A WW2 Question - Royals injured/killed in bombing - what would the response be?

sharlin

Banned
Lets say that in 1940 some of the Royal Family (King/Queen/Queen Mother etc or the Princesses) are either injured or killed in an air raid. Not all of them but some (lets say Princess Margret is sadly killed whilst the King looses an arm).

How would the UK/Dominion's react and what would be the response from overseas? I assume that roaring and yelling you can hear is Churchill in his oratory best whilst also demanding that something be done to strike back.

I'd also assume that whilst going after the Royal Family is basically the UK's enrage timer being set off, they would not break out gas weapons to strike back.
 

DevonPasty

Honestly? A small spike in the number of people putting themselves forward for more war duties but that's about it.

No, chemical weapons were off the table until things got dire. Britain didn't really have anything extra to throw that wasn't already in the mix. Maybe a few retaliatory bombing raids on somewhere symbolic but nothing more.

A lot of angry British but they were pretty angry before. Perhaps at the resolution of the war we see a much harder line taken by the British Government against Germany.
 

usertron2020

Donor
Its more in what happens to their places in history.

Poor Princess Margaret, in death, emerges crowned with a halo, with much written in song, stage, and cinema about "the martyred angel."

George VI, as a now war-wounded veteran (he is a naval officer) finally gets the full respect and honor due him not only from subjects of the Empire, but across the non-totalitarian world.

Stalin will make some sympathetic statements post-Barbarossa.

Lend-Lease doesn't face half the troubles in the US Senate it did OTL.

Queen Elizabeth (George VI's wife) will be shattered and George will lose her strong emotional support (perhaps).

IDK how this will affect the young future Queen Elizabeth II's life going forward, but she might face a more restricted lifestyle until Charles reaches his majority.

I don't think anyone professionally will suffer for the loss (Fighter Command had no effective night fighters in 1940 IIRC). But what this means for Bomber Command? Less condemnation for "Bomber" Harris post-war?

Hitler and his minions more desperate about the British refusing to negotiate, maybe "Unconditional Surrender" gets issued Post-Barbarossa but pre-Pearl Harbor?
 

sharlin

Banned
I think even if Hitler and friends had the poor bomber crew who accidently (accident or not) dropped the bombs flogged, flayed, hung drawn and quartered and then the whole thing relayed to the British as a way of saying 'sorry, we actually really really didn't mean to do it' I don't think it would allay British anger.

I don't think that Queen Elizabeth would lessen her support for her husband, the Queen Mother (as we know her) was an incredibly strong woman by all accounts, and even with the loss of her youngest (which would affect all of them really) I think it would not shake her resolve, at least publically.

Despite the Royals in essence being powerless show peices that get wheeled out for grand public occassions, they are immensely popular now, and even more so back then and I think any attack on them, accidental or deliberate would be viewed 'poorly'.
 
Derek Pullem

Derek Pullem

Donor
sharlin said:
Lets say that in 1940 some of the Royal Family (King/Queen/Queen Mother etc or the Princesses) are either injured or killed in an air raid. Not all of them but some (lets say Princess Margret is sadly killed whilst the King looses an arm).

How would the UK/Dominion's react and what would be the response from overseas? I assume that roaring and yelling you can hear is Churchill in his oratory best whilst also demanding that something be done to strike back.

I'd also assume that whilst going after the Royal Family is basically the UK's enrage timer being set off, they would not break out gas weapons to strike back.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley

May be brought forward and actually sanctioned. May also be counter-productive.
 

ghappy1000

How would WW2 play out? And, what if the bombing took place in 1939 or early 1940? [I assume the period you're talking about would be during the Battle of Britain and the early Blitz, until Barbarossa.] Now, the response might depend on the date of the bombing.
In all honesty, if the bombing took place before May 1940, how would operations take place? Perhaps the extra German bombers and planes lost and strengthened British morale mean that the Battle of France might be won. Conversely, the alternative can happen and more British troops might be lost or surrender at Dunkirk. At Norway, maybe several planes might mean a few destroyers, cargo ships and a cruiser, capital ship or ocean liner less [or two] for either side.
 
Last edited:

Look More Closely Later

Gone Fishin'
Buckingham Palace bombed in 1940

sharlin said:
Lets say its at the height of the Blitz.
Click to expand...
According to Churchill, Buckingham Palace was bombed, whilst the King and Queen were there. Apparently on Friday, 13th September, 1940, a couple of bombs exploded in the Quadrangle, but Churchill asserts that the windows closest to the King and Queen were fortunately open, so there was no flying glass caused in their vicinity.
(See Churchill's The Second World War, volume 2, Chapter XVIII 'London can take it', for an account.)
 

deathscompanion1

Banned
Honestly?

A shouting match between Churchill and the Grownups that no mustard gassing Germany will just lead to as many British subjects dying as Germans followed by some spiteful retaliatory bombing raids that make zero difference to when the war ends and that is about it.

A lot of grief and anger but the post war approach remains largely unchanged. Goering hung OTL and given the allies were committed to leveling Germany by air they would be damn careful not to make a precedent that killing innocent civilians in a bombing raid could lead to repercussions.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
I don't see much difference. IMHO the main concern is going to be the succession, so it is possible the Duke of Kent's service role is going to be curtailed somewhat and he may survive the war.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top