Queen Victoria (1819-1901)

[rossam]

Keeping their bloodline pure restricts the royals' gene pool. That could be the reason for some of their genetic abnormalities. I think the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana have widened the gene pool. A sensible marriage yet unwise because they don't have common interests. Has there been this kiind of marriage before in the royal bloodline? to widen their gene pool? Was there a Princess Diana of those times? I wonder.

 

[royalflush]

Both Elizabeth II and Prince Philip are great-great grand children of Queen Victoria.
1. Victoria
2. Edward VII
3. George V
4. George VI
5. Elizabeth II
and
1. Victoria
2. her daughter Alice who married Grand Duke Louis of Hesse
3. their daughter Victoria who married Louis of Battenberg
4. their daughter Alice, Princess of Greece
5. Prince Philip

An intermarriage. So, the marriage of Prince Charles to Diana was a good decision to widen their gene pool.

 

[LordMountbatten]

According to Richard Sotnick in his book "The Coburg Conspiracy", Lord Mountbatten said,‘You have to remember that, in my youth, European affairs were family business.’

That is because "in the early twentieth century, the Tsarina of Russia, the Kaiser of Germany, the monarchs of Greece, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia and, of course, Great Britain were all his relations."

 

[Marengo]

well, many of these monarchies were constitutional monarchies, and even the German emperor didn't have that much to say about the government of the country. But in a way he was right of course.

 

[wbenson]

The queen who defined our city

As Ottawans prepare to enjoy Victoria Day at cottages, backyards, and balconies, does anyone stop to contemplate its namesake and her enduring presence in the city whose destiny she sealed?

Queen Victoria -- in recent times often referred to as the "Mother of Confederation" -- ultimately chose Ottawa as Canada's capital, a distinction that continues, for better or for worse, to define the city.

 

[MRSJ]

I have a question I posted before- if Queen Elizabeth II couldn't call her children Prince and Princess until her father changed it- why were Queen Victoria's children known as Prince and Princesses? Thought they had to take titles from father-?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I have a question I posted before- if Queen Elizabeth II couldn't call her children Prince and Princess until her father changed it- why were Queen Victoria's children known as Prince and Princesses? Thought they had to take titles from father-?

I will hazard a guess. King George VI's grandchildren would not be male line grandchildren because he had two daughters and only male line grandchildren of the monarch could be styled Princes and Princesses.

When Queen Victoria had children, she was already a Queen Regnant and of course her children would be princes and princesses automatically by virtue of being children of the sovereign. But Charles and Anne were born while Elizabeth II was the heiress presumptive and not yet a monarch, so the rule had to be changed for their benefit. Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were born when Elizabeth was Queen, so they were automatically styled Princes of the United Kingdom. I hope I am correct.

 

[MRSJ]

I will hazard a guess. King George VI's grandchildren would not be male line grandchildren because he had two daughters and only male line grandchildren of the monarch could be styled Princes and Princesses.

When Queen Victoria had children, she was already a Queen Regnant and of course her children would be princes and princesses automatically by virtue of being children of the sovereign. But Charles and Anne were born while Elizabeth II was the heiress presumptive and not yet a monarch, so the rule had to be changed for their benefit. Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were born when Elizabeth was Queen, so they were automatically styled Princes of the United Kingdom. I hope I am correct.

Thank you- sounds plausible to me

 

[Kataryn]

The reason why Elizabeth couldn't be made Princess of Wales in her own right was that she was only ever heiress presumptive as any younger son would have replaced her in the line of succession (and even if said son was born up to 9 months after her accession that son would have replaced her).

That's not right. Unborn children have no right of inheritance till they are actually born. Thus Elizabeth would have been queen even if her mother had been pregnant with a son on the king's death. Because the moment the king (or the queen) regnant dies, the next souverain inherits. Unborn children cannot inherit. Which would have left Elizabeth to be queen.

This scenario was discussed in detail before Victoria became queen in the 1800s. She was the heiress presumptive of her uncle William, but William's queen Marie Adelaide was still in her child-bearing years, so the scenario king dead, queen pregnant (it wouldn't have mattered which sex the unborn child had as his/her position would be more senior than Victoria's) and Victoria as heiress was discussed by the politicians, lawyers and courtiers.

The position was clear: as long as the child was not born, he/she had no right of inheritance according to UK laws. And the idea of an interregnum (a vacant throne waiting for the child to be born) does not exist in UK law as well. Thus Victoria would have become queen and it would have been in her discretion to abdicate in favour of her uncle's child or to keep the throne. Of course, queen Marie Adelaide was not pregnant when her husband died, so Victoria was indeed the heiress but the scenario was discussed and decided.

 

[justcurious]

I love learning something new everyday! Makes for a fascinating read. Thank you for sharing that! That was great stuf.

That's why I love Royal families. There's so much history attached to it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The matter was actually dealt with in the Regency Act of 1830 - any child of Adelaide's and William's born after Victoria became Queen would succeed Victoria.

 

[purple_Lulu]

Just as well such a child remained notional - would have been waiting a long time to succeed!

 

[Kataryn]

I think Victoria would have given up the throne for her cousin once the child reached majority. She was a good, dutiful queen but probably she would have preferred to be just Princess Albert. But that's speculation though I seem to remember having read that that was her position in one of her biographies.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My understanding is that she would have abdicated immediately and been regent for 18 years rather than actually be the Queen for 18 years and then abdicate.

 

[Kataryn]

I doubt this considering Victoria's character. She was herself just 18 and becoming queen offered her the possibility to escape the tough rule her own mother had on her. In case of an abdication it's not sure that she would have become the regent but queen Marie Adelaide, the baby's mother. So I think she would have prefered to see the baby grow up and be raised under her own regency to have a chance to do her duty to the country, not to formal family law.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She would have been under extreme pressure from her family, the government and especially the church to do the 'right thing' and she knew what that was - that any baby born within 9 months of the death of William IV was the true monarch.

 

[Kataryn]

You're right but don't forget how fast she installed herself as a power to be headed, even though she was so young. Lord Melbourne for example, her first Prime Minister, is said to actually have fallen for her and they would have worked together for at least half a year. Of course this is pure speculation but I tend to think that Victoria would have preferred to raise the baby herself the way she thought was right and she would have been able to fight back against all others who, in her mind, surely were trying to grab the opportunity while she herself knew that she was only deciding for the best.
But we could endlessly discuss her - it didn't happen, so it doesn't make too much sense.

 

[944]

Victoria and the British Throne

Why did Victoria succeed to the British throne if both Ernest Augustus and Adolphus each had a son born in the same year as Victoria?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why did Victoria succeed to the British throne if both Ernest Augustus and Adolphus each had a son born in the same year as Victoria?

Victoria was the child of the 4th son of George III while Ernest Augustus was the 5th son and Adolphus was the 7th. So even though Victoria's father had died she took her place from her father and his relationship to the King. After his death she moved into his place, which was 4th. She was always placed before her father's younger brothers and their respective descendents.

It's like today where Andrew's daughters come before Edward's son. Andrew is the older brother and even if Andrew died tomorrow his daughters would be closer to the throne then young James.

In time William's children, regardless of gender will all come before Harry's even if William has daughters and Harry has sons.

The line of succession follows strict rules of males before females but each male line has to be exhausted before it passes to the next male e.g.

The current line of succession is:

Charles - William - Harry
Andrew - Beatrice - Eugenie
Edward - James - Louise
Anne - Peter - Savannah* - Zara

However if Charles dies before the Queen it is Charles' line that succeeds not the Queen's second son, but her eldest son's children.

* as yet not baptised or officially annouced as far as I am aware.

 

[Warren]

Why did Victoria succeed to the British throne...?

Here's the legal reasoning. The principles determining Succession are found in two places:

• A law enacted by the Parliament, namely the Act of Settlement of 1701, determined that the Crown would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover, granddaughter of James I, and thereafter to "the heirs of her body, being Protestants".

• "the heirs of her body" is interpreted under English Common Law which applies the principle of male-preference primogeniture. Thus a younger brother will inherit the Crown before his older sister, but in the absence of a living brother the daughter will inherit.

At the moment of death of William IV in 1837 Victoria was the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia as defined by the Act of Settlement and Common Law. Her succession to the Crown was therefore automatic and immediate.

 

[944]

The British Throne

How come Queen Victoria became queen if Ernest Augustus and Adolphus each had a son born later in the same year?

 

[Mirabel]

How come Queen Victoria became queen if Ernest Augustus and Adolphus each had a son born later in the same year?

Because they were both younger than Victoria's father, the Duke of Kent.
His children take precedence.

Now, if he had had a son born after Victoria, the son would have inherited instead.
But the Duke died when she was a baby, so that didn't happen.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

How come Queen Victoria became queen if Ernest Augustus and Adolphus each had a son born later in the same year?

I believe Iluvbertie and Warren answered this same question which you previously posted.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I believe Iluvbertie and Warren answered this same question which you previously posted.

To be fair to 944 they did start a new thread - which is where I answered it - and also posted it here which is where Warren answered it.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

To be fair to 944 they did start a new thread - which is where I answered it - and also posted it here which is where Warren answered it.

So the questions were moved here, I see. Sorry, 944

 

[LiamONeill]

Queen Victoria & Prince Albert Tribute

Hello. I recently made a video, a tribute to the life of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. You can find it here.

Comments and ratings are welcomed on the video's page!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NA4f9v5G5Y&feature=channel_video_title

 

[Lenora]

BBC News - Queen Victoria and Abdul: Diaries reveal secrets

 

[scooter]

Welcome Liam! I really enjoyed The Young Victoria movie too.

 

[LiamONeill]

Same, I think it's brill

 

[Grandduchess24]

I totally love that movie
Has anyone noticed that princess Beatrice of York is actually in the movie,but would it be weird for her a descendent of queen Victoria to portray her.