William IV's child born September, 1819, do they need a regency?

Quick question for you all:

William IV of the UK died on June 20th, 1837, and otl was succeeded by his niece Victoria who was born in May, 1819.

However, what if the stillborn child William and his wife Adelaide had had in September, 1819 had survived?

In this case, the kid would succeed William, but being as they were born in September, and it's June, they are two months from their 18th birthday and being an adult. Would they bother with a regency or not?

Cheers!
 

Philip

Donor
How happy is Parliament? A regency might be a good chance for the crown to agree to some concession.
 
Sense at least the 16th century the age of majority for English Sovereigns was eighteen; Henry VIII inherited the throne at seventeen and his grandmother Margaret Beaufort functioned as Regent until his eighteenth birthday (or his coronation can't remember which). Plus the various regency acts of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries established that a regency should exist until eighteen. While in theory Parliament could declare the Monarch of age, in practice there wouldn't be a pressing reason to do so.
 
I would think if the new monarch is only a couple of months away from the age of majority (18 years old) then Parliament could in theory issue a waiver since declaring a regency in such a scenario would be a waste of time.
 
If a Regency Act was already on the Statute Book, it would still take effect, but in such a case the Regent's role would probably be only nominal, just adding his/her countersignature beside that of the Monarch, until the latter's birthday came round.
 
Okay thank you all for your help, mich appreciated. I do
Wonder what this does for crown power vis a vis parliament
 
On William's accession a Regency Act was passed on the assumption his niece might not be of age on his death (which given his age at his accession was not unlikely) - it also made provision in the event Queen Adelaide produced a child by the King after his accession. In both cases the age of majority was set at 18 - the Duchess of Kent was to be regent for her daughter and if William and Adelaide had a child then Queen Adelaide would be regent until that child's 18th.
In the case you mentioned - Queen Adelaide would act as regent until the September.
 
On William's accession a Regency Act was passed on the assumption his niece might not be of age on his death (which given his age at his accession was not unlikely) - it also made provision in the event Queen Adelaide produced a child by the King after his accession. In both cases the age of majority was set at 18 - the Duchess of Kent was to be regent for her daughter and if William and Adelaide had a child then Queen Adelaide would be regent until that child's 18th.
In the case you mentioned - Queen Adelaide would act as regent until the September.

Alright interesting, I can just imagine the child chomping at the bit to take power into their own hands though aha
 
Alright interesting, I can just imagine the child chomping at the bit to take power into their own hands though aha

Perhaps - Adelaide won't have that much to do - Parliament will dissolve due to a demise in the crown (Melbourne will remain PM until the votes are counted - election ran July to mid-August) - Now Adelaide was rather conservative, but she is likely to follow William IV's line of not actively opposing his ministers assuming Melbourne is reelected as he was in our tl.
 
Perhaps - Adelaide won't have that much to do - Parliament will dissolve due to a demise in the crown (Melbourne will remain PM until the votes are counted - election ran July to mid-August) - Now Adelaide was rather conservative, but she is likely to follow William IV's line of not actively opposing his ministers assuming Melbourne is reelected as he was in our tl.

Alrighty :)

Another question, this kid, if male would be of an age with Victoria, would there be a possibility of a marriage between the two? Considering how high anti German sentiment was at the tiem?
 
If he was male then I would suspect it would be considered - though given William's dislike of the Duchess of Kent he might not favour it - Another option is Augusta of Cambridge if he marries domestically.
Queen Adelaide's nieces weren't of the right age for a match - Princess Sophie of the Netherlands is a possibility.
Another point if the child is male he will inherit Hanover - the Duke of Cambridge was in otl military governor (or viceroy) under his brother William and is likely to remain in post on the accession of the new King - so probably will be regarded as regent of Hanover until September.
 
If he was male then I would suspect it would be considered - though given William's dislike of the Duchess of Kent he might not favour it - Another option is Augusta of Cambridge if he marries domestically.
Queen Adelaide's nieces weren't of the right age for a match - Princess Sophie of the Netherlands is a possibility.
Another point if the child is male he will inherit Hanover - the Duke of Cambridge was in otl military governor (or viceroy) under his brother William and is likely to remain in post on the accession of the new King - so probably will be regarded as regent of Hanover until September.
This is very true. Hmm I wonder once the lad becomes king could he bring Victoria to the palace and out of Kensington?
 
This is very true. Hmm I wonder once the lad becomes king could he bring Victoria to the palace and out of Kensington?

Doubt it - would be inconceivable for an unmarried Princess not to live with her mother until her marriage (and if the new monarch is on good terms with his father's illegitimate children then the Duchess of Kent won't let Victoria move in under any circumstances) - In otl Victoria moved to Buckingham Palace and wasn't overjoyed to be reminded that as a single woman she would have to bring her mother with her even though she was Queen Regnant.

Another issue will be if the new monarch wants to move into Buckingham Palace - William IV didn't want it (considered it an extravagance) but was lumbered with it - Victoria actually liked it when she moved in apparently. I suspect Melbourne and others will pressure the new monarch to move in. If the monarch were to be a woman then she will have to have Queen Adelaide with her until her marriage.
 
Doubt it - would be inconceivable for an unmarried Princess not to live with her mother until her marriage (and if the new monarch is on good terms with his father's illegitimate children then the Duchess of Kent won't let Victoria move in under any circumstances) - In otl Victoria moved to Buckingham Palace and wasn't overjoyed to be reminded that as a single woman she would have to bring her mother with her even though she was Queen Regnant.

Another issue will be if the new monarch wants to move into Buckingham Palace - William IV didn't want it (considered it an extravagance) but was lumbered with it - Victoria actually liked it when she moved in apparently. I suspect Melbourne and others will pressure the new monarch to move in. If the monarch were to be a woman then she will have to have Queen Adelaide with her until her marriage.
Hmm interesting could the king pressurise parliament to accept it as their new home? And I imagine Melbourne wouldn’t be quite so successful in conning the monarch into giving up so much of their power as he did Victoria, due to the new monarch likely being taught more by William and other tutors
 
To be fair William IV was the last sovereign to dismiss a Prime Minister - however the public returned him to government in the ensuing election (and no monarch had vetoed legislation since Queen Anne) - William was well aware that his real power was limited and the reform crisis made that clear. His later reign saw him accept that and he rarely interfered - one would expect his child to follow suit.
Victoria didn't really surrender anything much during her reign - following William's line in hovering between the two parties after some initial overtly political actions which favoured Melbourne.

You might well avoid the Bedchamber crisis of 1839 (which was largely the result of Victoria's youth and Peel not been clear enough to the Queen that he only wanted a few of her Whig ladies removing) and its impact on the Royal Household.

Melbourne probably won't survive as long - the Whigs did badly in the 1837 election (but held their majority) - but Melbourne in this scenario with no bedchamber crisis will probably lose power in 1839.

Victoria in her early reign naturally leaned towards the Whigs and Melbourne was a father figure to her - he paid her attention, was keen to encourage her and mold her - in a scenario where the new monarch has had a happier childhood with two parents he probably won't need to lean on a fatherly Lord Melbourne as much as Victoria politically that might actually make his early reign a bit more popular than Victoria's.
 
This is true I do wonder how one could have William emerge stronger and better from the reform crisis and perhaps keep some more power than he did at the end?

@Emperor Constantine had some good thoughts on this I think?
 
@mcdnab , to be fair the Crown rarely had a reason to want to veto a law, as the Monarch could just easily dismiss the government or make it clear to the Lords that they were deeply opposed to the legislation (like George III did to bring down the Fox-North Coalition in 1783). And it was still understood that the Crown did and indeed does still retain the power to veto legislation (I've seen it mentioned several times in George III's reign and there was a threat by George IV to veto the Catholic Emancipation bill).

@VVD0D95 , I think the real problem was William misjudged the situation in 1834 and though the Whigs could be easily dismissed, like his father was able to do in 1783. He thought the time had came for a return to the Tories and while the Whigs popularity was obviously waning (its honestly funny to me that the Whigs carried Electoral reform and yet the expanded electorate rejected them by the end of the decade), it wasn't at the point that the Tories could return to power yet. If William had waited a few more years, into say 1836 or early 1837, then the situation would have been different. Both the 1835 and 1837 elections saw the stead erosion of the Whig majority, so with a bit of Royal patronage it should be possible to force them out in 1837 instead of the Ministry limping along until 1841. Or have William successfully get his way over the appointment of John Russell as Leader of the Commons in 1834. That's what really precipitated his dismissal of Melbourne; Russell was quite radical and was ardently disliked by the Royal family and the Court and his appointment to succeed Jon Spencer after the later inherited his peerage was considered a step to far by the King. So instead one could have the King successfully veto that appointment and force another minister to be selected (the problem was a lack of Whig politicians in the Commons; most of the senior Whigs were in the Lords. Perhaps Lord Grey keeps Henry Brougham in the Commons instead elevating him to the peerage). That in itself allows the Crown to claim the right to veto individual Cabinet appointments. Finally you could have the new Monarch dismiss the government before the election and appoint Peel, who would hopefully carry a majority this time (with a clear demonstration of Royal support and patronage). Really there are several options that could work well.
 
@mcdnab , to be fair the Crown rarely had a reason to want to veto a law, as the Monarch could just easily dismiss the government or make it clear to the Lords that they were deeply opposed to the legislation (like George III did to bring down the Fox-North Coalition in 1783). And it was still understood that the Crown did and indeed does still retain the power to veto legislation (I've seen it mentioned several times in George III's reign and there was a threat by George IV to veto the Catholic Emancipation bill).

@VVD0D95 , I think the real problem was William misjudged the situation in 1834 and though the Whigs could be easily dismissed, like his father was able to do in 1783. He thought the time had came for a return to the Tories and while the Whigs popularity was obviously waning (its honestly funny to me that the Whigs carried Electoral reform and yet the expanded electorate rejected them by the end of the decade), it wasn't at the point that the Tories could return to power yet. If William had waited a few more years, into say 1836 or early 1837, then the situation would have been different. Both the 1835 and 1837 elections saw the stead erosion of the Whig majority, so with a bit of Royal patronage it should be possible to force them out in 1837 instead of the Ministry limping along until 1841. Or have William successfully get his way over the appointment of John Russell as Leader of the Commons in 1834. That's what really precipitated his dismissal of Melbourne; Russell was quite radical and was ardently disliked by the Royal family and the Court and his appointment to succeed Jon Spencer after the later inherited his peerage was considered a step to far by the King. So instead one could have the King successfully veto that appointment and force another minister to be selected (the problem was a lack of Whig politicians in the Commons; most of the senior Whigs were in the Lords. Perhaps Lord Grey keeps Henry Brougham in the Commons instead elevating him to the peerage). That in itself allows the Crown to claim the right to veto individual Cabinet appointments. Finally you could have the new Monarch dismiss the government before the election and appoint Peel, who would hopefully carry a majority this time (with a clear demonstration of Royal support and patronage). Really there are several options that could work well.

Oh that sounds quite good to me. Allow the Whigs to remain in power post 1835, allow the steady erosion of their support, and then in 1837, perhaps when the new King comes, naturally, dismiss Melbourne and company and openly support the Tories behind Peel? And before that as you suggest have William advise Lord Grey to keep Henry Brougham in the commons instead of the lords?
 
@mcdnab , to be fair the Crown rarely had a reason to want to veto a law, as the Monarch could just easily dismiss the government or make it clear to the Lords that they were deeply opposed to the legislation (like George III did to bring down the Fox-North Coalition in 1783). And it was still understood that the Crown did and indeed does still retain the power to veto legislation (I've seen it mentioned several times in George III's reign and there was a threat by George IV to veto the Catholic Emancipation bill).

@VVD0D95 , I think the real problem was William misjudged the situation in 1834 and though the Whigs could be easily dismissed, like his father was able to do in 1783. He thought the time had came for a return to the Tories and while the Whigs popularity was obviously waning (its honestly funny to me that the Whigs carried Electoral reform and yet the expanded electorate rejected them by the end of the decade), it wasn't at the point that the Tories could return to power yet. If William had waited a few more years, into say 1836 or early 1837, then the situation would have been different. Both the 1835 and 1837 elections saw the stead erosion of the Whig majority, so with a bit of Royal patronage it should be possible to force them out in 1837 instead of the Ministry limping along until 1841. Or have William successfully get his way over the appointment of John Russell as Leader of the Commons in 1834. That's what really precipitated his dismissal of Melbourne; Russell was quite radical and was ardently disliked by the Royal family and the Court and his appointment to succeed Jon Spencer after the later inherited his peerage was considered a step to far by the King. So instead one could have the King successfully veto that appointment and force another minister to be selected (the problem was a lack of Whig politicians in the Commons; most of the senior Whigs were in the Lords. Perhaps Lord Grey keeps Henry Brougham in the Commons instead elevating him to the peerage). That in itself allows the Crown to claim the right to veto individual Cabinet appointments. Finally you could have the new Monarch dismiss the government before the election and appoint Peel, who would hopefully carry a majority this time (with a clear demonstration of Royal support and patronage). Really there are several options that could work well.

Good points and I tend to agree - depends on how far the new King is willing to go in terms of pushing one party or the other - at the end all it is going to achieve is an avoidance of the bedchamber crisis and possibly a more active monarch at the period. Not much changes to be honest
 
Last edited:
I also think its arguable whether the crown's powers diminished under Victoria - or actually Victoria simply didn't use them in the way her predecessors had done because the politicians and public wouldn't wear it as much - resulting in the 21st c view that the monarch should be "above the fray". Most of the powers reserved to the crown remained hers (and remained her successors). Victoria's long-reign was not without examples of her interfering largely prompted by the raft of her own prejudices though she stopped short of refusing to appoint Prime Ministers who she personally didn't like or want (largely the result of her first experience of unpopularity during the bedchamber and lady Flora crisis and the influence of Albert on her)
The issue is use of such powers has always been how far the monarch was willing to go to get their own way and how willing they were to defend their rights against Parliament.
 
Top