lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,431
|
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: |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2019 17:19:00 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:
That's what I said? Presumed it would be his father Leopold although given he's foreign born there might be political pressure for someone else or a shared regency.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 30, 2019 19:34:35 GMT
How about 'No Norman Conquest'? That might have some interesting butterflies going forwards, especially with how TTL's 2019 (and thereabouts) will look.
For one, I bet that the English language will look much different than the version we speak IOTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 31, 2019 10:53:59 GMT
How about 'No Norman Conquest'? That might have some interesting butterflies going forwards, especially with how TTL's 2019 (and thereabouts) will look.
For one, I bet that the English language will look much different than the version we speak IOTL.
A huge difference, both in terms of the English language and the effects on world history. However very difficult to tell what England, let alone Britain or the world would be like now.
I recall a TL on the AH site which I never got around to reading unfortunately - Those Halls Dream of Saxon Kings - IIRC which took this POD. Had a quick look at the end and it sounding like a much larger empire, with one bit about it just giving up control of Arabia but how practical it was I don't know.
Without the slaughter of the conquest and mass destruction of both social systems and facilities as the population was pretty much enslaved by a foreign aristocracy its likely to have a less autocratic period and class system. Also without the link to Normandy there's no direct involvement in wars within France. Ditto no poisonous involvement in Ireland so relations between the assorted groups in Ireland and the English are likely to stay pretty friendly. As such in many ways its likely to be wealthier and happier, at least in the short term.
On the other hand without the involvement in France you might see it unifying earlier and becoming the dominant power in western Europe, with possibly the British isles ending up as a satellite of a greater French empire. As one potentially bad outcome that could occur.
Within a century or two, let alone nearly a millennium the possible divergences are so great you could see anything from Earth devastated in say a 19thC nuclear war to being a couple of centuries ahead of OTL, or anywhere in between. England/Britain could have an impact on world history greater than OTL or be a relatively backwater that is never significant in world history.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 31, 2019 13:52:46 GMT
How about 'No Norman Conquest'? That might have some interesting butterflies going forwards, especially with how TTL's 2019 (and thereabouts) will look.
For one, I bet that the English language will look much different than the version we speak IOTL.
A huge difference, both in terms of the English language and the effects on world history. However very difficult to tell what England, let alone Britain or the world would be like now.
I recall a TL on the AH site which I never got around to reading unfortunately - Those Halls Dream of Saxon Kings - IIRC which took this POD. Had a quick look at the end and it sounding like a much larger empire, with one bit about it just giving up control of Arabia but how practical it was I don't know.
Without the slaughter of the conquest and mass destruction of both social systems and facilities as the population was pretty much enslaved by a foreign aristocracy its likely to have a less autocratic period and class system. Also without the link to Normandy there's no direct involvement in wars within France. Ditto no poisonous involvement in Ireland so relations between the assorted groups in Ireland and the English are likely to stay pretty friendly. As such in many ways its likely to be wealthier and happier, at least in the short term.
On the other hand without the involvement in France you might see it unifying earlier and becoming the dominant power in western Europe, with possibly the British isles ending up as a satellite of a greater French empire. As one potentially bad outcome that could occur.
Within a century or two, let alone nearly a millennium the possible divergences are so great you could see anything from Earth devastated in say a 19thC nuclear war to being a couple of centuries ahead of OTL, or anywhere in between. England/Britain could have an impact on world history greater than OTL or be a relatively backwater that is never significant in world history.
Mm'kay. I guess that can go to show that PoDs that take place in the sufficiently distant past can make for an unrecognizable alternate history going forwards. And now I have a new TL to check out, if it's still available. Though this would definitely fall into the ASB category, I do wonder what'd happen if ~2019 Britain were sent back to 1066 A.D., right about when the Norman Conquest is about to begin. Obviously, the invaders would be repelled with ease, but the sudden loss of vital trading partners--and an inability to get them back in the short run--might be a huge incentive for Britain to go empire-building once again. Whether they can peacefully reason and resolve disputes with downtimer peoples or not (though I hope they make serious attempts to do so), I couldn't tell you. But I suppose I'm getting off-topic now. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 1, 2019 9:53:17 GMT
A huge difference, both in terms of the English language and the effects on world history. However very difficult to tell what England, let alone Britain or the world would be like now.
I recall a TL on the AH site which I never got around to reading unfortunately - Those Halls Dream of Saxon Kings - IIRC which took this POD. Had a quick look at the end and it sounding like a much larger empire, with one bit about it just giving up control of Arabia but how practical it was I don't know.
Without the slaughter of the conquest and mass destruction of both social systems and facilities as the population was pretty much enslaved by a foreign aristocracy its likely to have a less autocratic period and class system. Also without the link to Normandy there's no direct involvement in wars within France. Ditto no poisonous involvement in Ireland so relations between the assorted groups in Ireland and the English are likely to stay pretty friendly. As such in many ways its likely to be wealthier and happier, at least in the short term.
On the other hand without the involvement in France you might see it unifying earlier and becoming the dominant power in western Europe, with possibly the British isles ending up as a satellite of a greater French empire. As one potentially bad outcome that could occur.
Within a century or two, let alone nearly a millennium the possible divergences are so great you could see anything from Earth devastated in say a 19thC nuclear war to being a couple of centuries ahead of OTL, or anywhere in between. England/Britain could have an impact on world history greater than OTL or be a relatively backwater that is never significant in world history.
Mm'kay. I guess that can go to show that PoDs that take place in the sufficiently distant past can make for an unrecognizable alternate history going forwards. And now I have a new TL to check out, if it's still available. Though this would definitely fall into the ASB category, I do wonder what'd happen if ~2019 Britain were sent back to 1066 A.D., right about when the Norman Conquest is about to begin. Obviously, the invaders would be repelled with ease, but the sudden loss of vital trading partners--and an inability to get them back in the short run--might be a huge incentive for Britain to go empire-building once again. Whether they can peacefully reason and resolve disputes with downtimer peoples or not (though I hope they make serious attempts to do so), I couldn't tell you. But I suppose I'm getting off-topic now.
Given a reply where you 1st raised this in the Story/Ideas thread, see modern Britain to 1066, if this link works OK.
PS Goes to the page rather than the post but you should be able to find it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 1, 2019 9:57:29 GMT
What if the Levellers had won in the debates over the future of England? Could they have brought a far more democratic society earlier or would it have been so radical it gets crushed by other powers? If they had been successful and survived then what sort of world, for better or worse, could have emerged? |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 5, 2019 2:55:07 GMT
I wonder what’d happen if there were ‘No Black Death’ that ravaged Europe. I vaguely recall watching an AlternateHistoryHub video with that very premise, but don’t care to revisit it right this minute.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 9, 2019 0:48:57 GMT
How about 'Galileo Galilei Never Prosecuted'? Yes, I know that he was eventually shown to be right about heliocentrism and all, but still.
|
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 9, 2019 10:35:37 GMT
How about 'Galileo Galilei Never Prosecuted'? Yes, I know that he was eventually shown to be right about heliocentrism and all, but still. Nothing much would change. He would keep his discussions among his fellow astronomers and not piss of everyone by reinterpreting the Bible (ground for war at the time) and so not be sentenced to house arrest so he would probably be remembered about as well as he is. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 9, 2019 14:49:59 GMT
How about 'Galileo Galilei Never Prosecuted'? Yes, I know that he was eventually shown to be right about heliocentrism and all, but still. Nothing much would change. He would keep his discussions among his fellow astronomers and not piss of everyone by reinterpreting the Bible (ground for war at the time) and so not be sentenced to house arrest so he would probably be remembered about as well as he is.
That presumes he keeps his discoveries more secret rather than seeking to publish them. The other alternative is the church is less agressive when its interpretation of the bible is show to be inaccurate. Although for any totalitarian organisation that is a difficult hurdle to cross.
|
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 9, 2019 15:27:38 GMT
Nothing much would change. He would keep his discussions among his fellow astronomers and not piss of everyone by reinterpreting the Bible (ground for war at the time) and so not be sentenced to house arrest so he would probably be remembered about as well as he is.
That presumes he keeps his discoveries more secret rather than seeking to publish them. The other alternative is the church is less agressive when its interpretation of the bible is show to be inaccurate. Although for any totalitarian organisation that is a difficult hurdle to cross.
The Church was most defenitly not totalitarian when it came to Galileo. Not only were they ones who were funding his research, the pope had him only sentenced to house arrest. If they had been totalitarian, he would have been burned as a heretic. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 9, 2019 17:21:02 GMT
That presumes he keeps his discoveries more secret rather than seeking to publish them. The other alternative is the church is less agressive when its interpretation of the bible is show to be inaccurate. Although for any totalitarian organisation that is a difficult hurdle to cross.
The Church was most defenitly not totalitarian when it came to Galileo. Not only were they ones who were funding his research, the pope had him only sentenced to house arrest. If they had been totalitarian, he would have been burned as a heretic.
By definition monotheistic religions are totalitarian, at least before the present day social values enforced more tolerance. Since they claim to be the one and only true answer to all problems.
Wasn't the reason he was forced to recant was to avoid being killed?
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 20, 2019 12:26:03 GMT
‘Robert E. Lee Fights For The Union’ in the American Civil War.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 20, 2019 13:08:13 GMT
|
|
