WI : King George VI has a healthy son in 1940s

Yuelang

Yuelang

Banned
The title said that, and yes, this obviously before the absolute primogeniture even being considered in most kingdoms, so the Queen Elizabeth II as we knew it is not there ITTL.

I know that having a son in her 40s isnt easy for the Queen consort, but for the sake of this WI, lets said that the boy was born in 1940, just before the fall of France...

Obviously, with such little baby at the time of BOB, maybe at the minimum, the Queen Consort and her son (and maybe Princess Margaret) will be relocated to Canada, with King George stay in London for British Morale.

Lets said King George still passed away more or less on schedule in 1952, and so the Prince of Wales would be a 12 years old boy. Who will be the regent of his early part of the reign? The Queen Mother? His eldest sister (otl Queen Elizabeth II), or someone else?
 

ColeMercury

Yuelang said:
Lets said King George still passed away more or less on schedule in 1952, and so the Prince of Wales would be a 12 years old boy. Who will be the regent of his early part of the reign? The Queen Mother? His eldest sister (otl Queen Elizabeth II), or someone else?
Click to expand...
Louis Mountbatten, perhaps?
 
V-J

V-J

Princess Elizabeth would serve as regent under the terms of the 1937 regency act. Unless, of course, Parliament has passed a new act in the meantime, which I doubt as the 1937 act is perfectly sensible. I guess there is a possibility that there is a 1953-style act which establishes temporary, ad hoc provisions, in which case you could get the Queen Mother serving as regent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Regency_Act_1937

The QM giving birth aged forty is decidedly unlikely, though, and not just for biological reasons.
 
Last edited:

ColeMercury

V-J said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#Regency_Act_1937

The QM giving birth aged forty is decidedly unlikely, though, and not just for biological reasons.
Click to expand...
The Act required that the regent should be the next person in the line of succession who was:

  • over the age of 21,
  • a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom, and
  • capable of succeeding to the Crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.
Click to expand...
Ooh, I didn't know that. Well, that makes things a lot more straightforward.
 

Welshroyalhistory

ColeMercury said:
The Act required that the regent should be the next person in the line of succession who was:
over the age of 21,
a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom, and
capable of succeeding to the Crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701..
Click to expand...

It may have been of course that Princess Elizabeth was no longer domiciled in the UK.

She would be by marriage a Princess of Greece and Denmark, very possibly living in Greece.

Its unlikely Philip would have renounced his royal titles if he was marrying just the daughter of a King, as opposed to the heiress to the throne as its unlikely he would have received a British ducal title. An Earldom at absolute best.
 

ColeMercury

Welshroyalhistory said:
It may have been of course that Princess Elizabeth was no longer domiciled in the UK.

She would be by marriage a Princess of Greece and Denmark, very possibly living in Greece.

Its unlikely Philip would have renounced his royal titles if he was marrying just the daughter of a King, as opposed to the heiress to the throne as its unlikely he would have received a British ducal title. An Earldom at absolute best.
Click to expand...
So, in that case, I guess it'd be George VI's brother Henry?
 
V-J

V-J

ColeMercury said:
So, in that case, I guess it'd be George VI's brother Henry?
Click to expand...

Nope, it'd be Princess Margaret under the 1937 act.

I suspect that in the event of Princess Elizabeth marrying Philip and decamping in the late forties - though I wouldn't necessarily regard that as a sure thing - then a new act would be passed, similar to the 1953 one, establishing the Queen Mother as regent should it come down to it.
 
Jonathan

Jonathan

What about prince George Albert of Wales being born in 1937 a year after the Prince Abert becomes King George VI.

Queen Consort Elizabeth is 37, still child bearing age. And in 1952 he is 15 so is still under age so will need a regent.
 

Welshroyalhistory

Jonathan said:
What about prince George Albert of Wales being born in 1937 a year after the Prince Abert becomes King George VI.

Queen Consort Elizabeth is 37, still child bearing age. And in 1952 he is 15 so is still under age so will need a regent.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to automatically assume that Queen Elizabeth was not capable of producing a child, her mother had been a few months shy of her 40th birthday when she gave birth to Queen Elizabeth's younger brother David. It wasn't uncommon for women in their 40s to have children, Queen Elizabeth's sister-in-law the Duchess of Gloucester had her first child a week shy of her 40th birthday and her second at 43.

Of course there is the gossip promoted by the "author" Kitty Kelly that Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret were the product of an early form of artificial insemination but there is no evidence to substantiate that.

A male child born to the King would be Duke of Cornwall. He could then be made Prince of Wales. He would never be styled prince George Albert of Wales, that title implies he is the son of the Prince of Wales.
 
Yuelang

Yuelang

Banned
Oh so his regent would be either his unmarried (or married with British Man) sister, or the Parliament will enact an act to enable the queen mother to act as regent then...

Thanks, and now, what is the likely effect og King George has a baby at the time of German Air War on British Islands? Who will be moved to Canada?
 

Welshroyalhistory

Yuelang said:
Oh so his regent would be either his unmarried (or married with British Man) sister, or the Parliament will enact an act to enable the queen mother to act as regent then...

Thanks, and now, what is the likely effect og King George has a baby at the time of German Air War on British Islands? Who will be moved to Canada?
Click to expand...

No one would be moved to Canada until the situation was absolutely dire and the UK looked set to collapse to the Nazis.

There was some discussion of the Royal Family being sent to Canada, resulting in Queen Elizabeth's famous quote "The children will not leave unless I do. I shall not leave unless their father does, and the King will not leave the country in any circumstances whatsoever."

The King and Queen continued to live in London throughout the Blitz and went to Windsor at the weekends, the Princesses were sent to live at Windsor, Queen Mary went to Badminton.

The only realistic chance of the King leaving the UK was if a German military land invasion was successful.
 

Ladymadchan

I'm not so sure about Princess Elizabeth marrying Prince Philip if she has a brother.

In the OTL Prince Philip's uncle Louis Mountbatten played matchmaker when he introduced the two when Princess Elizabeth was 13 years old. By that time, she was already heiress of the UK. By all accounts she feel madly in love him on first sight. He isn't recorded as having the same reaction. If she has a brother, she'll probably still want to marry him. Also if she's not heiress, people like Mountbatten may not be plotting for them to be introduced as soon as Princess Elizabeth starts thinking of boys. And with his naval career, I'm not certain that they'd cross paths while she still on the market. I'm also not 100% sure he would think the same way without the incentive of being the consort of a Queen. Still for a penniless orphan, marriage to the Princess Royal is still a huge step, so you never know.

Apparently George VI and Queen Elizabeth were also a lot more keen for their children to marry into members of the British Aristocracy rather than marrying royals with Germanic roots. Only a generation before the BRH had changed their name to the very British "House of Windsor". King George had also given permission for members of the British Royal family to marry members of the British Aristocracy. The marriage of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip was a bit of step backwards from that policy. Queen Elizabeth called Prince Philip "the Hun". Princess Elizabeth may have gotten her way because she told her parents that she could understand her Uncle David's decision to abdicate. She may have gotten her way with a veiled threat. Her parents may not give her the same leeway if she doesn't make threats about abdicating.
 
Last edited:

Ladymadchan

I'm not so sure about Princess Elizabeth marrying Prince Philip if she has a brother.

In the OTL Prince Philip's uncle Louis Mountbatten played matchmaker when he introduced the two when Princess Elizabeth was 13 years old. By that time, she was already heiress of the UK. By all accounts she feel madly in love him on first sight. He isn't recorded as having the same reaction.

If she has a brother, she'll probably still want to marry him. Also if she's not heiress, people like Mountbatten may not be plotting for them to be married. And with his naval career, I'm not certain that they'd cross paths while she still on the market. I'm also not 100% sure he would think the same way without the incentive of being the consort of a Queen. Still for a penniless orphan, marriage to the Princess Royal is still a huge step, so you never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top