Only difference would be Henry doesn't become King until his mother dies...
Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Karl der Große
Banned
Then you're assuming Louis's sperm are the same, and the same sperm make it to Eleanor's eggs, and other assumptions aside.
wasn't the only reason that Stephen accepted Henry FitzEmpress as his heir because Steve's son died?
What kind of palace? An actual royal residence for Charles or just some kind of government building/storehouse/fancy garrison. I doubt he has the money for anything that he wouldn't be using himself but that seems like a tricky location to move his seat to given it's distance from Westminster. And it upends the whole concept of the separation between the economic center at London and the seat of government at Westminster.
Not the only one. The primary trigger was Stephen's eldest son Eustace dying, yes. But Stephen did have a younger son, William, who outlived Stephen by 5 years or so. So it was not lack of sons only that led Stephen to make the decision, since he could've named William the new heir if he wanted to. William was legitimate and held various lands even before his older brother died, so he's not exactly entirely incapable either.
However, Stephen didn't live long after making that agreement. There's every possibility that, in the spirit of Medieval diplomacy, he only promised to abide by that agreement to get Henry's supporters to go away for a while before reneging on it and claiming it was under duress. He just died before he got the chance.
Shreve's Divorce: What if Henry Miller Shreve completely separated the Red River from the Mississipi by filling up the former Turnbull's Bend with material removed from the Great Raft?
one I think can have major effects on Ireland for @Charles III Stuart :
Prince Albert doesn't die when he did, and Queen Victoria agrees to Bertie being appointed as "governor-general" (or whatever the "viceroy" was called) of Ireland*, and so Bertie and his wife/kids set up home in Ireland instead of Norfolk, resulting in a royal presence in Ireland until 1901.
What effects would this have on Irish feelings of the latter half of the 19th century? Yes, I know Bertie went gallivanting around the world a lot, and presumably he still would, but he'd be the first heir to the throne to spend any significant amount of time in Ireland since- not even sure who the last one was.
@BELFAST @The_Most_Happy @DrakeRlugia
*blaming Bertie for "darling Albert's death" saw Victoria change her mind completely
Prince Albert doesn't die when he did, and Queen Victoria agrees to Bertie being appointed as "governor-general" (or whatever the "viceroy" was called) of Ireland*, and so Bertie and his wife/kids set up home in Ireland instead of Norfolk, resulting in a royal presence in Ireland until 1901.
What effects would this have on Irish feelings of the latter half of the 19th century? Yes, I know Bertie went gallivanting around the world a lot, and presumably he still would, but he'd be the first heir to the throne to spend any significant amount of time in Ireland since- not even sure who the last one was.
@BELFAST @The_Most_Happy @DrakeRlugia
*blaming Bertie for "darling Albert's death" saw Victoria change her mind completely
Lord Lieutenant was the standard title after 1690, though the term viceroy was used unofficially. Governor-General was only used during the brief period of the Irish Free State, but I could see it being used during the Prince of Wales' tenure to signify the importance of his role, similarly to the title of Governor-General of Canada, adopted in 1867.
Bertie and his wife + children would likely reside at Dublin Castle, which was where the Lieutenant-General generally resided. By this period there was also a summer home, the Viceregal Lodge (today known as Áras an Uachtaráin).
It's hard to say of the butterfly effects of having Bertie as Lieutenant-General. Ireland at this time was a constituent part of the UK and sent representatives to London. Certainly the idea of home rule gained popularity throughout the 19th century, and the first bill for home rule (Government of Ireland Bill) dated from 1886. Bertie being Lord-Lieutenant puts him in an awkward position, as would be functionally the head of the British government in Ireland, but I feel like his position as a royal prince might prevent him from playing any part of those decisions or even having an opinion in matter.
The idea of the Prince of Wales residing in Ireland could perhaps spark a new tradition with Edward VII choosing to do the same with George V, sending him to Ireland as well, or even Canada or one of the other Anglo-Dominions.
I'm not really sure if Ireland having a royal presence will truly alter any feelings, however. By the 1860s, there was already a great amount of agitation over home rule, as well as the traumas of the potato famine and other concerns (Irish peasant land tenancies, the Anglican Church in Ireland, not disestablished until 1870, ect.)
One interesting knock off effect could be the presence of a court of sorts in Dublin during Bertie's tenure: it would provide a way for Bertie to socialize with Irish business magnates, Anglo-Irish aristocrats and landowners, clergymen, ect. Prince Albert not dying in 1864 will help massively re: Victoria, since the court massively changed after his death, but assuming he dies later on, even 3-5 years later and Victoria goes into deep mourning as OTL, many will look to Bertie: after all, IOTL he was a trendsetter, and his friends and associates were sort of an alternative to Victoria's stuffy court.
In our world, Philip III of Macedon (Alexander the Great's older half-brother) suffered throughout his life from some kind of learning or intellectual disability which if you believe Plutarch was a side effect of getting poisoned by Olympias. While Plutarch was probably wrong it made me wonder what if Philip didn't have his disability? He would have had access to good tutors, so even if he isn't as competent as Alexander her probably could be a power in his own right.
What if for some reason Grover Cleveland chose James B. Weaver as his running mate as a means of absorbing the Populists into the Democratic Party?
Not necessarily land, but money. Perhaps a bit outside the medieval scope, but: Andreas Palaiologos, the eldest son of Thomas of Morea and nephew to the last Byzantine Emperor spent much of his life in exile. He had lots of financial problems and as early as 1475 was trying to sell his claims to Byzantium and Trezibond. He eventually sold his titles to Charles VIII of France, and as late of 1532 François Ier claimed to be Emperor of Constantinople. Later, Andreas willed (some say sold) his claims to Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon.
I suppose it would depend on the claim / it's worth and what sort of land is being offered. But if someone is offering to sell their claim, to be that sounds like someone is in dire straits and would probably accept land just as well as money.
Yes. For instance, Joan II of Navarre dropped some of her claims in exchange for being confirmed as countess in other areas. It was related to the House of Valois coming to power in France.
Ah yes, I totally forgot about that. IIRC, she was encouraged to give up her claims to Champagne and Brie in exchange for Longueville, Mortain, and Angoulême... primarily because Philip of Valois wanted to maintain Champagne and Brie as part of the royal demesne. Negotiations following Louis X's death initially agreed that while Joan would have no right to France, she could inherit Navarre as well as Champagne and Brie, as they'd come into France through Joan I. It makes sense while Philip pushed for a trade.
Just another Protestant settler in a land he was not invited to, looking down on the actual sons of the land. I don't think it would have changed much. It's too late to stop the Great Famine, and we weren't going to tolerate British rule in perpetuity. If anything, having Bertie, a very fat man, gallivanting around Ireland while much of the population is still malnourished would only make us hate Britain more, especially when 1879 came around.
Irish Famine (1879) - Wikipedia
The last British monarch who ruled over us to actually treat us anywhere close to right was James VII & II. Elizabeth II did well when she came to visit, but that was after we had obtained our freedom.
No, as the value would not be comparable (and England would NEVER renounce to Calais of its own will)