What if Queen Victoria had married Marthinus Wessel Pretorius instead of Prince Albert?

He was the son of a Prime Minister of a sovereign nation...
For a very loose definition of "sovereign nation". AFAIK, Transvaal was not "recognized" by any other government, not even the Netherlands. Its independence was formally acknowledged by Britain only after the First Boer War in 1881.

Before that, Transvaal was a just a bunch of farmers who had recently squatted on some land in the interior of Africa that nobody else wanted. (No other whites, anyway.)

The various princely states in India had a better claim to sovereignty.
 
An interesting idea to consider is if any royalty of any nation married colonial administrators or the like. Because this is what this is effectively equivalent to.
 
Hey - I'll create a scenario where this happens... (Whee!)

The Great Reform Bill fails. Riots and disorders ensue, in the course of which William IV dies (arson fires in London spread to Buckingham Palace; William dies by accident). The Duke of Cumberland takes over as Regent for his niece Victoria, and brutally suppresses the unrest, re-asserting Crown authority with the backing of extreme Tories. Britain becomes a quasi-police state; vast numbers of dissenters are transported to Australia.

Britain responds to the Canadian rebellions of 1837-1838 with similar measures. Slavery is not abolished in the West Indies.

Victoria reaches her majority, but remains dominated by Cumberland and his allies. By arrangement, she marries Prince William Frederick Henry (third son of King William II of the Netherlands) who shares the reactionary views of Cumberland's clique.

During the 1840s, the government responds to the Great Famine with repression and mass deportation of "surplus" Irish to Canada and Australia.

By the late 1840s, Britain is a powder keg of discontent, which explodes during the revolutions of 1848. Victoria and Prince William flee the country as the Republic of Britain abolishes monarchy and aristocracy. Many notorious "aristos" are summarily executed for complicity in various crimes of the old regime. The revolution spreads to Canada, Australia, and the West Indies. With all Europe in convulsions, the royal couple flee to South Africa.

The Republic demands the submission of Cape Colony to its rule, and the return of the royals to Britain "to face justice". At Prince William Frederick's suggestion, they flee to the Dutch-speaking settlements in the interior. Victoria even learns Dutch, to better "pass" in the settlements. (As she already speaks German, this is not difficult.) Six months later, William Frederick dies of typhoid.

The widowed Victoria meets Pretorius; they hit it off and marry. Ta-daa!!!!

Epilogue: The Republic decides that having gone off into remote wilderness, Victoria is irrelevant, and they forget about her. They really wanted William Frederick (for actions taken in 1848), but he's dead and Victoria is thought of as a powerless female.
 
Oh, inbreeding is very bad. The Habsburgs are proof. But they did care about it.
But the Queen Mother is much more recent than Queen Victoria. As was Philip of Edinburgh.
Or, as he was known when he married the Queen, Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, technically a commoner.
Whether you understand it or not is irrelevant because they cared about it. That is why I said this was Alien Space Bats aka practically impossible. I am not dissing the timeline or you or anything but it is not even remotely possible. It's so impossible in fact that her possible insistence on it would fuel a part of the court at the time which included her Mother mind you that wanted to declare her unable to rule and hysterical and swear in a Regent. Her uncle too was making moves to convince Parliament to swap them about. And you have to remember that the British Parliament had even then, immense power over the Monarch. They could make laws regarding the Succession, the Civil List even casually declare that a member of the Royal Family is not eligible to take the Throne. Even the most supportive of politician would be convinced that she was slightly wrong in the head if she barged in one day with that idea and think of British interests which would be immensely more hurt than benefited out of the whole affair. Hell, even herself wouldn't even contemplate it, she was far more interested in other royals. For a time she was enamored with a Russian Prince and her romance with Albert is legendary but in general, she knew that whatever husband could be found would be found within the established Royal environment of Europe, she never gave any inclination that she thought otherwise.
Why did Victoria’s mom not want her to be Queen?
Other people have addressed the many reasons this would never happen because of the nature of royal marriages, so let's take a moment to look at the politics of it:

Why, in the 1830s, are the British possibly concerned with what they believe to be an irrelevant group of farmers in South Africa, many of them migrating out of direct British rule anyway?

You're reading the concerns of the 1880s-1900s backwards. The Boers became a strategic concern for Britain because they ended up sitting on vast amounts of gold and diamonds, and as a result the economic centre of southern Africa shifted away from the Cape to an area outside British suzerainty. With the completion of a railway to the Portuguese coast in Mozambique, the British colonies in Natal and the Cape were facing a massive decline in customs revenue from the Rand- and all this added up to a potential federation of South Africa, even a federation dominated by Anglo-South Africans that was not a British colony. That's what is feared in the Selborne memorandum, that's what was feared by Milner and Chamberlain and Rhodes and Jameson.

Absolutely none of is is true or predictable when Victoria was unmarried. Absolutely none of it.

There is no reason- none- why the British Royal Family or the British government would decide to marry the Crown Princess to someone they perceived as a colonial nobody for no strategic advantages and for a humiliating loss of prestige.
I see what you mean, maybe this thread was unrealistic. Still an interesting idea, though.
Put it this way: This is like asking 'why didn't Victoria encourage her eldest son to marry a Saudi princess, which might have secured Britain an oil fortune in the twentieth century?'

Leaving all personal, racist, religious or societal reasons that that didn't happen aside, it's trying to solve a geopolitical issue seventy years in the future when no one at the time could possibly have predicted that issue would arise.
Boers are white Protestant Christians, Saudis aren’t. The fact that Protestants from other European countries were acceptable spouses indicates that ethnic and religious reasons wouldn’t have disqualified a Boer.
For a very loose definition of "sovereign nation". AFAIK, Transvaal was not "recognized" by any other government, not even the Netherlands. Its independence was formally acknowledged by Britain only after the First Boer War in 1881.

Before that, Transvaal was a just a bunch of farmers who had recently squatted on some land in the interior of Africa that nobody else wanted. (No other whites, anyway.)

The various princely states in India had a better claim to sovereignty.
Of course, the princes of India were neither a Christian nor white, which would have disqualified them as potential royal spouses.
An interesting idea to consider is if any royalty of any nation married colonial administrators or the like. Because this is what this is effectively equivalent to.
Imagine if a Boer-UK Royal marriage had led to Afrikaans supplanting English in the UK and dominions, leading to the USA being the only Anglophone nation in modern times.
Hey - I'll create a scenario where this happens... (Whee!)

The Great Reform Bill fails. Riots and disorders ensue, in the course of which William IV dies (arson fires in London spread to Buckingham Palace; William dies by accident). The Duke of Cumberland takes over as Regent for his niece Victoria, and brutally suppresses the unrest, re-asserting Crown authority with the backing of extreme Tories. Britain becomes a quasi-police state; vast numbers of dissenters are transported to Australia.

Britain responds to the Canadian rebellions of 1837-1838 with similar measures. Slavery is not abolished in the West Indies.

Victoria reaches her majority, but remains dominated by Cumberland and his allies. By arrangement, she marries Prince William Frederick Henry (third son of King William II of the Netherlands) who shares the reactionary views of Cumberland's clique.

During the 1840s, the government responds to the Great Famine with repression and mass deportation of "surplus" Irish to Canada and Australia.

By the late 1840s, Britain is a powder keg of discontent, which explodes during the revolutions of 1848. Victoria and Prince William flee the country as the Republic of Britain abolishes monarchy and aristocracy. Many notorious "aristos" are summarily executed for complicity in various crimes of the old regime. The revolution spreads to Canada, Australia, and the West Indies. With all Europe in convulsions, the royal couple flee to South Africa.

The Republic demands the submission of Cape Colony to its rule, and the return of the royals to Britain "to face justice". At Prince William Frederick's suggestion, they flee to the Dutch-speaking settlements in the interior. Victoria even learns Dutch, to better "pass" in the settlements. (As she already speaks German, this is not difficult.) Six months later, William Frederick dies of typhoid.

The widowed Victoria meets Pretorius; they hit it off and marry. Ta-daa!!!!

Epilogue: The Republic decides that having gone off into remote wilderness, Victoria is irrelevant, and they forget about her. They really wanted William Frederick (for actions taken in 1848), but he's dead and Victoria is thought of as a powerless female.
Pretorius married an Afrikaner woman in 1841, so this wouldn’t have worked timeline wise.
 
Boers are white Protestant Christians, Saudis aren’t. The fact that Protestants from other European countries were acceptable spouses indicates that ethnic and religious reasons wouldn’t have disqualified a Boer.
Both were equally faraway wastelands in the view of the average Briton of the time, useless compared to the riches of India. Not to mention the ambiguities of marrying a Dutch Calvinist would probably bring up some weird memories of the Stuarts and so forth. Boers may not be Catholic, but they’re no CoE.

Imagine if a Boer-UK Royal marriage had led to Afrikaans supplanting English in the UK and dominions, leading to the USA being the only Anglophone nation in modern times.
South Africa was a lion-infested dustball that was good only for diamonds and its location at the Cape, it did not and never had the prominence you’re crediting it for, dude. The Brits simply did not care that much about it and its potential would always be sapped by dealing with not one but multiple sets of unruly non-Anglos. They simply did not care so much about Africa to want to marry there way into it.
 
Both were equally faraway wastelands in the view of the average Briton of the time, useless compared to the riches of India. Not to mention the ambiguities of marrying a Dutch Calvinist would probably bring up some weird memories of the Stuarts and so forth. Boers may not be Catholic, but they’re no CoE.

Prince Albert wasn’t raised CoE, either. I’m pretty sure the average 19th century Briton would rather have their daughter marry a Boer man than an Indian man.
South Africa was a lion-infested dustball that was good only for diamonds and its location at the Cape, it did not and never had the prominence you’re crediting it for, dude. The Brits simply did not care that much about it and its potential would always be sapped by dealing with not one but multiple sets of unruly non-Anglos. They simply did not care so much about Africa to want to marry there way into it.
The only non-Anglo whites there in any significant number were Boers, and as for non-Whites, 19th century racism meant the British elite didn’t really care about what they thought or how they felt.
 
I don’t really understand why they cared about Royal blood so much. Pretty sure the idea that monarchs were untouchable demigods ended with Cromwell.
And the Queen Mother was a commoner (technically noble, still not Royal)
Generally, I think inbreeding is bad.

His immediate benefit is closer relations with the Boers, who control a piece of valuable land the British Empire wants.
Mate, what you think is unimportant to what the people of the day thought,which is the basis of whether something is realistic. And no, the monarchs are still thought of as demigods to major extent this day. Just look at how much respect the monarchy got when the Queen died.
 
Mate, what you think is unimportant to what the people of the day thought,which is the basis of whether something is realistic. And no, the monarchs are still thought of as demigods to major extent this day. Just look at how much respect the monarchy got when the Queen died.
That doesn’t mean she was viewed as a literal demigod. And I say this as someone who thought she was a good person and good Queen.
 
Prince Albert wasn’t raised CoE, either. I’m pretty sure the average 19th century Briton would rather have their daughter marry a Boer man than an Indian man
And you think a proud Boer Pretorious would’ve converted away from his faith, even to marry the queen of England? If these people were willing to make concessions to the Anglos, then they would have had made concessions to the Anglos!
The only non-Anglo whites there in any significant number were Boers, and as for non-Whites, 19th century racism meant the British elite didn’t really care about what they thought or how they felt.
Somehow I don’t think the British would have invented concentration camps to use on their fellow Anglo Americans.
 
And you think a proud Boer Pretorious would’ve converted away from his faith, even to marry the queen of England? If these people were willing to make concessions to the Anglos, then they would have had made concessions to the Anglos!

Somehow I don’t think the British would have invented concentration camps to use on their fellow Anglo Americans.
Victoria could have joined the Dutch church.
I don't think this is possible


Her marriage to a Dutch prince would have served the same purpose
No, the Boers weren’t politically Dutch.
 
Victoria could have joined the Dutch church.

No, the Boers weren’t politically Dutch.
She is head of the ANGLICAN CHURCH. She cannot join another church unless she wants to get overthrown.Sorry mate, but from your whole conversation here, you have shown that you know very little about the politics of the period of the monarchy in general. I really suggest you do a little bit more research before making more points.
 
She is head of the ANGLICAN CHURCH. She cannot join another church unless she wants to get overthrown.Sorry mate, but from your whole conversation here, you have shown that you know very little about the politics of the period of the monarchy in general. I really suggest you do a little bit more research before making more points.
Could Pretorius have stayed Reformed while Victoria stayed Anglican and raised the kids Anglican?
 
I'm wondering if this idea could be salvaged if Pretorius was married off to some secondary royal or just someone of ceremonial import. Like, uh, her half-sister Feodora


Interestingly enough, she was named after an aunt who had changed her name after converting to Eastern Orthodoxy to marry a Russian Grand Duke. So I guess princesses could get away with this.

Maybe tying the Boer Republics to some British-related minor German principality could work, but I am having a devil of a time trying to parse which one Feodora actually belonged to. wtf "Leiningen"? lmao. There's a Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld that's distinct from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Maybe there's one of them desperate enough to marry off one of their daughters to some backwoods colonial all the way down in Africa.

Victoria was an only child so if not for this half-sister then it's on to finding suitable cousins, nieces, and the like.
 
She is head of the ANGLICAN CHURCH. She cannot join another church unless she wants to get overthrown.Sorry mate, but from your whole conversation here, you have shown that you know very little about the politics of the period of the monarchy in general. I really suggest you do a little bit more research before making more points.
Yes. I think the Constitution only requires the monarch NOT to be Roman Catholic but it would in practice be interpreted then (& now?) as meaning the monarch has to be a communicant member of the CofE also.

Interestingly, the Oaths required from the Monarch at the formal Accession Council that mark acceptance of his/reign by Parliament (& thus the nations) include one to preserve the Church of Scotland as the sort of established Church in Scotland. Which is a Calvinist and Presbyterian Church like the Dutch Reformed Church.

So a Dutch Royal would be acceptable and in private (& in Scotland) the monarch could worship in the Dutch fashion. Just not in public outside Scotland. Formal conversion not permitted though.
 
This reminds me of a memetic Korean princess thread from Russian AH board when a dude argued for freakin' six pages that the best way for House of Romanov to stay in power is for Nicholas II marrying a Korean princess instead of Alice of Hesse. Because Far East ports and stuff.
 
Top