is well-regarded. I could see imagery, architectural, and fashion influences from that era gaining new traction.Oh? How so?
Oh very true, the non virgin queen who made England a powerhouse per excellence.Well, we are talking about an era in which a female monarch exercising an anywhere near meaningful role would be controversial, and an age too in which nationalism is in vogue. Young Elizabeth, and those around her, will be cognizant of both facts, and, while the Tudors were not a great dynasty in net terms, Elizabeth I is well-regarded. I could see imagery, architectural, and fashion influences from that era gaining new traction.