AHC: Prevent the British Monarchy from Losing its Power and Authority During the Victorian Era.

It's often said that the Victorian Era was the period in which the Modern British Monarchy's Constitutional conventions took hold where the Monarch became more of an apolitical figurehead as power and authority shifted more towards Parliament and the Office of Prime Minister. I've heard that this was in large part due to Queen Victoria's upbringing where she was purposely raised to be weak and dependent on others who would use her as a figurehead (notably Sir John Conroy).

But what if Queen Victoria was actually educated properly to hold the reigns of power, what steps would the monarchy need to take to preserve the Crown's overall authority and influence in the state? How would Britain develop during this period?

How would this affect the Chartist movement?
 
I think the loss of power has more to do with Victoria becoming the "Widow of Windsor" after Alberts death and almost stopping all functions of governing. Add into the changes in society due to the Industrial Revolution. Society and thinking, in general, were changing at a rate and way that I'm not sure just having Victoria educated differently would have mattered.
 
Somehow prove that The Ripper wasn't related to the royal family? Have Victoria make more public aappearances, obviously guarded and far more firm in Parliament or anywhere when decision making is necessary. She likely would have to accept that society is moving forward with The Industrial Revolution, perhaps becoming involved with the workers for example speaking with them, understanding their issues. Possibly another factor would have to be keeping up a strong public image even after Albert's death.
 
I believe who Victoria is a lost cause and who the scenario would work better with a surviving Charlotte
I don't know much about Princess Charlotte, but how do you imagine things would be different a Queen Charlotte?

Have Victoria make more public aappearances, obviously guarded and far more firm in Parliament or anywhere when decision making is necessary. She likely would have to accept that society is moving forward with The Industrial Revolution, perhaps becoming involved with the workers for example speaking with them, understanding their issues. Possibly another factor would have to be keeping up a strong public image even after Albert's death.
I mean France industrialized quite rapidly under Napoleon III who for most of his reign ruled as an autocratic Constitutionally Absolute Emperor. The Conservative Prussia also industrialized quite rapidly, as did Austria as well.
 
I don't know much about Princess Charlotte, but how do you imagine things would be different a Queen Charlotte?
Charlotte was raised differently from Victoria, in a different timeframe and was much more determined in affirming her rights (see her refusal to marry someone who she disliked and her tentative to impose her choice, and in the end winning when her second choice as husband was interested and impressed her father).
 
Interesting question, some thoughts.
1) I don't think that Victoria's education has too much to do with it, as against social changes, urbanisation, rise of a large middle class, extension of the franchise etc. But I think there are things the crown could have done to retain greater authority.
2) Prince Albert dying had a massive effect on Victoria, her subsequent seclusion made the crown very unpopular for a long time, in our day and age Victoria would have been given better bereavement support or Albert better medical care.
3) Politicians used to get away with a lot more in those days, a more attentive press towards the politicians (while maintaining the monarchial mystique.
4) Bertie (the future Edward VII) was thoroughly distrusted by Victoria but proved to be a good and able monarch, more inclusion of him when Victoria was unable.
The more I think about this the more I come to the conclusion that Victoria was very odd - she did after all refuse to accept Peel as PM after he had effectively won an election (1839 I think but someone can correct me on that), because she didn't like him. More autocratic rule on her part would have resulted in more capricious and ultimately ridiculous and challengeable decisions (maybe her education is important after all) which could have led to the downfall of the monarchy altogether.
Given that chartism was only active in the first decade of her reign I am not sure it would have had much impact.
 
Last edited:
Have Victoria raised knowing her power, so no Kensington system. Have her stay involved in government business after Albert dies. Or if you must kill her r off with Albert and allow Edward to ascend the throne
 
The above posts are generally too focused on changing Victoria.

If Victoria directly exercises more power and does not choose her actions with it very carefully, the result may well be a British Republic rather than a more powerful monarchy. Walking that line is non-trivial and more demanding than is being supposed upthread.
 
The above posts are generally too focused on changing Victoria.

If Victoria directly exercises more power and does not choose her actions with it very carefully, the result may well be a British Republic rather than a more powerful monarchy. Walking that line is non-trivial and more demanding than is being supposed upthread.
A fine line sure, but a British republic? I’m not so sure about that,
 
Interesting question, some thoughts.
1) I don't think that Victoria's education has too much to do with it, as against social changes, urbanisation, rise of a large middle class, extension of the franchise etc. But I think there are things the crown could have done to retain greater authority.
2) Prince Albert dying had a massive effect on Victoria, her subsequent seclusion made the crown very unpopular for a long time, in our day and age Victoria would have been given better bereavement support or Albert better medical care.
3) Politicians used to get away with a lot more in those days, a more attentive press towards the politicians (while maintaining the monarchial mystique.
4) Bertie (the future Edward VII) was thoroughly distrusted by Victoria but proved to be a good and able monarch, more inclusion of him when Victoria was unable.
The more I think about this the more I come to the conclusion that Victoria was very odd - she did after all refuse to accept Peel as PM after he had effectively won an election (1839 I think but someone can correct me on that), because she didn't like him. More autocratic rule on her part would have resulted in more capricious and ultimately ridiculous and challengeable decisions (maybe her education is important after all) which could have led to the downfall of the monarchy altogether.
Given that chartism was only active in the first decade of her reign I am not sure it would have had much impact.
She refused peel because he wanted her to change her ladies in waiting from whigs to tories, exploiting the fact that she didn’t know that she didn’t have to do that, as there was no constitutional precedent for it,
 
The above posts are generally too focused on changing Victoria.

If Victoria directly exercises more power and does not choose her actions with it very carefully, the result may well be a British Republic rather than a more powerful monarchy. Walking that line is non-trivial and more demanding than is being supposed upthread.
The point is who the English monarchy lost a lot of power (if not most of it) with the ascension of Victoria and during her reign.
 
The point is who the English monarchy lost a lot of power (if not most of it) with the ascension of Victoria and during her reign.
I don't think that's primarily driven by the monarch, I think that's primarily driven by the society o'er which she reigns; changing her education or decision-making or whatever isn't going to affect that side of the equation at all.
 
I don't think that's primarily driven by the monarch, I think that's primarily driven by the society o'er which she reigns; changing her education or decision-making or whatever isn't going to affect that side of the equation at all.
Well her predecessors were NOT figureheads, the process started with her, because she consented it for ignorance of her rights and powers first and for her disinterest after Albert’s death. Still I believe who Victoria is a lost cause and you need to replace her for fulfilling the request
 

Sapa

Banned
Uh... pardon my French, but the English monarchy is truly fucked by 1837 regardless of the upbringing of one queen.

It lost power to the English Dissenters in 1649, when the precedent was set that the plebs had the right to off the head toff.
It lost any power it had to not lose power in 1688, when the precedent was set that the king had no right to actually rule his country like a proper king.
It lost power to the Whig Party in 1704, when the Hanoverians took over and found that the traditional bastion of tradition and orthodoxy, the Tories, were opposed to them.
It lost power to the Whig Party continuously through George III's reign, and all the powers it took from him were formalized upon George IV's accession to the throne.

In fact, the Whigs were so powerful they managed a complete stranglehold on the bureaucracy and public fashion from the 1720s onward, and the Tories were so out-of-power that they eventually had to adopt Whig positions to survive, even as the Whigs went further to the left themselves. If you notice a pattern between then and now, you're not wrong: after all, Britain is the place where this dynamic first started, and the Whigs were the ones who caused it.

In short, the kings were losing power long before the Victorian era, and they'd lose more power the weaker they got.
Unfortunately, all the other monarchies died because they got on the wrong side of Britain and its big boy America, and in their place rose ideological copies of either Britain or America. This is what we call "exporting democracy", btw.

Victoria was by no means a fake queen, but she was definitely more fake than Elizabeth I and less fake than Elizabeth II.
 
Last edited:
Interesting question, some thoughts.
1) I don't think that Victoria's education has too much to do with it, as against social changes, urbanisation, rise of a large middle class, extension of the franchise etc. But I think there are things the crown could have done to retain greater authority.
2) Prince Albert dying had a massive effect on Victoria, her subsequent seclusion made the crown very unpopular for a long time, in our day and age Victoria would have been given better bereavement support or Albert better medical care.
3) Politicians used to get away with a lot more in those days, a more attentive press towards the politicians (while maintaining the monarchial mystique.
4) Bertie (the future Edward VII) was thoroughly distrusted by Victoria but proved to be a good and able monarch, more inclusion of him when Victoria was unable.
The more I think about this the more I come to the conclusion that Victoria was very odd - she did after all refuse to accept Peel as PM after he had effectively won an election (1839 I think but someone can correct me on that), because she didn't like him. More autocratic rule on her part would have resulted in more capricious and ultimately ridiculous and challengeable decisions (maybe her education is important after all) which could have led to the downfall of the monarchy altogether.
Given that chartism was only active in the first decade of her reign I am not sure it would have had much impact.
Peel had the cheek to demand to choose her ladies in waiting!
 
Top