Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Victoria and the three grandsons


Skipman

Recommended Posts

If Queen Victoria had lived another 20 yrs,do you think her presence would have made any difference to her three grandchildren's attitudes and decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skip.

Queen Victoria died when her time was right.

Two of her Grandson's did her a disservice by not living up to her ideals.

Her third Grandson was constrained by ruling a Democracy

It is a contradiction in terms but King George V,desite his cantankerous side,was an honest Ruler.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Queen Victoria had lived another 20 yrs,do you think her presence would have made any difference to her three grandchildren's attitudes and decisions?

Question makes no real sense as if she had lived one of those grandsons would not have been king anyway unless she was gaga by then in which case she couldn't have been any influence anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All

Accepting the dangers of counterfactual history let's move Vickie 20 years forward with her on the throne: in what way is she going to change things

1) In Britain as titular head of a democracy ?

2) In the international environment: imagine the message to her Grandsons, 'You're a very naughty boy'

Short answer: none

Long Answer: depends on your view of the origins of the war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Queen Victoria had lived another 20 years she would have been the only British monarch to reach 100. She was the longest lived anyway.

Perhaps it might have made more sense to ask what would have happened if Prince Albert had lived another 40 years, or if Kaiser Frederick had lived another 20 years, or even his wife Victoria.

Any ideas?

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

As Scots,Skip and I,have no right to enter this debate.

My reason,The House of Stuart was invited to ascend the Throne of England in the 17th Century.One of the Stuart Kings was executed because he felt his right to rule was superior to Parliament.I accept this is a simplistic argument but it is to Parliament's credit that the Monarchy was restored.Throughout British History,from the 17th Century and it continues today,first the the power of the Monarchy and currently the power of the House of Lords,has been and is being reduced to a confidential and advisory capacity.

The authority of the British Monarch and the House of Lords was more powerful in the early years of the 20th Century than it is today.It is to the House of Commons credit,however flawed its representatives were, that it made the decision to go to War, in the King's name .

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry i sometimes phrase my questions wrongly,am honest enough to admit am not sharpest knife in forum drawer.

It's another of my what if questions.

I do think had the cousins been in touch,and guided by someone (not necessarily Victoria),maybe in some way the whole thing may have been avoided.

Maybe Wilhelm was up for it no matter what,and am always amazed he got away with it to live to old age.

I always enjoy the clever answers i always get to some maybe (dumb) questions.

Cheers Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she had lived there would have been no Entente Cordial for a start! So on that basis alone I don't think it is possible to say there would have been no difference.

On the other hand the First German Naval Law was in 1898 and the Kruger telegramme in 1896, so Wilhelm was already loosing his awe of granny before her death and it is likely that would have continued. Admittedly, his relations with his uncle Ted seem to have been worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The House of Stuart was invited to ascend the Throne of England in the 17th Century.

For a dynasty to loose the throne once is unfortunate to loose it twice in 2 generations smacks of monumental incompetance! ;) After the Glorious coup by Scottish Princess Mary and her Dutch husband; followed by Scottish Queen Anne, they were careless not to leave legitimate issue for that branch of the family. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All

2) In the international environment: imagine the message to her Grandsons, 'You're a very naughty boy'

No No it should be 'he's not the Kaiser - he's a very naughty boy'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry i sometimes phrase my questions wrongly,am honest enough to admit am not sharpest knife in forum drawer.

It's another of my what if questions.

I do think had the cousins been in touch,and guided by someone (not necessarily Victoria),maybe in some way the whole thing may have been avoided.

Maybe Wilhelm was up for it no matter what,and am always amazed he got away with it to live to old age.

I always enjoy the clever answers i always get to some maybe (dumb) questions.

Cheers Mike.

Hello Mike,

This brings up the old question of whether leaders personally determine the course of history or merely get carried along by unstoppable currents. Kaiser Willie, always wishy washy, could be counted on to grovel to his English relatives while in Blighty, but fall back under the spell of his anglo baiting Court when he returned home. Same with his weak willed cousin Nicki. Only George seemed to know who and where he was and what was expected of him. Infact all three DID remain in touch right up to the end. But to no avail. I don't think any of them had absolute control of their countries, armies or events. Even a King has to delegate. As to your question about Victoria (smitten unto death by her German husband Albert) IHMO I think the 'person' would have detested going to war with Germany, but the 'Queen' would have been as powerless as her Nephews to stop the currents of change overtaking the world.

Cheers, Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of them had absolute control of their countries, armies or events. Even a King has to delegate.

The absolure monarchy in Britain was long since over in the UK see post #6. Even the so called (by the Americans) tyrant George III was unable to dictate who was either Prime Minister or in the cabinet. The delegation of power from the monarchy to the executive accelerated in Victoria's reign; if it hadn't already started government would have been crippled when she withdrew into mourning. However the monarchy still retained vestigages of power. After the fall of Lloyd George, it was the King who settled that a member of the House of Commons, not the Lords should succeed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No No it should be 'he's not the Kaiser - he's a very naughty boy'

Or, in this case, "He's not a very naughty boy, he's the Kaiser"

In answer to the original question, as my old mum used to say, If fish had wheels they'd be bicycles.

I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a hypothetical question and I will give a hypothetical answer, that is I will ignore reality.

As has already been said, the monarch had very little political power. For several decades, the Queen lived as a virtual recluse while GB Ltd carried on expanding. The King was reminded of the constitutional position when he and Lloyd George had a disagreement during the war. He did have considerable influence in court circles which in turn were much more powerful at that time. A great deal of pressure could be brought to bear on political situations through means which were not parliamentarian. I believe the fact that Ll-G felt unable to sack Haig is an instance of the sort of thing to which I am referring. He was the Prime Minister, in theory, he could have demanded Haig's transfer, resignation, whatever. The undemocratic pressures of the court made it highly dangerous to his position. So, it seems to me that the Monarch could bring certain pressure to bear if he could carry the ' court party' with him.

As for Victoria, the Kaiser always claimed that he was Victoria's favourite grandson. Victoria however was British through and through. Whatever her feelings for Germany and Albert's antecedents, she would never have taken any step that would harm Britain's standing. William's ambition to rival the Royal Navy would, I believe, have struck the Queen as a gross impertinence. I believe she would have been demanding that this upstart be reminded of Britain's pre-eminence as a global power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Tom.

I did not realise until a recent Timewatch Programme of the rush to ensure Victoria was born in UK and not Germany.

According to the Programme,in her formative years,Victoria, had disagreements with her German Mother regarding her destiny.May I suggest,hypothetically,this would support your pro-British suggestion concerning any machinations by her Granson-the Kaiser.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An element that has been forgotten so far was the formative influence of Victoria’s Uncle Leopold (King of Belgium). If she was still around her sympathy was likely to be with the Belgians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't so far found Victoria's reaction to the Kaiser being booed and spat at in 1897.

Nor have I found if there was a reaction by Edward VII to the growing anti German sentiment such as in the Daily Telegraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Czar was the great autocrat and one of his great failings in WWI was to go out and personally lead the army. He and the Carina had far greater authority than the other two, which were major factors in the Russian Revoultion. As far as I'm aware Victoria had very little effect on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem that the Kaiser had some vestigial family feeling during WW1, only assenting to bombing London provided that the bombing stayed clear of Buckingham Palace as he felt it invidious to bomb one's relatives even if one was at war with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor have I found if there was a reaction by Edward VII to the growing anti German sentiment such as in the Daily Telegraph.

Edward VII was a constitutional monarch who would not have commented publicly on political controversy. He was also the chief architect of the Entente Cordiale with France and would not have wished to send conflicting messages to the French government.

He may very well have exercised his constitutional "right to warn" to make private comments on the inadvisability of stirring up anti-German feeling, especially in view of the delicate situation in South Africa, but not public ones.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The press has no constitutional position in the UK. Edward VII was no retiring flower where giving his opinion was concerned although; if he did express an opinion he probably talked to the proprietors direct. Conversely he might have kept out of it as he may not have wanted to stir up the press, given his sensational past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...