What Might Have Been?

[BeatrixFan]

I was reading an article today about Prince George, Duke of Kent being asked to become the King of Poland. Marina and George made a trip there in the late 1930s and were extremely well recieved and it was only the invasion of Poland by Hitler that scuppered the plan. Just think - the current Duke of Kent could well have been King Edward of Poland. And speaking of King Edward, the Earl of Wessex of course was offered the throne of Estonia by their Royalist Party. I think it's quite strange to imagine how things could have been. For example, say the Duke and Duchess of Windsor had been King and Queen - could they have avoided WWII by negotiating with Hitler and using the family tie of the new King of Poland? Just thought I'd share that.

 

[Avareenah]

It would have been an unwise idea for George, Duke of Kent, to be any more than he already was, in my opinion.

He is said by most reliable sources to have been a person who couldn't say "no" to anything -- he mixed with dubious people, was a promiscuous bisexual and had, for a period, an addiction to cocaine which his eldest brother helped him overcome (one of the few truly commendable things Edward did).

As for the Duke of Windsor -- I don't believe he would have stuck it out any longer than he did as King, even if Wallis Simpson hadn't come along. He simply wasn't interested in being royal, let alone the ruling monarch, and always put his personal life first.

 

[Duchess]

were these offers actually made? i'd never heard of them before. things certainly would have been different if wallis and edward had been king and queen that's for sure.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Polish offer was definately made and the Estonian one was only quite recent AFAIK.

As for George, I think he had what I call "Crisp Syndrome". George was gay - or bisexual in the very least and at a time when you could still be hanged on a charge of sodomy, gay men suddenly adopted this very effeminate style as if they were flappers. And it was from this generation that we got the term "camp". Quentin Crisp became overly effeminate and did things to excess to become a kind of social rarity. Well, I think this is really what George did. He slept around, he wore women's clothes, he had passionate affairs with equally camp gentlemen - Noel Coward to name but one and the cocaine was just part of that "flapper" culture. And it hasn't completely disappeared - I was shaped by it because it still exists in the camp culture that's now legal but that's still somehow nessecary. For example, I had blonde highlights, started smoking, took drugs, drank alot, slept around etc because it was the thing for gay guys to be doing. Well, in George's time it was very much the same and I think that because of the situation he found himself in, his longing to do those things were heightened and made all the more desperate which led to addictions etc. Having said that, I don't think that affected his workload or his sense of duty and he seemed to be a hard worker and someone who was admired. But then again, people didn't know about his lifestyle back then.

 

[Avareenah]

So, do you think George behaved like this because it was the only way he could express himself (being gay) at that time (1920's-30's)?

I remember a story where his father (George V) went into a rage when he saw a photograph of George wearing a skimpy silver costume at a party. I wonder how aware his parents were of his life style?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Yes, I'd say that his behaviour was a release. Among an intimate circle of friends, he could do things and explore things that his position and the social constraints of the time barred him from doing and exploring.

Apparantly the King and Queen knew about George's affairs. There was that story of when Noel Coward and the Duke were out in drag, roaring drunk and leaning on a lampost laughing when they were arrested. When the police officer found out who they were he let them go and apologies were made but it was a very strange thing and I assume the King and Queen would have known about it.

There is a book by a former Royal footman and later butler to Noel Coward who talks about his life with Noel and he mentions the Duke alot. Apparantly when he was young, George had huge rows with his father. He kept saying that he wanted to be an actor and pursue the arts, his father wanted him to go into the navy - so he went into the navy. But I think the Queen was well aware of her son's tendencies. A mother knows...

 

[Elspeth]

I doubt there'd have been any way of avoiding World War II short of surrendering before it started. The British upper classes weren't opposed to Germany on the whole before the war, so Edward wasn't that different from many of his peers. The big deal with Hitler is that he treated Wallis like a royal at a time when most other leaders weren't doing so and it mattered a lot to Edward that she be treated that way. If the king had let her have her HRH and if some effort had been made to integrate them into the royal family, I don't know that the whole Hitler thing would have happened anyway.

 

[Warren]

Kent, Poland... and Mountbatten

The following is a combination 'extract/paraphrase/own' largely from "A Polish Question: Monarchial sentiments in Poland 1918-39" by Michael Nash, Royalty Digest #167, May 2005.

In October 1928 The International Herald Tribune quoted the Prime Minister of Poland as saying "Poland needs a monarchy...if the country is to prosper."
Poland was a kingdom until its dismemberment in 1795, and during the period of elective monarchy sovereigns had been chosen from outside the country, so the precedents for a monarchical system and an outsider King were already established

The leading (unofficial) contender was the Duke of Kent, son of the British King, handsome, socially at ease, and married to the glamorous Marina, who came with impeccable Royal and Imperial connections. In August 1937 they went to Poland to see for themselves, and in some quarters at least were rapturously received. Though not an offical state visit, in many ways it resembled one. They visited several towns, where the Duke gave speeches praising the Polish people.

From then on, the Duke of Kent studied everything about Poland and Polish affairs, eagerly educating himself for his future role. According to a British intelligence writer, the idea of making Kent the King of Poland originated with none other than Lord Louis Mountbatten. [The prospect of Mountbatten's younger daughter marrying the son of the Duke to become Crown Princess and eventual Queen of Poland is not canvassed.]

The Duke made many trips to Germany and Central Europe during 1938 and 1939, usually interprteted as social visits to relatives (Prince Paul in Yugoslavia, the Toerring-Jettenbachs in Munich, the Hesse-Cassels in Hesse etc). Whether they were anything more is purely speculative, as the adventure, if it ever was, came to a sudden end in August 1942 when the Duke was killed in an air crash in Scotland while on active service.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

On another note and another "what might have been", the author states that the widowed Princess Marina was asked to become Queen of Norway by the also-widowed King Olav V after he became King in 1957. The exact timing of his overtures to Marina and to the Queen Mother, and whether they overlapped, is unknown.

 

[ysbel]

There is a book by a former Royal footman and later butler to Noel Coward who talks about his life with Noel and he mentions the Duke alot. Apparantly when he was young, George had huge rows with his father. He kept saying that he wanted to be an actor and pursue the arts, his father wanted him to go into the navy - so he went into the navy. But I think the Queen was well aware of her son's tendencies. A mother knows...

BeatrixFan, do you think that George's preferences would have mattered to Queen Mary? The impression I get from the British Royal Family at that time was that you were expected to do your duty and damned be your personal preferences regardless of whether they were for other men, acting, skydiving or anything else for that matter. What an individual wanted or preferred didn't seem to fit into their mentality very well.

What would you say?

 

[ysbel]

The following is a combination 'extract/paraphrase/own' largely from "A Polish Question: Monarchial sentiments in Poland 1918-39" by Michael Nash, Royalty Digest #167, May 2005.

In October 1928 The International Herald Tribune quoted the Prime Minister of Poland as saying "Poland needs a monarchy...if the country is to prosper."
Poland was a kingdom until its dismemberment in 1795, and during the period of elective monarchy sovereigns had been chosen from outside the country, so the precedents for a monarchical system and an outsider King were already established

The leading (unofficial) contender was the Duke of Kent, son of the British King, handsome, socially at ease, and married to the glamorous Marina, who came with impeccable Royal and Imperial connections. In August 1937 they went to Poland to see for themselves, and in some quarters at least were rapturously received. Though not an offical state visit, in many ways it resembled one. They visited several towns, where the Duke gave speeches praising the Polish people.

From then on, the Duke of Kent studied everything about Poland and Polish affairs, eagerly educating himself for his future role. According to a British intelligence writer, the idea of making Kent the King of Poland originated with none other than Lord Louis Mountbatten. [The prospect of Mountbatten's younger daughter marrying the son of the Duke to become Crown Princess and eventual Queen of Poland is not canvassed.]

The Duke made many trips to Germany and Central Europe during 1938 and 1939, usually interprteted as social visits to relatives (Prince Paul in Yugoslavia, the Toerring-Jettenbachs in Munich, the Hesse-Cassels in Hesse etc). Whether they were anything more is purely speculative, as the adventure, if it ever was, came to a sudden end in August 1942 when the Duke was killed in an air crash in Scotland while on active service.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

On another note and another "what might have been", the author states that the widowed Princess Marina was asked to become Queen of Norway by the also-widowed King Olav V after he became King in 1957. The exact timing of his overtures to Marina and to the Queen Mother, and whether they overlapped, is unknown.

Lord Louis Mountbatten was certainly trying to be a Kingmaker. He sounds like a 20th century Warwick!

 

[BeatrixFan]

I doubt there'd have been any way of avoiding World War II short of surrendering before it started.

Well, technically Britain only declared war as a result of the invasion of Poland. I very much doubt that Hitler would have invaded Poland if George was King - who knows, maybe George would have tried to work with him just as across the pond, Neville Chamberlain had tried to? I think that the second world war was inevitable - it was very much about punishing the Germans for the first IMO.

BeatrixFan, do you think that George's preferences would have mattered to Queen Mary?

Well Ysbel, I think that Queen Mary would have just turned a blind eye. As you say, it was a time when these things went on but duty came first. I think that as long as George kept up the pretence of being happily married and as long as Marina wasn't unhappy, Mary would have just let him get on with it - which she did. Now, whether he'd have "come out" before his marriage would be another matter. I think that George would most likely have been sent away like Prince John. Bear in mind that homosexuality or any tendencies were seen as an illness which was also illegal. Openly gay men (not women as the law didn't apply) were arrested and then treated by doctors with hormones and electric shock therapy. Now, George would probably have been treated for a while privately and the treatment kept hush-hush. But it's difficult to know how she would have felt. As I said before, there's no doubt that Mary knew about her son's love affairs. The Queen Mother certainly did and sort of took Noel Coward to her bosom once George had died as a kind of "Widow's Friend".

I very much doubt it would have mattered to Mary but as you say, duty was a priority and I think it would only have worried her if his personal life started to affect his working life which is basically what all Royal Family members are expected to make the divide between, even today. I don't know how camp George was. By the sounds of him, he was quite effeminate and certainly indulged in the activities most gay men were indulging in back then so I imagine George would have been quite easy to identify as gay. But remember, in George's circles, being gay was something very daring. Quentin Crisp used to say how he wowed the middle classes by just being effeminate because they thought that homosexuality was "rather delicious and magical". So, I would say that George was a novelty to his friends but a slight worry to his family, a worry that the truth would come out, but at the end of the day I think that Mary would have just accepted George who by the sounds of things was her favourite anyway.

 

[Elspeth]

I imagine that as long as he was discreet about it, a maternal blind eye would have been turned. The problem was that he wasn't always all that discreet, what with the incident of the letters he wrote to one of his lovers having to be bought back at an exorbitant cost.

I wonder why, if they thought Poland needed a monarch in the late 1920s, they hadn't got round to doing anything about it a decade later when the war started. Seems as though if it hadn't happened by then it was never going to happen, even if the Duke had lived.

I also wonder why they wanted to ask the Duke and Duchess of Kent rather than one of the descendants of the Stuart kings through the Sobieski line.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think it's quite strange to imagine how things could have been. For example, say the Duke and Duchess of Windsor had been King and Queen - could they have avoided WWII by negotiating with Hitler and using the family tie of the new King of Poland? Just thought I'd share that.

No, Hitler was bent on war. Chamberlain while responsible for Britain did all he could to prevent this war - thus Hitler gained first Austria, the German, then Slavic (the rest of) Czechia and Slowakia. He wanted Poland, because he planned to conquer the Sowiet Union from the beginning. Offering the Polish throne to a relative of the British king was done in the hope that this coalition would strengthen the traditionally close ties between Poland and the UK.

I'm aghast at the idea that a negociation between "David" and Hitler could have led to a later start of the war - already the Germans were killing Jews and Germans who opposed their regime and planning to get rid of all Polish and Russian Jews they were able to get their hands on. Negociation or eben a "peace treaty" would have given Hitler more time to get the possibilities to do all that: just imagine!

One need not forget that Hitler was not a politician but a criminal, a mass murderer disguised as head of a state. He never planned for anything but war in Europe, believing in the superiority of the Germans, in their capability to enslave the rest of Europe and in his right to rule the Germans in an absolute and dictatorial way. Thank God it turned out that he had met his match in the Britons and the Scandinavians! (If you study history you'll find that most other European countries, including France, were not really into opposition against Hitler, but took their chance, once the British led.)

So I assume a rule of Poland would have been a rather short one, especially as the Sowiets were bent on conquering as much of Europe as well (see the treaty between Hitler and Stalin of 1941 and how that led to the cold war). Nope - no way here...

 

[Jo of Palatine]

On another note and another "what might have been", the author states that the widowed Princess Marina was asked to become Queen of Norway by the also-widowed King Olav V after he became King in 1957. The exact timing of his overtures to Marina and to the Queen Mother, and whether they overlapped, is unknown.

King Olav disputed this claim in his memoirs and another time openly before he died, saying he never asked anyone to become his wife apart from his late queen. You can find the info in the Norwegian Royals forum.

 

[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.

 

[Avareenah]

The following is a combination 'extract/paraphrase/own' largely from "A Polish Question: Monarchial sentiments in Poland 1918-39" by Michael Nash, Royalty Digest #167, May 2005.

Thanks for this information, Warren.

I have to admit I had no idea Prince George was approached about this until BeatrixFan's post and that he, in turn, took the proposition very seriously.

As regards to Queen Mary's reaction to her son George's lifestyle, I think she would have been deeply troubled by it but, as has been said, as long as it wasn't publicly known, she let it go. What else could she do? A Queen doesn't have any more control over her adult children than anyone else does, really.

King George V was appalled by the behaviour of his eldest and youngest (surviving) sons, nor did he accept homosexuality at all, as was fairly common at that time.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well quite famously George V said, "I do not knight buggers" when a homosexual's name was put forward for a KBE.

 

[ysbel]

I imagine that as long as he was discreet about it, a maternal blind eye would have been turned. The problem was that he wasn't always all that discreet, what with the incident of the letters he wrote to one of his lovers having to be bought back at an exorbitant cost.

I wonder why, if they thought Poland needed a monarch in the late 1920s, they hadn't got round to doing anything about it a decade later when the war started. Seems as though if it hadn't happened by then it was never going to happen, even if the Duke had lived.

I also wonder why they wanted to ask the Duke and Duchess of Kent rather than one of the descendants of the Stuart kings through the Sobieski line.

Yes, the Duke of Kent seemed somewhat chancy to start a dynasty with even if one didn't know the outcome of the darkening warclouds. Or why not even his older brother the Duke of Gloucester who seemed more stable?

 

[ysbel]

I very much doubt it would have mattered to Mary but as you say, duty was a priority and I think it would only have worried her if his personal life started to affect his working life which is basically what all Royal Family members are expected to make the divide between, even today. I don't know how camp George was. By the sounds of him, he was quite effeminate and certainly indulged in the activities most gay men were indulging in back then so I imagine George would have been quite easy to identify as gay. But remember, in George's circles, being gay was something very daring. Quentin Crisp used to say how he wowed the middle classes by just being effeminate because they thought that homosexuality was "rather delicious and magical". So, I would say that George was a novelty to his friends but a slight worry to his family, a worry that the truth would come out, but at the end of the day I think that Mary would have just accepted George who by the sounds of things was her favourite anyway.

Ah, maybe George was helped by the fact that 'those types of things' didn't get reported in the regular newspapers. Nowadays I think it would be difficult to hide.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, the Duke of Kent seemed somewhat chancy to start a dynasty with even if one didn't know the outcome of the darkening warclouds. Or why not even his older brother the Duke of Gloucester who seemed more stable?

Maybe while the Prince of Wales was unmarried, the Duke of Gloucester was considered too high in the line of succession. During Princess Elizabeth's childhood after her father became king, the Duke was regent designate, which might have ruled him out as a prospective monarch of another country. 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.

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

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?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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....

 

[lord_rankin]

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

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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).

 

[RachelD]

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.

 

[fee]

Didn't Queen Mary at one time say: "Georgie, you see, is soo musical"

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

 

[royaltyinNZ]

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

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.