The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 11-28-2006, 10:54 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Nowadays I think it would be difficult to hide.
I agree. Today, public figures can't pick their nose without it being reported. These were the days when Royal voices were not heard and only the nicest pictures were seen. The deference given to the Royal Family must have been amazing and was very beneficial to people like George who did have something to hide. And also, this was a time when the people of Britain didn't really want to know about the private lives of the Royal Family. I think that nowadays someone like George would be hounded by the press until they exposed his secret and I've no doubt that George would have done exactly the same as he did back then, now. The situation hasn't really changed that much.

Quote:
My guess is that Prince George's royal wife, with her Russian mother, and the fact that he had a son by the mid-1930s were the things that made the difference.
I think that's right. George and Marina had impressive ties, they were both extremely popular and quite good looking. Chamberlain liked George, so did Roosevelt and so he would have had the right ties. If the offer was made in 1936/37 then war was certainly on the horizon with Poland highlighted as a possible catalyst so maybe George was meant to supply stability to the country?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-29-2006, 06:31 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Maybe I am being a little too generous to Hitler. I see him as being an incredible leader - that even though he did evil and terrible things, he still had such loyalty from common people. I think that Hitler did have the common flaw of a dictator and that is that he wanted to see Nazism travel outside of Germany - but then again, he had a different view of what Germany was exactly. I think he was quite genuinely shocked when Britain stood up against him, especially as most of the upper class thought he was a charming man. I think King George and Queen Marina might have been charmed by him. If they weren't, maybe they'd have met a very sticky end.
Here's what history professor Raffael Scheck writes about the debate between historians about the way the Third Reich worked: (from: http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyE5.html)

Synthesis (according to Bracher and Jäckel): Hitler derived much of his strength from the rivalry and the overlapping responsibilities of state and party institutions. He thus could assume the role of a mediator. Single offices competed to win him over to their policies. Often they tried to implement what was considered to be his wish (example: genesis of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, August 1939). In a deeper sense, Hitler also was a mediator in a thoroughly divided German society neither of whose main forces (socialism, conservatives) had been able to dominate the other ever since the late Wilhelmine Empire.

That's in addition to recent British publications of historical research where they say that from 1935 the system of the dictatorship was so efficient that though Germans slowly started to realize who this Hitler and what his party really was, they could't do anything against it anymore.

As for his personal charisma - it's difficult to say today, as the historic recordings and films only show a rather ridiculous person with a terrible way to use language. I don't understand it but then I haven't lived then when years and decades of hopelessness after WWI had led to the real strong wish for a leader to end the current situation. People wanted the change in 1933 because Hitler gave them hope. But as soon as he had the possibilities of the laws of the republic of Weimar, which offered the head of the government much more possibilities to rule absolutely through emergency legislation he used these means. The "Ermächtigungsgesetz" ("enabling act") of 1933 which changed the constitution and brought on the real dictatorship was in fact less suppressive than the emergency legislation, so most the other parties voted for it, too, in the hope that things would get better. Well, they didn't.

Yes, it's true, Hitler could be quite charming but most of all he was absolutely ruthless, as eg princess Mafalda of Savoy, daughter of the king of Italy and landgravine of Hesse-Cassel found out. Her marriage resulted in her husband being in a position to act as intermediary between the Nazis in Germany and the Fascist regime in Italy. In 1943 Hitler started to believe that princess Mafalda worked against the Nazis and called her the "blackest carrion in the Italian royal house." The princess could flee to Rome and found sanctuary at the Vatican while her husband was held prisoner in Germany. But the Gestapo managed to get her under a pretext to the German embassy (they told her she could get into contact to her husband there), she was arrested and transported back to Germany. In 1944 the princess died a prisoner in the Buchenwald concentration camp following injuries she received when the US army bombed the camp.

Members of the Royal House of Bavaria were imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp, even though Hitler had charmed them in the beginning when he considered Munich to be the "capital of the Nazi-movement".
So I guess a king George and queen Marina of Poland would not have seen the charming side of Hitler for long if the British government had gone on to oppose Hitler as it did....
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-29-2006, 11:22 AM
lord_rankin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Detroit, United States
Posts: 130
When you consider how everything played out in the days leading up to WWII I believe that Prince George on the throne of Poland would have been a decisive factor in preventing at least the invasion of Poland. Having a memeber of the British Royal Family on the throne would most certainly have changed the outcome of the Non Aggresion Pact that Germany and Russia signed. I don't believe they would have been so eager to carve up Poland as they did to provide a buffer-state. Hitler for all his charisma and cunning was woefully under educated especially in terms of civics and governmental procedure. He believed that in Britian the King still ruled, not the Prime Minister, I have read many times where he thought certain that King George would not dare declare war on him for something as trivial as Poland. Had Prince George been on the throne I believe he would have been more cautious and would have tried not to provoke the British. I like these kind of threads
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-29-2006, 12:14 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Thanks for that Jo. Your post was really informative. I didn't realise Hitler had been so brutal to members of various Royal Families. I suppose that them being in Poland, George and Marina could have ended up in Auschwitz when the British declared war. Then again, they would have been a good bargaining chip to have.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-01-2006, 03:56 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I think that Hitler even persecuted some members of the House of Hanover (I seem to remember that some of them were placed in concentration camps).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-01-2006, 04:20 PM
RachelD's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My Home, United States
Posts: 697
But if Goerge was or had homosexual tendancies, wouldn't Hitler have hated him? From what I recall, Hitler despised Jews, Homosexuals and anyone who did not regard him as a God...So I don't think that if Kent had been made King of Poland he would have been able to prevent Poland being invaded.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-01-2006, 04:58 PM
fee's Avatar
fee fee is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 159
Didn't Queen Mary at one time say: "Georgie, you see, is soo musical"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-01-2006, 06:31 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
But if Goerge was or had homosexual tendancies, wouldn't Hitler have hated him?
Well Goebbels was gay - and he wasn't the only high ranking Nazi. With Hitler, it was about power. He may have hated George for being homosexual but he would have put that aside for as long as George could be a political asset.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-10-2010, 01:20 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
What if King William IV had a son & Queen Victoria never became Queen

I have strong evidence that King William IV actually had a son that should have been rightful heir to the throne, instead of Queen Victoria.

Back in those days, the Empire had ties to Hanover, and they wanted to end those ties. I don't know why for sure, but I think it had a lot to do with having a lot of debt.

Salic Law, stated that if a Queen was the next heir to the throne, the ties between Hanover and England would be no more. Also, there were rumors that Princess Adelaide was pregnant at that time. See the below quote from the King William IV Wikipedia page:

"The major sorrow of the marriage is that they did not have healthy children which would have secured the succession. The couple had two short-lived daughters, and Adelaide suffered three miscarriages.[51] Despite this, false rumours that Adelaide was pregnant persisted into William's reign—he dismissed them as "damned stuff".[52]"

Was there a chance that King William did actually have a son, and he was hid on purpose? What do you know about this story? Please let me know, I am interested to hear if anyone thinks there is a possibility that this happened. Thanks
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-10-2010, 02:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
I don't think there was a possibility at all of this happening.

While George IV was King he would have welcomed any child that could stop Victoria, the off-spring of a brother he didn't exactly like - loathe would be a good word for their relationship - and a sister-in-law he liked even less, from becoming Queen.

By the time William became King she was nearly 40 and by the time Victoria became Queen well into her 40s. Even today with modern medical care having a child at that age, particularly after a number of still births and miscarriages, the chances of successfully having a child are minimal - back then almost impossible (NB a woman who has had healthy children or no children have a greater chance of a successful pregnancy now and I know a couple that became mothers for the first time in their 40s in the 1990s but that isn't the same as the 1830s).

William's brothers would also have welcomed any chance to stop Victoria becoming Queen - and keep both Britain and Hannover together.

Yes the Salic Law separated Britain and Hannover but until Victoria had a child of either gender there was still the possibility of the two crowns being re-united.

Your conspiracy falls flat at that very point. Victoria's cousin Charlotte had died in childbirth and there was no guarantee that the same thing wouldn't happen to her which would have resulted in the crowns coming together again in late 1840 as her heir from 1837 to 1840 when she had the Princess Royal was the King of Hannover. The government of the day knew that.

If the government truly wanted to separate the thrones they could very simply have enacted appropriate legislation as they had done to stop the 50+ people with a better blood claim than George I in 1714 - Parliament made the decision then to pas over legitimate claimants on the basis of religion and there is no reason to suppose that they couldn't have passed legislation to pass over a girl on the basis of gender, had they been so inclined. They weren't.

After Victoria the next 4 or 5 heirs were all male so saying that there was a conspiracy to have a female to separate the thrones just doesn't work - to ensure the succession that female has to have an heir of their own body and death in childbirth then was a lot higher than it is today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-10-2010, 09:41 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
Maybe Victoria would have been a good Duchess von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-10-2010, 10:05 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post
I have strong evidence that King William IV actually had a son that should have been rightful heir to the throne, instead of Queen Victoria.
What evidence?
If they wanted to split the crowns then they could of done so very easily as Iluvbertie says.
Our future will of been very very different if Victoria was not crowned Queen.
But what if Princess Charlotte hadn't off died, what if her son had lived?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-10-2010, 10:49 AM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
Shouldn´t the pertinent question be "What if Princess Charlotte hadn´t died giving birth?"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-10-2010, 11:13 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
What is the evidence that William IV had a legitimate son?

I would hazard to guess if this was the case, this would have been published before and the "heir" would have asserted his rights.

I do recall reading that one of the early George's had advocated that the throne of Hanover and Great Britain should have been spilt. I believe it was in book A Royal Affair.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-10-2010, 04:11 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 255
I have read quite a lot about the era from the death in childbirth of Pss Charlotte and her son, and the accession of Victoria. Nothing suggests that there had been a healthy son (or daughter) born to William and Adelaide. I think it would have been difficult to hide, as at that stage there was a great rush, by the Princes, to marry legitimately and have children, that the physical condition of all the brides would have been under close scrutiny, and the births would have been closely watched. (I think it was Queen Victoria herself who stopped the tradition of the Home Secretary - a senior government minister - having to be present in the room to stop any switch when an heir was born.)

No-one took any notice of Victoria when she was born in 1819. William's wife had a miscarriage, and then the birth of a daughter in 1820 (who unfortunately lived only a few months). There was also the son of the D of Cumberland (George) who was born a month or two after Victoria and came after her in the succession. Then there was another George, of Cambridge, who was born just before Victoria, but came after her and the other George in the succession (and there were also two younger girls in the Cambridge family). So there was always the chance for quite some years that William would have another child. There was also always the chance that Victoria would die in childhood (quite common). Although the Duchess of Kent was paranoic about someone possibly wanting to kill the young Victoria, I have not read anything that indicated that there was any government, or family, plot to stop a male heir. The British have been remarkably happy (both Scots and English) to have women rulers, but equally a male heir was probably more stable as there was the question of influence by the husband of a Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:21 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Beatrix Fan's post about a member of the British Royal Family assuming the throne of Poland appears to have been hijacked by a thread concerning whether William IV had a son. In my opinion, this most certainly never occurred. As many reported above, there has been no evidence of this and certainly, with the mad rush to produce legitimate children to stand in line of succession, any child, male or female, would have been seen as securing William's line for the throne.

No, Victoria won the genetic lottery by managing to be born healthy and surviving until she could take the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-10-2010, 09:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
The thread wasn't hijacked but a second 'what if' question was posed and thus moved to this thread having started elsewhere.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-10-2010, 09:18 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
I dont want to reveal all of what I know in this forum, but I have reason to believe that King William IV did have a son and he smuggled him into the Frogmore residence. At the time, the head gardner at Frogmore was named Daniel Whitney. Daniel became "the father" to this new son which really should have been the next heir to the throne. His name was George.

Daniel and his wife also had a newborn around this time and named the baby Henry Whitney, and they acted like King William IV's son was a twin to Henry. I don't know why. Of course there is no evidence in the open about this. They wanted it to be a secret as for some reason, they wanted Victoria to be the Queen.

When George became a young man, he started to bare resemblence of King William and was banished to New Zealand with a guard, and was told he would be killed if he revealed who he was.

Some of you may think I am crazy or making this up, but what I tell you is true. I am not making any of this up. I do have a few missing puzzle peices which I am trying to figure out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-10-2010, 10:03 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The thread wasn't hijacked but a second 'what if' question was posed and thus moved to this thread having started elsewhere.
Thank you for the explanation. I tried to access the link to the William IV thread and ended up nowhere, then Istumbled across this thread which eventually lead me to the thread I wanted.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-10-2010, 10:05 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Some of you may think I am crazy or making this up, but what I tell you is true. I am not making any of this up. I do have a few missing puzzle peices which I am trying to figure out.[/QUOTE]

Are you related to this alleged royal individual?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchy, history


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]