What Might Have Been?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Maybe Victoria would have been a good Duchess von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha...
 
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?
 
Shouldn´t the pertinent question be "What if Princess Charlotte hadn´t died giving birth?"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The thread wasn't hijacked but a second 'what if' question was posed and thus moved to this thread having started elsewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Hi,

My point of view on all this is:
The Royal Family wanted and needed heirs after Charlotte died, thus the scramble for the Dukes to marry and produce heirs.
Why would they disgard a son (the preferable heir) to advance a girl cousin???
Was this baby boy physically and/or mentally incapacitated?

It just doesn't make sense that William (who kept his 10 illegitimate children) and Adelaide (a good & compassionate lady & mother figure) would cast away a legitimate son...

Larry
 
Why would they disgard a son (the preferable heir) to advance a girl cousin???
Was this baby boy physically and/or mentally incapacitated?

RoyaltyinNZ has never said that the child was legitimate, that would be why he was (if he existed) cast aside. He could never inherit the throne.
If Adelaide was pregnant and gave birth we would have known about it.
 
Why would they disgard a son (the preferable heir) to advance a girl cousin???
Why would they disregard a son? Like I mentioned in a previous post, they wanted to end their ties with Hannover. I dont know why, but I think it was a money issue. And the only way they could do that, is if a female inherited the throne. Salic Law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RoyaltyinNZ has never said that the child was legitimate, that would be why he was (if he existed) cast aside. He could never inherit the throne.
If Adelaide was pregnant and gave birth we would have known about it.

The child would have been legitimate, most certainly.
 
Hi,

As has been posted previously, an Act of Parliament could have severed Britain and Hanover ties... No need to cast a poor baby away...

In defence of William and Adelaide -
These people were not monsters, who callously abandoned their child.
William IV has been termed "Silly Billy" and "The Sailor King" but he was a good enough father by 19th century terms and wasn't a bad person.
Queen Adelaide is one of our most exemplary queens, in terms of kindness and fairness and a great example to Victoria and others of what a real gentile lady is/was... She would never give up her son.

Larry
 
The child would have been legitimate, most certainly.


If this so called son was a child of Queen Adelaide and King William it would have been known. Even if it was a stillborn.
Why did they want to cut ties with Hanover, what was the problem?
 
This is totally just conspiracy theory, but at the time of King William's reign, Britain was in great debt. What if the choice to end ties with Hanover was an idea established by the King or even the government of Hanover, to pay off debts to Britain?

So in simple terms, Hanover said they want to be independent, and in order to do so they will pay England x amount of dollars so that they pay off their debts and in return, England will establish a female as a queen and if any sons (or rightful heirs to the throne) to be born, were to be hidden from the public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However this only works if Victoria successfully has a child and with the example of Charlotte before them that wasn't a given and in 1837 after Victoria the next 4 heirs were all male.

It was a risky strategy and really wouldn't hold water for that very reason - what if Victoria had followed Charlotte and died having the Princess Royal and that the baby also died - then the thrones are again combined so back to square one and they knew that the next heir already had a son so it would be generations before the possibility rose again - this just doesn't wash.

That William might have hidden a new illegimate child, so as not to hurt Adelaide's feelings - that is a possibility except that there is no suggestion that he wasn't faithful to Adelaide (any more than he was unfaithful to Mrs Jordon - the mother of his acknowledged 10 illegimate children).

Sorry but this conspiracy has no legs as it is too fraught with the possibility of failure.

Britain was also the leading industrial power of the age and its economy was improving all the time.

If the British government wanted to end the association with Hannover it would simply have had to legislate and say that the British monarch can't also be the monarch of another realm - easy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to A Royal Affair by Stella Tillyard,

  • For George I, being elector of Hanover generated 700,000 pounds a year. Thus the elector of Hanover was richer than King of Great Britian'
  • according to the author, George I's will (suppressed by George II) was populary believed to have asked for the separation of Britian and Hanover as soon as the existence of two male heirs in one generation made it possible. Thus Frederick, Prince of Wales would have inheritied the British corwn on his father's death, and the Duke of Cumberland that electorate. Although Queen Caroline would have never accepted this. She hated Frederick and wanted Edward to be King.
  • The author assumes that George III did not separate the two upon his accession because he didn't find a suitable candidiate for the electorship among his brothers.
Basically there might have been earlier opportunities for the two kingdoms to be separated. But if money was an intial motive, it makes sense why George II didn't separate two but apparently Frederick did want them separated and George III was aware of this. Apparently it ranked low on his list of issues he had the issues with his siblings, some revolution in the colonies and his mental issues to deal with.
 
Last edited:
I dont know much about George III or Frederick unfortunately. So you are saying that it did make sense that they wanted both Kingdoms separated? Why would they want the two separated?

If you read my earlier posts, I am just trying to put the missing puzzle pieces together based on all the information I have collected from family genealogy/old documents/letters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The first George seems to have wanted them separated as he felt that they should develop separately and not be tied to each other but having only one son was unable to have that happen and then his son ignored that idea. These events were 100 years before William became King.

George III had issues with his brothers and didn't wish to give up his title as King of Hannover not did he think there was any need to consider passing the throne of Hannover to his second son - which wouldn't have made any difference as second son didn't have any children and died in 1828. Had he lived another couple of years he would have succeeded George IV.

You may be looking for missing pieces but you are not going to find them in a legitimate son to William IV who was hidden to allow the separation of the thrones as there was no certainty that Victoria would successfully have a child who lived. (We know that she had 9 but in 1837 they had a history over the previous 20 or so years of more babies dying than living and one mother dying in childbirth - that is just in the royal family).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What does Victoria having a child have to do with anything?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What does Victoria having a child have to do with anything?

Your conspiracy is based on hiding a son to have Victoria on the throne to separate the thrones.

However, Victoria's heir from 1837 - 1840 was her uncle, who also had a son so if anything happened to Victoria while having a child then the whole conspiracy fails as they are back with combined thrones.

The Duke of Cumberland - who became King of Hannover - also wanted to be King of Britain and would have been delighted to have both crowns.

Had Victoria died in childbirth and the child with her then the King of Hannover is again the King of Britian and thus your conspiracy about hiding a son to separate the thrones is totally flawed.

I will try to put it more simply:

During William's reign the line of succession was:

Victoria
Duke of Cumberland
George of Cumberland
Duke of Cambridge
George of Cambridge
Daughters of Duke of Cambridge.

So for your conspiracy to work they had to know when this supposed son was born that Victoria would successfully have a child to separate the thrones. Given the high rate of still births and deaths in childbirth that is not a given, for any woman at that time.

For the first three and a half years of Victoria's reign the line of succession was:

King of Hannover (Duke of Cumberland)
Prince George of Cumberland
Duke of Cambridge
George of Cambridge

For these years the next in line after Victoria were all male and would have re-united the two thrones again.

The only way to stop the re-unification of the thrones, assuming your conspiracy is right and I don't for one moment believe it, was for Victoria to have a child and that wasn't a given.

Far easier, to pass legislation, which George I would have supported by no later Hannoverian King would do.
 
The first George seems to have wanted them separated as he felt that they should develop separately and not be tied to each other but having only one son was unable to have that happen and then his son ignored that idea. These events were 100 years before William became King.QUOTE]

William III continued as Stadholder of the Netherlands while he was King, and it maintained a seperate way of life, so I wonder why King George felt that way?
 
I think a lot of it was tied to seeing them as two separate entities rather than as one and therefore having separate monarchs was the way to go. He was totally German in outlook as well whereas his descendents became increasingly British in outlook.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
King Edward VIII & Future Queens

Edward being the eldest son of king George V I am sure had tons of monarchs who proposed their daughters to marry him...and if he chose one what would the royal family be like now?!
 
Edward being the eldest son of king George V I am sure had tons of monarchs who proposed their daughters to marry him...and if he chose one what would the royal family be like now?!

One proposed match was between him and one of the daughters of the Russian Tsar, not sure which one. One highly likely result of such a match could have been that the current monarch would be a haomophiliac.
 
You must be taking about grand duchess Olga nikolaievna (1895-1918) I knew that but she was the one who said she wanted to marry a russian and stay in Russia.
 
Grandduchess24 said:
You must be taking about grand duchess Olga nikolaievna (1895-1918) I knew that but she was the one who said she wanted to marry a russian and stay in Russia.Any others though ?
 
Back
Top Bottom