KWII as King of UK

[maltesefalcon]

If Queen Victoria had stopped at one child, her only offspring would have been the Princess Royal, Victoria.
Since she married the into the Prussian royal family she eventually was mother to the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II.
On her own and Queen Victoria's death in 1901, technically KWII would have been next in line to the throne of the UK.

British/German relations were already strained by then. Do you think the people of the UK would have accepted another German King, especially one who already had a Kingdom of his own? (The French would not take it well either.)

Maybe it would have precipitated a major European war some years before 1914?

[Sid Guttridge]

The "War of British Succession", perhaps?

The Kaiser was at Queen Victoria's bedside when she died, I believe.

The British peoples didn't have a say in the succession, (which is why all these contemporary polls about whether Prince William should succeed instead of Prince Charles are entirely meaningless). As they were habituated to accepting constitutional law, I doubt there would have been much active opposition. Besides, everybody would have known William V was next in line and both they and he would have been preparing for decades.

William V would have been formed somewhat differently from Wilhelm II and he would probably have made his marriage for different reasons to a different person with different consequences.

The two crowns would presumably separate again if a woman was the heir to the British throne, because she could not succeed to the throne in former Holy Roman Empire states. That was why Victoria I couldn't also be Electress of Hanover when she came to the throne in the UK, unlike William IV and the four Georges before her.

This might, in itself, have craeated a problem because East Prussia had never been part of the HRE, allowing the Electors of Brandenburg to style themselves "King in Prussia". Perhaps a female British successor could have become Queen of the UK & NI and Queen in East Prussia?

My head is now hurting, so I will stop.

Cheers,

Sid.

[maltesefalcon]

I would agree that the people of the UK do not have a democratic process to approve their monarch.

That may be moot. Other nations may have objected to KWII ruling both the British and German Empires. It would have been awkward for him as well. He had openly supported the Boers in their attempts to resist the British. If he took the throne he would now have to do an about face.

Wars have been precipitated over successions that other nations took a dim view of. The War of Spanish Succession and the Hundred Years War for example started over disputes such as these.

The US and France for example, would both feel threatened by two powerful empires uniting. France especially, as she would be flanked on both sides by potential rivals now.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi mf,

By definition, the people of the UK (or anywhere else) cannot have a democratic process to approve their monarch. Monarchy is not an elective institution. It is hereditary. An elective monarchy is a contradiction in terms, like a hereditary democracy. (Yes, I know the Holy Roman Empuire, the Poles and Malaysia at various times had or have elected monarchs, but the pool of candidates and electors was/is minuscule.)

It is hardly likely that, knowing he was imminently heir to the British throne, Wilhelm would have supported the Boers as he did. This would be to shoot himself spectacularly in the foot. (As I posted above, "William V would have been formed somewhat differently from Wilhelm II..... with different consequences.")

I agree that other nations would be highly resistant to a combining of the British and German crowns. However, it would have been legitimate and they would have to contrive some other excuse to physically oppose the personal union of the two crowns (though not of the two countries).

The then quite recent Hanoverian example shows how the union might have been managed without creating any other Anglo-German institutions. Try: Hannover and the British Empire, 1700-1837 by Nick Harding (Author)

Cheers,

Sid.

[Terry Duncan]

To be fair Wilhelm was likely to have been a very different person too, as he be heir of a fairly minor state and the largest on Earth during his childhood, so it would be quite probable there would have been far more British input into his upbringing and education. Also Wilhelm would be only too aware of what he would inherit at some point, including the vast navy, so he would be far less likely to listen to Tirpitz telling him about his 'Riskflotte' ideas.

On the other side it is perfectly possible that if he did keep doing things to upset public opinion in Britain he would be removed from the succession or monarchy, just as Edward VIII was 35 years later. Whilst the monarch is not appointed by parliament he does sit there only with their approval. Wilhelm may not have been such a good monarch as Edward VII or George V, but he was unlikely to have been any more strange than Victoria, who was far from normal really.

[maltesefalcon]

Some good points above but might I add:

KWII was 29 when he took over the throne of the German Empire. By then it is safe to assume his personality and politics were pretty well already developed.

It is unfair to assume he would take a different path or attitude earlier in life simply because his installation in 1888 was quite unforeseen until it was too late. One would natrually assume his father would have reigned for some time first as German Emperor and possibly co-monarch with Princess Victoria. His father would only have been 70 at the time of Queen Victoria's death and the princess Royal did outlive her mother, if only for a short time. In any event she would have become Queen of the United Kingdom and passed it on to her son. (Maybe)

But his father died after only nine monthas on the throne leaving Wilhelm unprepared for rule, in my opinion at least. In the scenario outlined above, again I am not looking at British public opinion, which would have little impact in the long run.

I do believe that under the conditions I described in my initial post that KWII would have had an undeniable claim to the throne. But I also firmly believe that claim would be contested both in high circles in the British Isles and the rest of the world.

It would likely lead to a war. Japan was an unknown entity. France would be livid. The US may play a wait and see game. I think Austria Hungary would go with whatever side was against Russia. The Russians-who can say?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Everyone would have known Princess Victoria and her offspring would be heirs to the British throne at the latest when her father Prince Albert died in 1861, because thereafter Queen Victoria could not have produced a male sibling with a prior claim. Thus Wilhelm, who was born in 1859, would have known he was heir to the British throne for his entire conscious life and his upbringing might reasonably be expected to have been rather different from what it actually was.

Cheers,

Sid.

[maltesefalcon]

Hi Guys,

Everyone would have known Princess Victoria and her offspring would be heirs to the British throne at the latest when her father Prince Albert died in 1861, because thereafter Queen Victoria could not have produced a male sibling with a prior claim. Thus Wilhelm, who was born in 1859, would have known he was heir to the British throne for his entire conscious life and his upbringing might reasonably be expected to have been rather different from what it actually was.

Cheers,

Sid.

In real life he knew he was heir to the Hohenzollern throne his entire life too.
It did not seem to make any differnce to his maturity level.
As I mentioned earlier it possibly was because he inherited 20 years earlier than one would have expected.

[LWD]

... By definition, the people of the UK (or anywhere else) cannot have a democratic process to approve their monarch. Monarchy is not an elective institution. It is hereditary. An elective monarchy is a contradiction in terms, like a hereditary democracy. (Yes, I know the Holy Roman Empuire, the Poles and Malaysia at various times had or have elected monarchs, but the pool of candidates and electors was/is minuscule.) ...

I believe the Celts also had a democraticly elected monarch in many cases. While the pool was theoretically fairly large in practice it was fairly small but then the pool of electable candidates in for the US presidency is fairly small as well. For the UK at the time your statement may be correct as expanded it's not.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi LWD,

Anyone born in the USA can be president and any citizen can vote in the election. However, leaving Obama aside, given that over the past couple of decades Bush son has succeeded Bush father and Clinton wife has a good chance to succeed Clinton husband, the US system is beginning to look rather dysfunctional.

The examples I gave had minute, elitist electorates who could only elect one of themselves (7 Electors in the case of the HRE and about 15 Sultans in the case of Malaysia, if I remember correctly). However, given that the Austrian candidate almost always won in later centuries, the HRE system also became dysfunctional.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Kingfish]

Anyone born in the USA can be president

Don't forget the part about membership to certain political parties and the ability to raise the equivalent of a small nation's GDP in campaign contributions.

[Terry Duncan]

KWII was 29 when he took over the throne of the German Empire. By then it is safe to assume his personality and politics were pretty well already developed.

As pointed out, he would have only been 2 at the point he became the only obvious heir the the British Empire, so a different upbringing would have been likely. He may well have still been the rather impulsive chap we all know, but he was unlikely to have held so much resentment to a nation he was to rule, and indeed with no Edward VII to hate, much of the reason for the hate aspect vanishes.

[Tim Smith]

I can't envisage a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Germany under Wilhelm II/William V - it's politically too difficult.

Because Wilhelm II was already Kaiser of Germany in 1901, I think it far more likely that the British throne would pass on Queen Victoria's death to Wilhelm II's younger brother, Henry, (Prince Henry of Prussia) who would become King Henry IX of the United Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hen ... 80%931929)

Historically in 1901 Henry was an admiral in the Imperial German Navy - so a German Admiral would become Commander in Chief of the Royal Navy, lol! (I wonder how Henry would have got on with feisty First Sea Lord Admiral Fisher...)

From Wikipedia:

Henry had little in common with his brother, the German Emperor. He lacked, for example, William II's erratic nature and egotism. The prince was truly popular in Northern Germany, and on account of his humble and open manner was beloved by those under his command. On foreign travels, he was a good diplomat, who, unlike his brother, was able to strike the right tone. Thus, on his 1902 trip to the United States, Henry made a favorable impression with the critical American press and succeeded in winning the sympathy of more than just the numerous German-American segment of the population.

As a naval officer, Henry had a profession that completely satisfied him and that he loved. He was thoroughly a pragmatist. He received one of the first pilot’s licenses in Germany, and was judged a spirited and excellent seaman. He was dedicated to modern technology and was able to understand quickly the practical value of technical innovations. A yachting enthusiast, Prince Henry became one of the first members of the Yacht Club of Kiel, established by a group of naval officers in 1887, and quickly became the club's patron.

I think Henry might have made quite a good British king. His eldest son was Prince Waldemar of Prussia (1889–1945) who would almost certainly have married a British wife instead of a German one, and become King William V of Great Britain on Henry IX's death.

Quite possibly, had Prince Henry become Henry IX of Great Britain, he could have brought an understanding of the German Navy's ethos to Britain, perhaps making the German Navy seem less threatening to British interests. Also, Kaiser Wilhelm II would be far less likely to stir up diplomatic trouble over the Boers, since this would be acting against his own brother.

However, the Great War would still happen as historically IMO, since Wilhelm II would assume his brother wouldn't declare war on him over Belgium - but Henry IX would be powerless to stop the British government's slide towards war.

[Rob Stuart]

Princess Victoria became engaged to Frederick when she was 14. If she had no siblings at that time it would have been obvious that she was going to remain an only child. That would make her the heir to the throne and surely her mother would not have allowed her to marry Frederick if that was the case. I think this would also have happened if the younger Victoria had had sisters but no brothers.

(One of the problems with "what if X had been different" scenarios is that if X had been different then Y would have been different too and I think this would have been the case here.)

[Tim Smith]

Princess Victoria became engaged to Frederick when she was 14. If she had no siblings at that time it would have been obvious that she was going to remain an only child. That would make her the heir to the throne and surely her mother would not have allowed her to marry Frederick if that was the case. I think this would also have happened if the younger Victoria had had sisters but no brothers.

(One of the problems with "what if X had been different" scenarios is that if X had been different then Y would have been different too and I think this would have been the case here.)

Good point.

I guess the only way around that one is to say - what if Queen Victoria's eldest son Albert Edward (later Edward VII) had been born in 1841, but died young from influenza in 1862 before he could marry and have children? This would have been four years after his sister Princess Victoria married Frederick III, so she wouldn't be available to succeed her mother.

Before anyone thinks this is getting implausible - dying of influenza was actually the real, historical fate of King Edward VII's eldest son Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, who died just before he was due to be married in 1892.