Here’s an interesting bit of counterfactual speculation from an article in today’s Daily Mail about the imminent royal baby birth in Britain:
In October 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the 16 Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state had agreed to give female royals the same rights of succession as their brothers.
Under the ancient rules of male primogeniture, first born royal daughters in direct line to the throne were overtaken by younger male siblings.
The scrapped law of male primogeniture only allowed Elizabeth II to become Queen because she did not have any brothers.
Constitutional experts say that in 1509 Margaret Tudor would have taken the throne instead of Henry VIII, and as a result Elizabeth I would never have been Queen.
It would also have meant Queen Victoria would have been succeeded by her daughter, Princess Victoria, the Princess Royal, in 1901, and not King Edward VII.
When she died just a few months later, her son Kaiser Wilhelm II would have ascended the throne – something which could have prevented the First World War.
It is said the Queen of England now would have been the completely unknown Princess Marie Cecile of Prussia.
And no German jokes. We would also have all celebrated when Germany won their 3 World Cups instead of hating them for always beating us.
No Sealion, no Axis and Allies.
Thank God for old, chauvanistic, laws.
And Elizabeth I.
@wittmann:
No Sealion, no Axis and Allies.
Alternately, Sealion might have been a British cross-Channel invasion of continental Europe, D-Day might have been a continental European cross-Channel invasion of Britain, and the game would probably have been called Achse und Alliierten
I was trying to think of a word beginning with G to go with Germany and….
But you are probably right, I should have been thinking of a word beginning with D.
Here’s a follow-up thought on the subject. Since Wilhelm had already become Kaiser in 1888, his accession to the British throne in 1901 would in principle have created a situation in which he ruled two countries simultaneously: Germany as Kaiser and Britain as King. So Germany and Britain would have turned into a dual monarchy like Austria-Hungary, of which Franz Joseph I was both Emperor and King. This could be the basis for a rather interesting alternate-history version of the Axis & Allies 1914 WWI game, though I can’t make up my mind who would have gone to war against whom in this scenario. One thing is certain, though: Wilhelm would have loved to get his hands on the Royal Navy, since he’d always been jealous of Granny Victoria’s big, shiny fleet.
@CWO:
Here’s a follow-up thought on the subject. Since Wilhelm had already become Kaiser in 1888, his accession to the British throne in 1901 would in principle have created a situation in which he ruled two countries simultaneously: Germany as Kaiser and Britain as King. So Germany and Britain would have turned into a dual monarchy like Austria-Hungary, of which Franz Joseph I was both Emperor and King. This could be the basis for a rather interesting alternate-history version of the Axis & Allies 1914 WWI game, though I can’t make up my mind who would have gone to war against whom in this scenario. One thing is certain, though: Wilhelm would have loved to get his hands on the Royal Navy, since he’d always been jealous of Granny Victoria’s big, shiny fleet.
This is interesting indeed, but I do wonder if the constitution of the United Kingdom would allow for a dual monarchy? I think the more likely option here would the British telling Wilhelm that he would have to give up being Kaiser if he wanted to be king of Britain and I think we both know that Wilhelm would have never done that. The next option would have been that have Princess Royal Victoria’s second born, Princess Charlotte take the thrown after her mother. This would have made for an interesting change, and while I don’t think it would have altered the course of the UK too much, it may have prevented the Entente Cordiale from being signed in 1904. This initiative was largely conducted between the Prince of Wales Albert Edward (who became King Geroge the VII). IF we remove him from the picture then it becomes doubtful that the agreement would have come to pass.
It’s all ideal speculation but it sure is fun :-)
It’s all ideal speculation but it sure is fun
Yes, that’s what I like about these “what if?” questions – they’re enjoyable theoretical exercises, and they highlight the connections that exist between the various factors that affect the course of history.
There was a duel monarchy of sorts - Great Britain and Hanover.
This ended with the accession of Victoria to the British throne, since the Hanoverian succession was governed by the Salic law and went to her nephew.
Also remember that the present line is dependent on the Act of Succession, which excludes non-protestants. If Charles (when he becomes George VII) chooses to drop the protestants only stance, he annihilates his own claim.
Can Charles be skipped?
There was a duel monarchy of sorts - Great Britain and Hanover.
This ended with the accession of Victoria to the British throne, since the Hanoverian succession was governed by the Salic law and went to her nephew.
Also remember that the present line is dependent on the Act of Succession, which excludes non-protestants. If Charles (when he becomes George VII) chooses to drop the protestants only stance, he annihilates his own claim.
To whom would the throne go in that case Flashman?
Or do you mean from a legal standpoint(of which I know nothing)?
If you accept James I as rightful king, then the true heir (excluded on religious grounds) is I think someone in Poland, whose name escapes me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_succession
If you think Edward IV was illegitimate, then its someone in Australia.
Which all goes to show that the argument about an elder sister succeeding over a younger brother misses the point - the entire system of hereditary privialge is ridiculous in the extreme.
Thank you.
I am not sure many give credence to Edward’s illegitimacy.
I do see your point though.
Now if you had said Henry VII was a bastard, well…
After they dug up old Richard last year I long for them to exhume the entire royal families of the period - I bet there’d be a few shocks in there, such as who was father of the Lancastrian Prince of Wales - the one whose supposed “father” proclaimed him a son of The Holy Ghost…
Maybe “The White Queen” will inspire some more work on them; maybe the bones in Westminster Abbey supposedly those of the murdered princes.
Maybe “The White Queen” will inspire some more work on them; maybe the bones in Westminster Abbey supposedly those of the murdered princes.
Maybe it doesn’t matter, and the status quo is good enough. Or maybe the current royal family murdered and cheated it’s way into power.
Or maybe…
The status quo ain’t good enough for me.
I say vote them out!
Wait a minute…
I say vote them out!
It’s been done, at least in the world of fiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I_(novel)
After a People’s Republican Party government is elected by the British people, who were influenced by subliminal messages sent through their TV sets by members of the television technicians union manipulated by Jack Barker, the Royal Family has to leave Buckingham Palace and must move to a council house estate. Barker, as the new Prime Minister, transforms Britain into a republic and dismantles the monarchy.
