Underused 1000-1900 PODs Aug 30, 2019 15:37:02 GMT via mobile
Post by lordroel on Aug 30, 2019 15:37:02 GMT
What if Princess_Charlottes still died in childbirth in 1817 but her son was born alive and well? That would give a male heir to the Prince Regent, so no Hanoverian steeplechase where most of his younger brothers were urged to quickly produce a son. [At least unless the child dies early in which case it still happens at a slightly older age for them]. Hence no Victoria or William IV before her but instead a young new king who would be 12 when he came to the throne if George IV as he became, died in 1830 as OTL.
I think the aim was to call a son Alexander after the Russia Czar so Britain would have an Alexander I. Believe that he wouldn't inherit the Hanoverian throne as that would go to one of his uncles since author his mother was dead that would still push him further down the line of inheritance there unless the government in Hanover decided it would be worthwhile to maintain the link and hence change the rules on inheritence. Or possibly none of George IV's older brothers had a son either - in which case it might go to him. Think only one of his brothers was already married and he only had one son in 1819 so that could happen.
However assuming the link is broken when Alexander comes to the throne. Two differences come to mind.
a) Who would be the person responsible for the young child and then the regent when he ascends to the throne. The obvious figure for the 1st and possibly the 2nd role would be Leopold of Saxe-Colburg-Saafeld. Looking at his wiki article Leopold, he seems to have been a liberal and helped encourage industrialisation and development of Belgium when he ruled there but also sought to increase the power of the monarchy, which here he might seek to do here on behave of his son but could lead to clashes with Parliament and other interests in Britain. Especially since rather than a king in his own right he would be a regent and a foreigner, albeit having been given British citizenship in 1815.
If so then he's very unlikely to be a candidate for the Belgium crown in 1830 assuming the rebellion against Dutch rule still occurs? Both because he's closely associated with the powerful British state and because he will be too busy with his son. So who else would become Belgium monarch and how would their fare? Before Leopold 3 French candidates were considered but that would unpopular with other powers because of France's historical designs on Belgium. Also two were members of the Bonaparte dynasty and Louis Philippe - who had only just become French king after the unrest that deposed the older Bourbon dynasty was also opposed to them as he feared they might use their status as king of Belgium as the basis for a coup against him. Suspect it might be another minor German prince, possibly from a Catholic state.
b) What sort of character would Alexander have? Very difficult to say but as a male I suspect he would be distinctly less withdrawn that the young Victoria and probably be more involved in being groomed for power rather than being largely untrained when she came to the throne. Also with his name he might associate himself more with his Greek namesake, which could be very distablishing while Leopold is likely to encourage him to take a more active role. Likely if he's not too erratic to be in favour of technology and industrial development and possibly a more active role in expanding British power and influence. Which again could go well or badly for both him and the country.
Not sure how things could develop but it would only need a few butterflies to come up with a markedly different world.
I always tough that underage rulers get a regent to rule for them until they are of age: