Alternate Succession For The British Crown


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If Mary I's pregnancy had resulted in a child, and the child was a boy, England and Spain would be more closely tied than they are now. However, if Elizabeth I had married the Count of Anjou and had children, James I/VI would have simply remained King of Scotland and Elizabeth's surviving descendants would be on the throne. If Edward VIII had married a suitable woman and fathered a legitimate heir, Elizabeth II would never have been crowned Queen. There would probably be a King Edward IX on the throne instead...with perhaps another George, Prince of Wales and then the whole Charles and Diana thing probably would've never happenend...because...well...Charles would have been George instead.

If the salic law had been changed in Hanover, Queen Victoria would have ruled over Hanover and the UK, thus QEII would be ruling over more territory.

Mary I had two false pregnancies but never actually got pregnant. In august of 1555 her husband left for Spain he didn't return until 1557 when she had her second false pregnancies and in November 1558 she died.
 
Let us suppose Arthur hadn't died without an issue but shortly after the child was born. Henry, as an archbishop would act first as regent, but beeing as derranged as he was, he would soon decide that he should be the the king. He would ask the Pope for a dispensation to marry so his descendents could rule after him. The Pope, under pressure from Catherine (who would support her heir) and her Spanish parents, would deny Henrry's request. At that point, Heny's mistress (Anne Boleyn) would already be pregnant, so Henry would abandon the Catholic Faith so he could get married and from there on history would repeat itself.


Henry wasn't deranged at the beginning of his reign. His paranoia developed after he contracted syphilis, and he acted tyrannical only after his major jousting accident so I don't think history would have repeated itself.
 
Yes American Dane, Henry began as a perfect pince, but by the time Arthur's soon would be able to reign, Henry would already have known Anne.
 
i wonder how it would have been if Queen Victorias cousin Princess Charlotte of Wales or her still born child had survived..... cant imagine no Victorian era....
 
The way Britain progressed would have been vastly different under a different monarchy, in fact, Britain may have never even been established! Who knows how it would affect the world today if succession had been different!
 
Against his father's wishes, Eric XIV of Sweden entered into marriage negotiations with the future Queen Elizabeth I of England.
If Elizabeth had married Eric and had children, there may have been descendants of theirs as sovereigns of England and Sweden.
 
This is an interesting topic. A few responses...

Seems they had to "make do" right from the start, as William was illegitimate himself, so wouldn't have had a claim under Salic law either to Normandy...:flowers:


Salic law wouldn't have worked several times over in British history.

William the Conqueror was an invader, but his male line died out very quickly - he had 3 sons and 2 male-line grandsons, and neither of his grandsons outlived William's youngest son, Henry. Within a generation William's male-line would have died out, creating a crisis (even without Salic law it created a crisis). Salic law wouldn't have stopped William from coming to the throne as he was a conqueror, but it would have prevented his descendants from maintaining it.

Both Stephen and Henry II got their claims through female lines. Similarly, Edward IV's claim came through female lines - with Salic law there would have been no War of the Roses, as the Yorks wouldn't have had the same leg to stand on. Henry VII would have also been disqualified, as his claim came through his mother. So would have Mary I and Elizabeth II, due to their gender, and James VI and I, as his claim also came through his mother.

Mary II and Anne would have been out due to their gender, and William III's claim would have been out because it came through his mother. So would George I's claim, as it was through his mother and grandmother. Victoria couldn't have reigned, nor could QEII, and Edward VII would have been out because his claim came through his mother. There is literally no way of knowing who would be monarch now because female descent has come into play so frequently.

IIRC, Henry was slated to enter the church, and would likely have risen to the highest ecclesiatical powers; most probably, he would have served on his brother's Privy Council, and perhaps been named Lord Protector in the event of his brother's death during the minority of Arthur's children.

He'd have made a horrible priest, though; he did seem to, ahem, like the ladies. He'd probably have fathered numerous illegitimate children which, if Arthur's children died or if Arthur left only daughters - or, if Henry were such a protector as was Richard III - could have resulted in a War of The Red and White Roses.

Was Henry slated for the church? He was only the second son, and his immediate ancestors don't seem to have slated many sons for the church as it was. If he had gone to the church he would have done fine as a clergyman - his womanizing wouldn't have been an issue because regardless of celibacy vows, many priests had mistresses, and Henry was extremely passionate about his religion.

Had Arthur fathered a son before dying I kind of doubt Henry would have usurped the throne. It's possible, yes, but he knew his history and I think he would have realized that England would no longer tolerate such behaviour - it might have been one thing in the days of Henry I or Richard I and John, but another come Henry VIII's time. A big part of what caused the problems in Henry IV and Richard III's reigns was that they were seen as usurpers. To usurp the throne would have caused Henry VIII huge grief, when as Lord Protector he would have already been very powerful.



Had the House of Hanover established the Salic law, which was used in Hanover istelf, the UK's present monarch would've been a 25-year-old named King Ernest Augustus VI. Among the other members of the royal family would be HRH The Duke of Windsor (if we assume that the Prince of Hanover would've gotten this "special" title upon marrying a Catholic and thus abdicating the throne), HRH The Duchess of Windsor (Caroline of Monaco), HM Queen Monika (step-grandmother of the "king"), and HRH The Duke of York (Prince Christian of Hanover). Pretty interesting, isn't it?

The Hanovers would have had a hard time justifying introducing Salic law to the UK given as their claim to the throne came through two women - Sophia of Hanover and Elizabeth of Scotland - in the first place, not to mention the fact that Elizabeth I was widely recognized as a good monarch. By the time of the Hanovers, too much history had happened for Salic law to be introduced into Britain.



If Mary I's pregnancy had resulted in a child, and the child was a boy, England and Spain would be more closely tied than they are now. However, if Elizabeth I had married the Count of Anjou and had children, James I/VI would have simply remained King of Scotland and Elizabeth's surviving descendants would be on the throne. If Edward VIII had married a suitable woman and fathered a legitimate heir, Elizabeth II would never have been crowned Queen. There would probably be a King Edward IX on the throne instead...with perhaps another George, Prince of Wales and then the whole Charles and Diana thing probably would've never happenend...because...well...Charles would have been George instead.

If the salic law had been changed in Hanover, Queen Victoria would have ruled over Hanover and the UK, thus QEII would be ruling over more territory.

It's speculated that both Elizabeth I and Edward VIII were infertile, so even had they made marriages (or in Edward's case a more acceptable marriage) it's likely they wouldn't have had children, and QEII would still be Queen.

On the other hand, if William IV had married younger instead of taking a mistress, or been allowed to marry his mistress, things may have been different. He fathered 10 children by his mistress, and is the only English/British monarch who has living descendants and isn't an ancestor to Prince William.



Henry wasn't deranged at the beginning of his reign. His paranoia developed after he contracted syphilis, and he acted tyrannical only after his major jousting accident so I don't think history would have repeated itself.

I think the syphilis is just one theory as to the cause of Henry's paranoia - there are a few others. Mental instability seems to be something of a familial trait.
 
William I's eldest son was Robert Curthose.
Upon William's demise, William Rufus became King William II and Robert was the Duke of Normandy.
If Robert had become King Robert I of England, would he have kept the title of Duke of Normandy?
Or would one of his brothers, William Rufus or Henry, have been the Duke of Normandy?
 
I would think at that time Normandy would be more valuable than England was.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I've read it said both ways - that Normandy was more valuable than England, but also that England was more valuable than Normandy.

Normandy was the more stable of the realms, and likely more lucrative, but it was technically a vassal state to the kingdom of France. England was in more disarray because of the conquest, but the Normans put a lot of money into building up the defensive, religious, and administrative aspects of the realm.

I've read that William I wasn't exactly pleased by his elder son and wanted to disinherit him entirely, but was instead convinced to instead just give him Normandy while William Rufus received England and Henry received cash. I wonder if the Conqueror considered the two to be fairly even and gave his elder and less beloved son the realm that was a birth right, yet also a vassal state, and his younger and more favoured son the realm that he had own and was in itself a more overlord state (as the King of England even then frequently treated the Welsh and Scots as vassals).

Had William decided to leave England to Robert he was under no obligation to leave anything to his younger sons - Robert could have walked away with the whole lot had his father wished it. Whether or not he would have kept the whole lot is debatable... As it was, he didn't even manage to keep Normandy. Regardless of how you think William Rufus died (accident or murder), during his reign he had managed to essentially buy Normandy (which Robert mortgaged to him in exchange for 10,000 marks), and after his death Henry was able to use his stronghold in England to back his conquest of Normandy and reunite his father's two realms. Robert wasn't exactly a strong ruler and had he been given the whole lot he may have very well lost the whole lot.
 
What if William III and Mary had a son is something that is interesting. Perhaps a union between the Netherlands and England (as Cromwell already tried), with England as the dominant party of course. No Hannoverians, no Windsors, and the Nassau-Dietz line (now Orange-Nassau) would have stayed local governors in Frisia and Groningen. It is likely that William III would have received a hereditary title of Duke / count of various provinces in The Netherlands or even king if he would have had descendants. For the Netherlands it wouldn't have mattered much: according to historian Pieter Geyl, the Stuart connection of the house of Orange fastened the decay of the Dutch republic as it was eclipsed by the English. The reign of William III saved the Netherlands as an independant state, but after he took the crown the British interests always went before the Dutch. A union would have had an even greater effect.
 
Last edited:
Interesting ....I wonder what such a union would have been called The Kingdom of England,Scotland,Ireland & the Dutch Republic/Provinces?
 
A union comparable to that of the one between England and Scotland may not have happened - the union between England and Scotland only happened 100 years after their crowns were merged when a succession crisis brought about the possibility of the two separating again and forced the issue. With the UK and Hanover - two states with no historic connections and greatest separated by geography - they were joined together with a single monarch for another 100 years or so without any union of government before being separated because of different succession laws.

With the Dutch, had William and Mary had children (or even had William had a second wife with whom he had children), I think a personal union between the two states would have continued, but not necessarily a union of government like what happened with Scotland and England. The UK and Netherlands would have been two separated (geography, culture, history, etc) to have made one government make sense at the time.
 
A personal union is the most likely scenario indeed. But a complete union isn't such a far fetched idea. Oliver Cromwell tried to arrange it, and even tried to tempt the provice Holland to merge on its own, without the other provinces. This however met with opposition from both the Orange party as the most of the regents. But under an Orange king it would be more tempting for the Orange party at least. Esp. as the power of Orange would have been much bigger if Willem III actually had had a son.

The connections between England and Holland (& Zeeland to a lesser extend) were quite intense and old, uncomparable with Hanover; though not as close as those of Scotland and England of course. British historian Lisa Jardine wrote an interesting book about it, 'Going Dutch, How England Plundered Holland's Glory', which has as main thesis that the Dutch impact on Englands (daily) life was enormous. But since English and Dutch interests were very different, it is unlikely that such a union (personal or not) would have lasted.

Review: Going Dutch by Lisa Jardine | Books | The Guardian
 
If Henry I's son, Prince William the Atheling, had not died when the White Ship sank in 1120, William might have succeeded to the throne as King William III.
Then the House of Plantagenet might not have come to the throne.

On January 1, 1511, a son was born to King Henry VIII and Queen Catherine. He was Henry, Prince of Wales.
Sadly the Prince lived only a few months.
If Prince Henry had lived, he might have succeeded to the throne as King Henry IX.
His father might not have divorced Catherine of Aragon.
There would have been no six wives of Henry VIII.

If either Queen Mary I or her sister, Queen Elizabeth I had married Edward Courtenay and there had been continuous male descendants to inherit the throne, there would have been the House of Courtenay.


What if Princess Anne had been the eldest daughter of King James II? Suppose Princess Anne married Prince William of Orange (1650-1702). William and Anne would have ruled as joint sovereigns.
Their eldest son William would be heir to be the stadholder of The Netherlands.
Their second son Henry would be heir to England and Scotland.

Suppose Queen Mary I of England married the Infante Louis, son of King Manuel of Portugal.
How would a Portuguese alliance help Mary's reign?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On January 1, 1511, a son was born to King Henry VIII and Queen Catherine. He was Henry, Prince of Wales.
Sadly the Prince lived only a few months.
If Prince Henry had lived, he might have succeeded to the throne as King Henry IX.
His father might not have divorced Catherine of Aragon.
There would have been no six wives of Henry VIII.

And possibly no anglican church (and no law banning roman-catholics from the throne ;) )
 
I don't think that is necessarily the case as there was a large reformist movement in England - especially with regards to keeping money in England rather then sending it to Rome - this was the same reason why many of the German princes supported the reformists - not because of beliefs but because they would have more say in the running of their own country.

The religious question was very strong at the time.

If they had remained RC then I would expect that the law would have banned non-RC's from the throne - as happened in the Roman Catholic countries.
 
The reformation in England would have taken a drastically different shape, though, had Henry and Catherine had a surviving son. Both were very devote Catholics (at least up until Henry tried to get a divorce) and their daughter was rather fanatical in her beliefs.

It's very likely that in order for Protestantism to take hold in such a scenario would have required a civil war and a downfall of a king - or at least a situation similar to what happened in Scotland (where the Catholic Mary was pushed out in favour of her infant son, James, who was then raised by the Presbyterian Lords).

Regardless, had Henry not wanted a divorce I somehow doubt the Anglican church as it exists now - in it's very unique hybrid of Catholicism and Protestantism - would not have come about.
 
Henry was still very much a catholic in his beliefs and practices . Albeit he just called it the Anglican /Protestant church. Henry's main beef was a power struggle/political. And the wealth certainly helped. The modern Anglican Church came after Henry and Elizabeth is my understanding from what I was taught in college


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I have a question. I want to know what will happen. If Prince William Duke of Gloucester. (Son of Queen Anne) died after his mom and he have succeed to throne as king William IV and had issue.Maybe, The Hanoverian lines will never succeed to throne and we will not have mad King George or Queen Victoria,Right?
 
I have a question. I want to know what will happen. If Prince William Duke of Gloucester. (Son of Queen Anne) died after his mom and he have succeed to throne as king William IV and had issue.Maybe, The Hanoverian lines will never succeed to throne and we will not have mad King George or Queen Victoria,Right?


If William had lived and had issue then they would have reigned, not the Hanovers.

The Hanovers were only named as the heirs after William died.
 
There are several points in time where if a royal death didn't occur history would have been dramatically changed.

If Arthur Prince of Wales son of Henry VII doesn't die and has children -no Henry VIII, Edward V, Mary or Elizabeth, possible no Stuart succession.

If Henry Prince of Wales son James I lives, no Charles I- civil war may not happen.

If Charlotte of Wales, daughter of Prince Regent future George VI doesn't die in childbirth but lives with healthy baby, Victoria isn't ever born due to Charlotte death being the reason for George III sons to try for legitimate heir. So no Victoria, no current royals and different European royals too. Plus Charlotte's husband became King Leopold of Belgium so if Consort to UK Queen doesn't become King of The Belgiums


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
What if Richard III had won the battle of Bosworth Field instead of Henry Tudor. Whom would he have married, probably not Elizabeth of York as she was after all his niece. Would he have married an English lady or would he have chosen a foreign princess, perhaps a grand-daughter of one of the sisters of Henry IV?
 
What if Richard III had won the battle of Bosworth Field instead of Henry Tudor. Whom would he have married, probably not Elizabeth of York as she was after all his niece. Would he have married an English lady or would he have chosen a foreign princess, perhaps a grand-daughter of one of the sisters of Henry IV?
Documents discovered in Portugal show that Richard was deep into negotiations to marry Princess Joanna, sister of King John II of Portugal; his niece Elizabeth was to marry the king's eventual successor, Manuel I. Joanna and her brother were the senior by "blood" Lancastrian heirs of John of Gaunt. Richard's proposed Portuguese marriage would have united the Houses of York and Lancaster. All English records of these negotiations vanished, (along with most of the legal records of Richard's reign) probably in Tudor times.
 
What if Princess Anne had been the eldest daughter of King James II? Suppose Princess Anne married Prince William of Orange (1650-1702). William and Anne would have ruled as joint sovereigns.
Their eldest son William would be heir to be the stadholder of The Netherlands.
Their second son Henry would be heir to England and Scotland.


That would assume a few things: one that William would have been more fertile with another wife and that Anne would have been more fertile with another husband.

I also would not expect that the British would have been willing to accept the second son as their monarch over the elder son. More likely the elder son would have inherited both the British and the Netherlands, creating a personal union of the two nations (as had happened with England and Scotland in the reign of James I, briefly with Britain and the Netherlands during William III's reign, and then with Britain and Hanover during the reigns of the Hanovers). The only way I think this wouldn't have happened is if either country made a fuss about sharing a monarch - which we know wouldn't have happened with Britain - causing one of them to chose a different monarch, or if the international stage made a fuss and was in a position to force Britain and the Netherlands to have different monarchs (like what happened between France and Spain).
 
I believe that wonderful things would have happen to Britain if Victoria's Albert had not died so very young. The more I have read about him personally, the more I like him and his ways. He seemed a very good man.
 
That would assume a few things: one that William would have been more fertile with another wife and that Anne would have been more fertile with another husband.


Anne had about 17 pregnancies. She had no trouble falling pregnant. It was delivering live babies that was her problem.
 
Anne had about 17 pregnancies. She had no trouble falling pregnant. It was delivering live babies that was her problem.


Fertile may not have been the best choice in words there, as both Anne and Mary had pregnancies but had issues with carrying to term, especially Anne. I would wonder if either would have been able to have healthier pregnancies and/or children had they had different spouses.
 
Fertile may not have been the best choice in words there, as both Anne and Mary had pregnancies but had issues with carrying to term, especially Anne. I would wonder if either would have been able to have healthier pregnancies and/or children had they had different spouses.
At least three of Anne's early pregnancies seems to have been carried to term, her two daughters died very young of smallpox and her son died at the age of 11. Most of her miscarriages or premature births happened after the birth of her son, perhaps something had happened during that delivery that made it difficult for her to carry later child to term. I would say that her body never had the time to recuperate between pregnancies, as there were times when she had two miscarriages the same year. Perhaps if she had rested a year or two between each pregnancy/miscarriage she might have been able to carry a child to term.
 
In 1505, negotiations began for the marriage of 11-year-old Princess Mary, the daughter of King Henry VIII, to Charles, the grandson of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.
As the victory of Thérouanne was celebrated, it was agreed that Charles and Mary should be married by May of 1514.
Charles and Mary did not marry.
Suppose in May of 1514, Charles of Spain marries Princess Mary.
What happens then?

King Edward IV of England reigned 1461 to 1470 and 1471 to 1483.
Suppose Edward and his wife, Queen Elizabeth Woodville have no children.
Edward dies in 1483. Suppose his brother George, Duke of Clarence, does not die in 1478.
George lives numerous years past 1478.
Thus in 1483 the Duke of Clarence becomes King George I. What happens then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom