The Commonwealth's hypothetical independent monarchies

[Somebody]

This video shows a scenario if Canada had decided to pick Queen Victoria's second son as their king instead of remaining in a union with the UK when they became independent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR3iNOvUnx4

In short it argues the following line:
1. King Alfred (1867 - 1900)
2. Queen Marie (married to the king of Romania) (1900 - 1938)
3. King Michael (of Romania) (1938 - 2017)
4. Queen Margaret (Custodian of the Crown) (2017)

With 'Crown princess' Helen (Elena) and 'Hereditary Princess' Elizabeth.

I would argue that this hypothetical line is not very likely, is Marie would have been crown princess of Romania for quite some time when her father died (not that long after her older brother the crown prince of Canada died) and might have left the line of succession because of that. In that case, it would be her younger sister Victoria Melita who would have succeeded their father.

In short it argues the following line:
1. King Alfred (1867 - 1900)
2. Queen Victoria Melita (married to the Grand Duke of Hesse & Rhine; two daughters; and secondly, to Grand duke Kirill of Russia; one daughter and one son) (1900 - 1936)
3. King Vladimir (1936 - 1992)
4. Queen Maria (1992 - now) - currently known as Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia/Romanov

With Crown prince George (currently known as Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia/Romanov)

[Prinsara]

I got thirty seconds in and I couldn't continue.

Setting absurdity aside, there is no way Victoria would have prioritized Canada over Coburg (the non-Ontario version), so that's King Affie out entirely.

You'd be looking at the Duke of Connaught, who was the Governor-General, anyway. (His grandson Alistair died at Rideau Hall during WWII.)

If not him, then there's the very interesting if completely unexciting scenario of Queen Lenchen, and possibly terrible diplomatic relations with the UK due to Alexandra...

Or her sister Louise, who was the GG's wife and known as the Queen of Canada, anyway...

Or eventually Princess Alice of Albany, Countess of Athlone, also the vicereine of Ottawa. The most likely members (Helena's branch excepted) all ended up here in nearly equivalent capacities.

[Somebody]

Of course it is all hypothetical :)

Would it have been up to Victoria to decide that her son couldn't accept the offer to become king of Canada? It would have presented more than 25 years earlier than the Dukedom of Saxe-Coburg...

But let's assume he indeed favored to become Duke of Saxe-Coburg... So, that would mean the offer would have been made to brother number 3, 17-year old Prince Arthur (who indeed was Governor General of Canada for 5 years later in life!):

Two options: one following his eldest daughter's descendants (even though she married the Swedish crown prince) and one, more likely scenario, following his younger daughters descendants.

By Margaret (from 3)
1. King Arthur (1867 - 1942)
2. King Alastair (1942 - 1943)
3. King Sigvard (1943 - 2002) (I excluded his older brother as the crown prince of Sweden; but I'd say Sigvard would have enjoyed this opportunity to become king given how he insisted on being prince)
4. King Michael (2002 - now)

[with a Crown princess and a Hereditary Princess]

By Patricia (from 3):
1. King Arthur (1867 - 1942)
2. King Alastair (1942 - 1943)
3. Queen Patricia (1943 - 1974)
4. King Alexander (1974 - 2000)
5. Queen Katharine (2000 - now) (the current Mistress of Saltoun)

With crown prince Alexander (now the heir-apparent of the heir-apparent of the Scottish title Lord Saltoun)

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Of course it is all hypothetical :)

Would it have been up to Victoria to decide that her son couldn't accept the offer to become king of Canada? It would have presented more than 25 years earlier than the Dukedom of Saxe-Coburg...

But let's assume he indeed favored to become Duke of Saxe-Coburg... So, that would mean the offer would have been made to brother number 3, 17-year old Prince Arthur (who indeed was Governor General of Canada for 5 years later in life!):

Two options: one following his eldest daughter's descendants (even though she married the Swedish crown prince) and one, more likely scenario, following his younger daughters descendants.

By Margaret (from 3)
1. King Arthur (1867 - 1942)
2. King Alastair (1942 - 1943)
3. King Sigvard (1943 - 2002) (I excluded his older brother as the crown prince of Sweden; but I'd say Sigvard would have enjoyed this opportunity to become king given how he insisted on being prince)
4. King Michael (2002 - now)

[with a Crown princess and a Hereditary Princess]

By Patricia (from 3):
1. King Arthur (1867 - 1942)
2. King Alastair (1942 - 1943)
3. Queen Patricia (1943 - 1974)
4. King Alexander (1974 - 2000)
5. Queen Katharine (2000 - now) (the current Mistress of Saltoun)

With crown prince Alexander (now the heir-apparent of the heir-apparent of the Scottish title Lord Saltoun)

That video only works if you know nothing about Victoria... who wouldn't hear of Affie being King of the Hellenes, and that was four years prior and more about Coburg than agreements about the balance of power in Europe.
I've said it in her thread and I'll say it again — Patricia is extremely highly regarded here due to sponsoring an infantry regiment as "Princess Patricia" (that still has her name on it), so I imagine no one would have minded having her as our Queen.

Finally, some lines we may not have overthrown!

Edit: Also, Arthur would have been king for 75 years. What a time for a Platinum-- no, it actually goes back to being a Diamond Jubilee.

[Somebody]

So, following this hypothetical example. By 1900, the queen's eldest son is her heir for the UK, her second son is the reigning duke of Saxe-Coburg, and her third son the king of the dominion of Canada.

In 1901, the Commonwealth of Australia is instituted. If they would have wanted their own independent monarchy, there wasn't a son left within the queen's household (her youngest son had passed away and his son was the duke of Saxe-Coburg at that point) but her heir had three sons, so they might have turned to her daughters. Eldest daughter Victoria was out of the question as the wife of the German emperor, second daughter princess Alice had passed away years before, so we land on princess Helena (married to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein).

1. Queen Helena (1901 - 1923)
2. King Albert (1923 - 1931)
3. Queen Helena Victoria (1931 - 1948)
4. Queen Marie Louise (1948 - 1956)

The line ends here with the three siblings all without legitimate heirs... so, going back to Helena's youngest sister's (i.e., Beatrice) descendants, more specifically her eldest son:

5. King Alexander (1956 - 1960)
6. Queen Iris (1960 - 1982)
7. King Robin (1982 - now) [assuming he was accepted even though his parents were only married for a few months - given that there weren't any acceptable alternatives]

[Prinsara]

....but wouldn't you have to start with Bertie's daughters, rather than his sisters?

Louise and down to the Carnegies. Potential joint monarchy with Canada.

And Toria will be absolutely flipping thrilled to be Queen of New Zealand and far, far away from Motherdear.

[Somebody]

And the other of the three bigger countries within the Commonwealth: New Zealand.

New Zealand became the Dominion of New Zealand on 26 September 1907, so, under king Edward VII, so for an 'independent monarch' we look to his younger children... As his only living son is his heir for the UK, his eldest daughter would be the most likely pick:

1. Queen Louise (1907 - 1931; married to Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife)
2. Queen Maud (1931 - 1945; married to Charles Carnegie, 11th Earl of Southesk)
3. King James (1945 - 2015; married to Caroline Dewar)
4. King David (2015 - now; married to Caroline Anne Bunting)

With crown prince Charles who married last month to Camille Ascoli (as Charles has 2 younger brothers and his aunt a daughter, the line of succession is more secure than that of Australia)

N.B. Skipping Louise's eldest daughter as she is married to the crown prince of Canada (prince Arthur of Connaught - but crown prince in this hypothetical world)

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

....but wouldn't you have to start with Bertie's daughters, rather than his sisters?

Louise and down to the Carnegies. Potential joint monarchy with Canada.

And Toria will be absolutely flipping thrilled to be Queen of New Zealand and far, far away from Motherdear.

I went with the younger children of the monarch on the original date - and Victoria was still queen at the time the Commonwealth of Australia came into effect. But the Carnegies ended up in New Zealand (I decided against a joined monarchy BTW)

But let's follow-up on an alternative scenario; after the death of queen Marie Louise, they had to go back to the original British line and instead of picking the line of Victoria's youngest daughter; going with the first available candidate among the younger children of the monarch of that time, wouldn't really work as princess Anne would be only 6 years old. So, if they would go up one generation, they'd end up with Margaret (who surely would more than happy to take it on - but while Elizabeth at that point had 2 children, she was kind of needed in the UK). In that case we'd have:

1. Queen Helena (1901 - 1923)
2. King Albert (1923 - 1931)
3. Queen Helena Victoria (1931 - 1948)
4. Queen Marie Louise (1948 - 1956)
5. Queen Margaret (1956 - 2002)
6. King David (2002 - now)

With crown prince Charles.

Alternatively, (and probably more likely?) Australia might have gone one more generation back and picked the Duke of Gloucester - and would currently have the senior male-line:
1. Queen Helena (1901 - 1923)
2. King Albert (1923 - 1931)
3. Queen Helena Victoria (1931 - 1948)
4. Queen Marie Louise (1948 - 1956)
5. King Henry (1956 - 1974)
6. King Richard (1974 - now)

With crown prince Alexander and hereditary prince Xan.

[Prinsara]

Well, Henry of Gloucester was a fairly popular Australian GG, so these things do seem to keep paralleling out.

Isn't it funny how you get a King David and a Crown Prince Charles in either country?

India and South Africa are much bigger. Are they just not politic to do?

[Zonk]

Closed for moderator review.