The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Chit Chat (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/)
-   -   Alternative History: Princess Margaret as Queen (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/alternative-history-princess-margaret-as-queen-35123.html)

BritishRoyalist 05-15-2013 01:07 AM

Alternative History: Princess Margaret as Queen
 
Now let me First say that I do like Queen Elizabeth and that I have lot of respect for her. She had made a Good Queen and has dine her Job well. I like these Alternative History question because they are very interesting to think about and Imagine how history made have unfolded differently if something went a different way.

Okay now let just say for some reason in a th Alternative History that at Margaret had became Queen in 1952 and Not Elizabeth when her father died supposing that Elizabeth had died some years earlier leaving Margaret as the sole surviving child of George and Elizabeth and so she succeeds her father as king and in 2002 her son David would have succeed her as king when she died. How would Margret been as Queen? Would history have unfolded differently? Would the Monarchy have survived? What do you think? U have wondered about this. Coming from the same parents I think Margaret might have made a good queen it hard to say if she would ave been as good as her sister was. Margaret would have also had the influence of her Mother like Elizabeth did.

Countessmeout 05-15-2013 02:15 AM

It would depend hugely upon how old Margrat was when her sister died. Did Elizabeth die just before their dad? Was Margrat already a grown woman, who was already a bit wild? Or did she become heir when she was still a young teen?

I think there is a reason that Margrat, Andrew and in a way Harry, are a bit wilder than their older siblings (Harry not so much). They are the spares, they aren't raised to the same sense of duty and role, they never saw the throne in their future.

How about another what if. What is Margrat had not given up Peter. If she had pulled an Edward VIII, and abdicated to marry the man she loved. With Elizabeth dead childless, the throne would have passed to the next closest kin. That would have been the line of Prince Henry of Gloucester, third son and fourth child of George V.

King Henry IX and Queen Alice (until 1974)Alice died in 2004
Richard, current Duke of Gloucester would now be Richard IV
And Alexander Earl of Ulster would be POW with wife Claire
Xan Windsor would be in the place of Prince William
Lady Davina would have been Princess Royal

But then again we don't know Richard or his son would have married the same, if they had been King and heir to the throne. Or named their kids the same. Being so far from the throne, likely affects certain choices.

Lumutqueen 05-15-2013 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist (Post 1551879)
How would Margret been as Queen? Would history have unfolded differently? Would the Monarchy have survived? What do you think? U have wondered about this. Coming from the same parents I think Margaret might have made a good queen it hard to say if she would ave been as good as her sister was. Margaret would have also had the influence of her Mother like Elizabeth did.

I don't think we can answer any of these questions because we never knew Margaret as anything but what she was. She was need heir, she never had the responsibility it comes with.

If Margaret was brought up to be Queen then I'm sure she would have done a fine job.

BritishRoyalist 05-15-2013 07:00 PM

I just left the imagination open as to when Elizabeth would have died or why. She would have bee. 20 in 1952. If Margaret as succeeded her sister I could not see her abdicating (I have felling her mother would not have allowed it) But I guess you never know. There is a history of the older child dying before they take the throne and the second become the heir. But in my imagination Charles and Anne would not have been born (or married) so let just say it was 1945 when Margaret would have been 14.

But do like your question about if Margaret had not given up peter and dd abdicate then Henry would have succeeded. I never thought about that.

Ish 05-15-2013 07:35 PM

In order for the scenario to work Elizabeth soul have had to die before the 1948 birth of Prince Charles - when Margaret was 18. I think if she became the heir at some point in her teens, especially her late teens then Margaret would have had to really struggle in catching up on the training that Elizabeth had had. Elizabeth was the heir for 15 years, Margaret would have been heir for less than 10.

I do think she could have done it though, and even done a good job at it. It's not being the spare that has made her, Andrew, or Harry more "wild" - Anne was the spare for 10 years, before becoming the spare to the spare, then the spare to the spare's spare, and doesn't have the more wild history. In contrast, Edward VIII was the heir and George VI the spare, Albert Victor the heir and George V the spare, and yet in both cases it was the older brother that was more wild.

The interesting thing about Margaret as monarch is when she would have married, and who. I doubt she would have married Peter. The problem with Peter would have presented the same issues whether Margaret was monarch or Princess, and I think when Churchill presented the opposition to the marriage to her (as he did to Elizabeth) she would have ultimately made the same decision.

I would hope that Margaret's extramarital affairs would have been conducted with more discretion, although I wonder if Margaret would have married Anthony at all had she been monarch. To me it seems like the marriage was one that only worked because Margaret was increasingly further away from the throne. Anthony would not have made a good consort to the monarch, and I kind of doubt he would have wanted to be one in the first place. Queen Margaret would have married someone entirely different from who Princess Margaret married.

cepe 05-15-2013 07:38 PM

Historically this question would only be of value if we had some idea of Margaret's thinking on the monarchy. Anyone got anything on that?

Ish 05-15-2013 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1552142)
Historically this question would only be of value if we had some idea of Margaret's thinking on the monarchy. Anyone got anything on that?

I think you can get a bit of insight into it in her statement announcing her decision to not marry Peter. There she said "I have been made aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But mindful of the Church's teachings that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before others."

Her decision was the result of a situation similar to the Abdication Crisis, but unlike Uncle David she made the opposite decision. She was willing to put her own happiness aside in favour of the monarchy.

vkrish 05-17-2013 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1552142)
Historically this question would only be of value if we had some idea of Margaret's thinking on the monarchy. Anyone got anything on that?

Atleast what I think is:
Margaret always thought monarchy as a privilege she was born into. And that all the luxuries and endless bows and curtsies are all her birth-right.. It never occured to her that she has to "pay" for them..
She did not share the view that royals should keep up with the changing times..And the word "work-ethic" doesnt seem to be in her dictionary.
Apart from accepting some traditional patronages and appearing at Childrens Royal Variety Performance I dont think there was anything she thought she ought to do.
She took two things completely for granted:
1. Loyalty and devotion of public: Maybe it appeared to her during WWII years that this is the way it always is..
2. Extravagance: Undoubtedly from her mother.
She lived far from reality. She thought being a royal makes you totally immune to public scrutiny..

BritishRoyalist 05-17-2013 04:56 PM

Good point.

Iluvbertie 05-17-2013 06:05 PM

She was patron of about 80 different organisations including ones dealing with welfare such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Children along with the arts and music.

Warren 05-18-2013 02:51 AM

Princess Margaret was also involved in HIV/AIDS fundraising activities (a little-known fact).

Her general attitude and possible sense of entitlement may also have been a result of her feeling of being deceived (betrayed) by Churchill when it was indicated to her that after a suitable period, the Townsend marriage may be on the agenda, only to be advised at the end of the period that it wasn't. And if she persisted, she would be turfed out. Subtle it wasn't.

vkrish 05-18-2013 12:58 PM

Yes but one thing i want to know is..
Can we see her imaginary reign in context of her negative aspects-- unstable relationships, bad lifestyles etc..
One point is..If she had the "pressure" of being Queen, that would have been a great diversion. She could have coped up with a bad marriage easily. And she wouldnt have craved for a loving companion that much..Then her defects wouldnt be that severe that they affected her image.
OTOH, that "pressure" could even worsen her defects..We have 2 perfect examples in her father and uncle..
Her father went from bad to worse lifestyle habits due to stress, and her uncle went into "terrible" relationship inspite of the "duty".
So it could have happend either way..

Skippyboo 06-04-2013 05:37 PM

Margaret was spoiled by the king and didn't get the training that Elizabeth did. So taking over as a young women may have been disastrous. She would be married to some nobleman instead of Townsend or Snowdon. If Elizabeth died as a infant or toddler, things would be different since Margaret isn't the spare anymore.

Being the spare isn't a problem when you are young. You get the privilege without the burden. It when you are the middle aged ex spare that is the problem. I think it is made worse because of the queens long reign. You have to make a niche. Charles and Anne did it well. Andrew and Margaret not so well


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises