Re: Queen Victoria, Prince Albert and Family Discussion

[Curryong]

I?ve got a question for LF (and everyone else if they like) In what circumstances could Victoria have been proclaimed Queen in 1837 (and she was) but be off the throne and no longer sovereign by 1838? ? And would still be called Majesty and Queen Victoria, though not a reigning monarch. (Not by a scandal or anything she did herself.)

[Amabel2]

I?ve got a question for LF (and everyone else if they like) In what circumstances could Victoria have been proclaimed Queen in 1837 (and she was) but be off the throne and no longer sovereign by 1838? ? And would still be called Majesty and Queen Victoria, though not a reigning monarch. (Not by a scandal or anything she did herself.)

only if Adelaide had been pregnant and produced an heir..

[Curryong]

 Right! It would have been quite bizarre actually because Victoria could not be demoted once she was proclaimed. Fortunately this did not occur.

The relevant Sections of the 1830 Regency Act below, per Wikki, but still?

?Section 1 vested the regency in Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, if Victoria became queen while under 18, with the title "Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". The regent was to have all the powers of a monarch, except those prohibited by section 10. The regency would end when Victoria became 18 or if Queen
Adelaide gave birth to a child of King William after his death.

Section 2 required the Privy Council to proclaim Victoria's accession to the throne, and modified the oath of allegiance by adding to the end the words "Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort". This version of the oath was to be used "until Parliament shall otherwise order".

Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.?

So it does appear from this that a  situation would arise in which Queen Adelaide would act as Regent, a ?dead? Queen Victoria would go on living but no longer as monarch and King William?s posthumous baby would become the new King or Queen.
I get the feeling that as the years went on Queen Victoria would be granted a title on her own as a royal Duchess, just to simplify things. Then, if and when she married Albert she would settle in Germany as his wife and a Princess of Saxe Coburg.

[Amabel2]

In theory that could happen in any monarchy where the crown passed to a sibling or nephew or neice...  if the reigning monarch had a wife of child brearing age.  It was very unlikely to have happened since Adelaide's babies had all died or she'd had miscarriage's and William was elderly and ill.

[Curryong]

Yes, but it was also apparently regarded as a slight possibility in 1952, in spite of the QM?s age and George VI?s health.

[Amabel2]

In theory, it can be a possibility in a lot of cases.  Had George Iv remarried after Caroline's death, its possible that in spite of his age and fatness,  he might have gotten a young wife pregnant.. and William would become king and then lose it.  Same thing if Edward VIII had made a conventional marriage adn then suddenly died.. Even if a king is 92 and still unmarried, there is always the slight possibilty that he might marry and get a young wife pregnant...

[Curryong]

Yes, look at Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands father, who was in his early sixties when she was born. Wilhelm?s three sons and his first wife were all dead so he contracted a dynastic marriage to Emma of Pyrmont, to her parents? delight. She was only in her twenties when they married and he was over forty years older. It shocked Queen Victoria quite a bit. However men can certainly remain fertile into old age. 

[LouisFerdinand]

If the Salic Law had been introduced and Victoria could not be the Queen Regnant, then her uncle, King Ernest of Hanover would become King of Great Britain.

[Macrobug67]

Depends on how far back Salic Law was introduced.  The Hanovers were there only because of Electress Sophia, who, obviously, would have not been in the line of succession under Salic Law.   

[Curryong]

After medieval times Salic Law didn?t operate in England/Britain, otherwise Mary I, Mary II, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth and Anne wouldn?t have come to their thrones. And the Electress Sophia was regarded as Anne?s heir after the last of Anne?s children, William Duke of Gloucester, died, though Anne wouldn?t allow her to visit to become accustomed to England, Parliament and the rest. Unfortunately for Sophia, she predeceased Anne by a few weeks, and so her son George inherited and became George I of England and Scotland, and King of Hanover as well of course .

Over in Hanover Salic Law did prevail and so while Victoria could become Queen of Great Britain she couldn?t inherit the throne of Hanover. So the eldest surviving of George III?s sons, Ernest ?Scarface? Duke of Cumberland inherited in Hanover, meaning that the British and Hanoverian thrones separated for all time.

[Macrobug67]

I just took a look.  With Salic Law England would have been in a mess starting with the sinking of the White Ship in 1120.  They would have had to go back to Harold Godwinson?s sons which would have stopped Norman England in its tracks.  Likely would have been civil war etc.   

[Curryong]

Yes. Henry I was very anxious after the White Ship disaster that he beget another male heir. When that didn?t happen he tried his best to get the Barons to support his  surviving daughter Matilda. However, her cousin Stephen was more popular among them, seized power, was crowned  and became King to a large sector of the nobles, so a terrible Civil War, known as The Anarchy, erupted.

Ultimately though, Matilda?s son Henry II inherited the English throne. In medieval times in England a de facto Salic Law operated, ie, most nobles were very unenthusiastic about female rulers. If possible males (Kings) were preferred. Until Mary I?s accession there?s no evidence of great followings for any female heirs, and Mary I only succeeded IMO because a less eligible female Jane, was involved.

[Macrobug67]

Thing is, under Salic Law, Stephen wouldn?t have been eligible.  He was the grand son of William the Conqueror through his mother.  Likewise Henry 2 wouldn?t have been eligible as the son of Maud. 

The moment William Adelin died and his father was not able to have another son, the Normans would have been done. 

[Curryong]

That is true. However as far as their English possessions were concerned the Normans, Angevins, Plantagenets etc didn?t seem to followSalic Law that strictly, except when it suited them, and as far as Matilda/Maud was concerned her arrogance put a lot of the barons off. The Angevins/Plantagenets had many generations, for instance, of the throne passing from father to oldest son with no trouble at all.

In England the so-called Semi-Salic version of succession order stipulates (care of Wiki) that firstly all-male descendance is applied, including all collateral male lines; but if all such lines are extinct, then the closest female agnate (such as a daughter) of the last male holder of the property inherits, and after her, her own male heirs according to the Salic order. In other words, the female closest to the last incumbent is "regarded as a male" for the purposes of inheritance and succession. This had the effect of following the closest extant blood line (at least in the first instance) and not involving any more distant relatives. The closest female relative might be a child of a junior son, as with Victoria.

From the Middle Ages, there was another system of succession, known as cognatic male primogeniture, which actually fulfills apparent stipulations of the original Salic law and seems to have been followed in England at times: succession is allowed also through female lines, but excludes the females themselves in favour of their sons. For example, a grandfather, without sons, is succeeded by a son of his daughter, (as with Matilda/Maud and her son Henry II) when the daughter in question is still alive. Or an uncle, with no children of his own, is succeeded by a son of his sister, when the sister in question is still alive (though there aren?t any English examples AFAIK in royal medieval history of the latter example.)

[LouisFerdinand]

The wedding dress of Princess Victoria in 1858   
Wedding dress of Victoria, Princess Royal - YouTube

[LouisFerdinand]

Voice recording of Emperor Wilhelm II - 1904   
"Hart sein im Schmerz" Kaiser Wilhelm II. Voice Recording Edison Wax Cylinder, 1904 - YouTube   

:xmas13: :xmas13: :xmas13: :xmas13: :xmas13: :xmas13:

[LouisFerdinand]

In 1871 Queen Victoria opened the Royal Albert Hall on March 29. She limited herself to just one sentence.

[LouisFerdinand]

Prince Albert composed Invocazione All' Armonia between 1835 to 1841.     
Invocazione All'Armonia - Albert, Prince Consort - YouTube

[LouisFerdinand]

Prince Albert was given full access to Cabinet and other State papers. From 1841 onwards he attended audiences which Queen Victoria held with her ministers.

[LouisFerdinand]

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's daughter Princess Helen was the founding president of the Royal School of Needlework.

[LouisFerdinand]

Queen Victoria's son Prince Arthur, The Duke of Connaught visited Eton in 1934.     
H.R.H. The Duke Of Connaught At Eton (1934) - YouTube

[LouisFerdinand]

On this day, May 23, 1819, Queen Victoria of England was born at Kensington Palace in London, England.   
She received the names of Alexandrina Victoria. If she could have had one more middle name, I could see Charlotte being used in honor of her grandmother Queen Charlotte.

[Curryong]

On this day, May 23, 1819, Queen Victoria of England was born at Kensington Palace in London, England.   
She received the names of Alexandrina Victoria. If she could have had one more middle name, I could see Charlotte being used in honor of her grandmother Queen Charlotte.

They had a lot of trouble with naming of this child. At the christening ceremony a very sulky Prince Regent refused a suggestion from his brother that the names Georgina (after himself) and Charlotte (the name of his dead daughter as well as his mother) be used. He snarled at other suggestions. Tsar Alexander had graciously agreed to be sponsor to the baby so Alexandrina had to come first. The Prince Regent was aggrieved about that. The Duchess of Kent, the baby?s mother, was almost in tears. Eventually George said ?Name her after her mother!?. Victoire, anglicised to Victoria (not a great favourite of his) and so it was done!

[LouisFerdinand]

Queen Victoria did not seem to have trouble with the naming of her children.   
One example is the first middle name of the Princess Royal which was Adelaide. Adelaide was after Queen Victoria's aunt, Queen Adelaide, the spouse of King William IV.

[Curryong]

Well, of course for Victoria there weren?t the resentments, jealousies and dislike that permeated the attitude of the Prince Regent to his younger brother having a healthy baby. The Duke of Kent had a living child while George?s only legitimate offspring was dead, thanks to a bungling doctor. By the time George IV was dying he knew that it was odds on that Victoria would be the heir after his brother William Duke of Clarence. And neither he nor his brother William were overly fond of the widowed Duchess of Kent.

Both Victoria and Albert had masses of relatives they could name their children after, though it?s notable that Victoria was determined to begin as she meant to go on with her name and her beloved?s chosen for their two eldest children. What is a bit strange though is the many non-traditional royal names that they used for later children, Louise, Beatrice, Helena for example and none of her sons bore Hanoverian first names like George, William or Frederick.

Arthur was named after the much respected Iron Duke of Wellington, Alfred probably after Alfred the Great. Leopold was named after the couple?s adored Uncle, King of the Belgians and widower of the dead Charlotte of Wales.

It?s rather strange to think that had Princess Charlotte and her baby son lived, Victoria would have been a minor royal, a footnote in history, though she may well have still married her cousin Albert and produced a large family.