Alternate History

[BritishRoyalist]

Alternative History: Princess Margaret as Queen

Now let me First say that I do like Queen Elizabeth and that I have lot of respect for her. She had made a Good Queen and has dine her Job well. I like these Alternative History question because they are very interesting to think about and Imagine how history made have unfolded differently if something went a different way.

Okay now let just say for some reason in a th Alternative History that at Margaret had became Queen in 1952 and Not Elizabeth when her father died supposing that Elizabeth had died some years earlier leaving Margaret as the sole surviving child of George and Elizabeth and so she succeeds her father as king and in 2002 her son David would have succeed her as king when she died. How would Margret been as Queen? Would history have unfolded differently? Would the Monarchy have survived? What do you think? U have wondered about this. Coming from the same parents I think Margaret might have made a good queen it hard to say if she would ave been as good as her sister was. Margaret would have also had the influence of her Mother like Elizabeth did.

 

[Countessmeout]

It would depend hugely upon how old Margrat was when her sister died. Did Elizabeth die just before their dad? Was Margrat already a grown woman, who was already a bit wild? Or did she become heir when she was still a young teen?

I think there is a reason that Margrat, Andrew and in a way Harry, are a bit wilder than their older siblings (Harry not so much). They are the spares, they aren't raised to the same sense of duty and role, they never saw the throne in their future.

How about another what if. What is Margrat had not given up Peter. If she had pulled an Edward VIII, and abdicated to marry the man she loved. With Elizabeth dead childless, the throne would have passed to the next closest kin. That would have been the line of Prince Henry of Gloucester, third son and fourth child of George V.

King Henry IX and Queen Alice (until 1974)Alice died in 2004
Richard, current Duke of Gloucester would now be Richard IV
And Alexander Earl of Ulster would be POW with wife Claire
Xan Windsor would be in the place of Prince William
Lady Davina would have been Princess Royal

But then again we don't know Richard or his son would have married the same, if they had been King and heir to the throne. Or named their kids the same. Being so far from the throne, likely affects certain choices.

 

[Lumutqueen]

How would Margret been as Queen? Would history have unfolded differently? Would the Monarchy have survived? What do you think? U have wondered about this. Coming from the same parents I think Margaret might have made a good queen it hard to say if she would ave been as good as her sister was. Margaret would have also had the influence of her Mother like Elizabeth did.

I don't think we can answer any of these questions because we never knew Margaret as anything but what she was. She was need heir, she never had the responsibility it comes with.

If Margaret was brought up to be Queen then I'm sure she would have done a fine job.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I just left the imagination open as to when Elizabeth would have died or why. She would have bee. 20 in 1952. If Margaret as succeeded her sister I could not see her abdicating (I have felling her mother would not have allowed it) But I guess you never know. There is a history of the older child dying before they take the throne and the second become the heir. But in my imagination Charles and Anne would not have been born (or married) so let just say it was 1945 when Margaret would have been 14.

But do like your question about if Margaret had not given up peter and dd abdicate then Henry would have succeeded. I never thought about that.

 

[Ish]

In order for the scenario to work Elizabeth soul have had to die before the 1948 birth of Prince Charles - when Margaret was 18. I think if she became the heir at some point in her teens, especially her late teens then Margaret would have had to really struggle in catching up on the training that Elizabeth had had. Elizabeth was the heir for 15 years, Margaret would have been heir for less than 10.

I do think she could have done it though, and even done a good job at it. It's not being the spare that has made her, Andrew, or Harry more "wild" - Anne was the spare for 10 years, before becoming the spare to the spare, then the spare to the spare's spare, and doesn't have the more wild history. In contrast, Edward VIII was the heir and George VI the spare, Albert Victor the heir and George V the spare, and yet in both cases it was the older brother that was more wild.

The interesting thing about Margaret as monarch is when she would have married, and who. I doubt she would have married Peter. The problem with Peter would have presented the same issues whether Margaret was monarch or Princess, and I think when Churchill presented the opposition to the marriage to her (as he did to Elizabeth) she would have ultimately made the same decision.

I would hope that Margaret's extramarital affairs would have been conducted with more discretion, although I wonder if Margaret would have married Anthony at all had she been monarch. To me it seems like the marriage was one that only worked because Margaret was increasingly further away from the throne. Anthony would not have made a good consort to the monarch, and I kind of doubt he would have wanted to be one in the first place. Queen Margaret would have married someone entirely different from who Princess Margaret married.

 

[cepe]

Historically this question would only be of value if we had some idea of Margaret's thinking on the monarchy. Anyone got anything on that?

 

[Ish]

Historically this question would only be of value if we had some idea of Margaret's thinking on the monarchy. Anyone got anything on that?

I think you can get a bit of insight into it in her statement announcing her decision to not marry Peter. There she said "I have been made aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But mindful of the Church's teachings that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before others."

Her decision was the result of a situation similar to the Abdication Crisis, but unlike Uncle David she made the opposite decision. She was willing to put her own happiness aside in favour of the monarchy.

 

[vkrish]

Historically this question would only be of value if we had some idea of Margaret's thinking on the monarchy. Anyone got anything on that?

Atleast what I think is:
Margaret always thought monarchy as a privilege she was born into. And that all the luxuries and endless bows and curtsies are all her birth-right.. It never occured to her that she has to "pay" for them..
She did not share the view that royals should keep up with the changing times..And the word "work-ethic" doesnt seem to be in her dictionary.
Apart from accepting some traditional patronages and appearing at Childrens Royal Variety Performance I dont think there was anything she thought she ought to do.
She took two things completely for granted:
1. Loyalty and devotion of public: Maybe it appeared to her during WWII years that this is the way it always is..
2. Extravagance: Undoubtedly from her mother.
She lived far from reality. She thought being a royal makes you totally immune to public scrutiny..

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Good point.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She was patron of about 80 different organisations including ones dealing with welfare such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Children along with the arts and music.

 

[Warren]

Princess Margaret was also involved in HIV/AIDS fundraising activities (a little-known fact).

Her general attitude and possible sense of entitlement may also have been a result of her feeling of being deceived (betrayed) by Churchill when it was indicated to her that after a suitable period, the Townsend marriage may be on the agenda, only to be advised at the end of the period that it wasn't. And if she persisted, she would be turfed out. Subtle it wasn't.

 

[vkrish]

Yes but one thing i want to know is..
Can we see her imaginary reign in context of her negative aspects-- unstable relationships, bad lifestyles etc..
One point is..If she had the "pressure" of being Queen, that would have been a great diversion. She could have coped up with a bad marriage easily. And she wouldnt have craved for a loving companion that much..Then her defects wouldnt be that severe that they affected her image.
OTOH, that "pressure" could even worsen her defects..We have 2 perfect examples in her father and uncle..
Her father went from bad to worse lifestyle habits due to stress, and her uncle went into "terrible" relationship inspite of the "duty".
So it could have happend either way..

 

[Skippyboo]

Margaret was spoiled by the king and didn't get the training that Elizabeth did. So taking over as a young women may have been disastrous. She would be married to some nobleman instead of Townsend or Snowdon. If Elizabeth died as a infant or toddler, things would be different since Margaret isn't the spare anymore.

Being the spare isn't a problem when you are young. You get the privilege without the burden. It when you are the middle aged ex spare that is the problem. I think it is made worse because of the queens long reign. You have to make a niche. Charles and Anne did it well. Andrew and Margaret not so well

 

[DukeJonathan81]

If old Marge was Queen...

Well, first off, it's obvious that we wouldn't have the same monarch we have today. Would Margaret have still married the Earl of Snowdon? I don't think he was cut out to be Prince-Consort, nor do I think he would have wanted to. But let's say they still do marry and have David & Sarah. Also, let's presume Margaret still passes in 2002. David would be HM King David I/III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms. (depending on who you ask as Scotland had several King David's)

We would have another Prince Charles as heir, our world the Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones. His two cousins, Samuel and Arthur Chatto, would also probably have a lot of royal duties as nephews of the King.


Monarchs:

Queen Margaret (R. 1952-2002)

King David I/III (R. 2002-Present day)


Line of Succession as of 2014:

HM King David

1) Prince Charles of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita of Wales (B. 2002)

3) Princess Sarah, Princess Royal, Duchess of Kendal (B. 1964)

4) Prince Samuel of Kendal (B. 1996)

5) Prince Arthur of Kendal (B. 1999)


The Line of Succession continues as normal from this point (note, letters of patent issued to allow Sam and Arthur status of Prince)


Depending on how Margaret treated the monarchy, it's either extremely popular or on the brink of abolition. Though I don't think Viscount Linley would be a bad king.

His son Charles and his two nephews, Sam and Arthur, would probably be the Charming Princes of the UK, making every teenage girl faint. I can just imagine Hello Magazine on the converge of the three...


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Margaret was spoiled by the king and didn't get the training that Elizabeth did. So taking over as a young women may have been disastrous. She would be married to some nobleman instead of Townsend or Snowdon.

Would Margaret have married a Royal Prince?
​

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't think so. If we assume it would be post WWII which takes the German royalty off the list. It would have more likely a British Duke or Earl from an old aristocratic family.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't think so. If we assume it would be post WWII which takes the German royalty off the list. It would have more likely a British Duke or Earl from an old aristocratic family.

I think if Elizabeth had passed-on before her marriage, then Philip would have been shifted for Margaret to marry.

If Elizabeth passed-on after marrying Philip, but before having a child, I think Margaret's husband would have been chosen for her from among the British aristocracy, possibly an older husband. What Dukes were available around the time of the late 40's? I think from that pool of titled men we would find the possible Consort.

 

[Skippyboo]

Alternative History: Princess Margaret as Queen

The Queen Mum wasn't too excited for Philip, she wanted an British aristocrat such as the future Dukes of Grafton, Rutland, Buccleuch or Lord Porchester who became Earl of Carnarvon for Elizabeth at the time.

Philip didn't have any money or was part of the establishment. I don't think the King & Queen would have done what Victoria did with May and George after Eddy died. Plus the Queen wasn't a royal Princess but an earl's daughter from birth.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

The Queen Mum wasn't too excited for Philip, she wanted an British aristocrat such as the future Dukes of Grafton, Rutland, Buccleuch or Lord Porchester who became Earl of Carnarvon for Elizabeth at the time.

Philip didn't have any money or was part of the establishment. I don't think the King & Queen would have done what Victoria did with May and George after Eddy died. Plus the Queen wasn't a royal Princess but an earl's daughter from birth.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I agree.

I think something that is often forgotten is that the Queen and DoE were a love match, at least of sorts. The DoE was chosen because the Queen loved him, not because he was a royal of the right stock - in a lot of ways his family really was not of the right stock.

Margaret may not have been allowed to marry the man of her choosing had she been heir - but then, we already know that she wasn't allowed to marry the first man of her choosing as it was. I would think the Queen Mum would have directed her daughter to the appropriate marriage, but I doubt it would have been a happy and scandal-free one.

 

[Ish]

If old Marge was Queen...

Well, first off, it's obvious that we wouldn't have the same monarch we have today. Would Margaret have still married the Earl of Snowdon? I don't think he was cut out to be Prince-Consort, nor do I think he would have wanted to. But let's say they still do marry and have David & Sarah. Also, let's presume Margaret still passes in 2002. David would be HM King David I/III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms. (depending on who you ask as Scotland had several King David's)

We would have another Prince Charles as heir, our world the Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones. His two cousins, Samuel and Arthur Chatto, would also probably have a lot of royal duties as nephews of the King.


Monarchs:

Queen Margaret (R. 1952-2002)

King David I/III (R. 2002-Present day)


Line of Succession as of 2014:

HM King David

1) Prince Charles of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita of Wales (B. 2002)

3) Princess Sarah, Princess Royal, Duchess of Kendal (B. 1964)

4) Prince Samuel of Kendal (B. 1996)

5) Prince Arthur of Kendal (B. 1999)


The Line of Succession continues as normal from this point (note, letters of patent issued to allow Sam and Arthur status of Prince)


Depending on how Margaret treated the monarchy, it's either extremely popular or on the brink of abolition. Though I don't think Viscount Linley would be a bad king.

His son Charles and his two nephews, Sam and Arthur, would probably be the Charming Princes of the UK, making every teenage girl faint. I can just imagine Hello Magazine on the converge of the three...


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

Your succession is a bit off.

It would be:

1) Charles, Prince of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita (B. 2002)

3) Princess Sarah, Princess Royal (B. 1964)

4) Samuel Chatto (B. 1996)

5) Arthur Chatto (B. 1999)

LPs probably wouldn't be issued to make Sarah's children Royal - they weren't issued to make Margaret's or Anne's as it was. Also, Charles and Margarita would probably have different names - Charles was named for the current Prince of Wales, and Margarita would probably be Margaret. David might not even be David. The Chattos would probably be the children of an Earl, comparable to what happened with Margaret.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The Queen Mum wasn't too excited for Philip, she wanted an British aristocrat such as the future Dukes of Grafton, Rutland, Buccleuch or Lord Porchester who became Earl of Carnarvon for Elizabeth at the time.

So there we have the possible consorts.

Since the future Duke of Grafton was in his 20's in the 40's, he could have married Margaret, except that he married in 1946. Unlikely.

The Duke of Rutland was the same age as the Duke of Grafton, and he married in 1946 as well. So unlikely.

The Duke of Buccleuch looks more promising, especially in terms of wealth and 'grandness', not to mention his being Scottish. Younger than the above two Dukes by 4 years he was free to be considered for Margaret in the late 40's, given that he married in 1953.

Lord Porchester (Earl of Carnarvon) was one year younger than the heir to the Duke of Buccleuch and he married in 1956, so a likely contender. Plus he knew both Elizabeth and Margaret from childhood.

So my guess would be either the Duke of Buccleuch or Lord Porchester, with my choice being the Duke of Buccleuch.

Okay, so that is all sorted.

 

[Skippyboo]

But we are in alternate history world. In alternative history world, Elizabeth had died at some point not specified in the first thread but it is before the death of George VI. She may have been a young woman or a little girl at the time of her death.

Also in alternate history world because future Duke soandso married in 1946 in real world doesn't mean he does in alternate history world.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

There is also the idea that she could have married a Marquess or an Earl, or a younger son. I doubt she would have been allowed to marry lower than an Earl, but Royal men had married the daughters of Earls before.

 

[Skippyboo]

Alternative History: Princess Margaret as Queen

Like her parents

A younger son of a Duke would have been good because he wouldn't have his own land/money and maybe would be eager to be consort instead of a heir having to be second to your wife which if your an alpha male you might have problems with. Such as Philip did early on in real life.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[DukeJonathan81]

Your succession is a bit off.

It would be:

1) Charles, Prince of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita (B. 2002)

3) Princess Sarah, Princess Royal (B. 1964)

4) Samuel Chatto (B. 1996)

5) Arthur Chatto (B. 1999)

LPs probably wouldn't be issued to make Sarah's children Royal - they weren't issued to make Margaret's or Anne's as it was. Also, Charles and Margarita would probably have different names - Charles was named for the current Prince of Wales, and Margarita would probably be Margaret. David might not even be David. The Chattos would probably be the children of an Earl, comparable to what happened with Margaret.

Saying this is a bit late would be an understatement, but here I go anyway.

I disagree that there would be no chance that Letter's of Patent would have been released to create Sam and Arthur Princes. Anne didn't want her children burdened with pointless royal titles because they would have no chance at getting near to the throne anyway , not to mention that royal titles would mean they would have to take part in official functions of state.

In this alternative timeline, upon the birth of Samuel Chatto in 1996, he would be third in line to the throne behind his mother and uncle, AND keep in mind that David would have already been married for five years and produced no children alongside Serena. There would have been a good chance that Samuel may one day succeed to the throne, therefore I think it's possible that LP's may have been released.

Though I think your right on the Chatto's, I find it likely that Daniel would have been created an Earl, not a Duke.

However I'm not incorrect on Charles A-J's title, you have to be of age (18) to created Prince of Wales, Charles is only coming 16 this July, he wouldn't be old enough to take the official title. He would only be an Prince of Wales due to the fact that his father would be The Prince of Wales on his birth.

Line of Succession (As of 2015)

1) Prince Charles of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita of Wales (B. 2002)

3) Sarah, Princess Royal, Countess of Wessex* (*A traditional title for Daniel maybe?)

4) Prince Samuel of Wessex (B. 1996)

5) Prince Arthur of Wessex (B. 1999)





Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Iluvbertie]

You do NOT have to be 18 to be created Prince of Wales.


The current holder was 9, his predecessor was 17 and Edward VII was barely 1 month old.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

You do NOT have to be 18 to be created Prince of Wales.


The current holder was 8, his predecessor was 17 and Edward VII was barely 1 month old.

Ah! That's what I thought. I just assumed to had to be of age to be created Prince of Wales, that teaches me for not doing doing my research. I still think in an alternate timeline, David would wait to create his son Prince of Wales, with that title comes great responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Ish]

Saying this is a bit late would be an understatement, but here I go anyway.

I disagree that there would be no chance that Letter's of Patent would have been released to create Sam and Arthur Princes. Anne didn't want her children burdened with pointless royal titles because they would have no chance at getting near to the throne anyway , not to mention that royal titles would mean they would have to take part in official functions of state.

In this alternative timeline, upon the birth of Samuel Chatto in 1996, he would be third in line to the throne behind his mother and uncle, AND keep in mind that David would have already been married for five years and produced no children alongside Serena. There would have been a good chance that Samuel may one day succeed to the throne, therefore I think it's possible that LP's may have been released.

Though I think your right on the Chatto's, I find it likely that Daniel would have been created an Earl, not a Duke.

However I'm not incorrect on Charles A-J's title, you have to be of age (18) to created Prince of Wales, Charles is only coming 16 this July, he wouldn't be old enough to take the official title. He would only be an Prince of Wales due to the fact that his father would be The Prince of Wales on his birth.

Line of Succession (As of 2015)

1) Prince Charles of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita of Wales (B. 2002)

3) Sarah, Princess Royal, Countess of Wessex* (*A traditional title for Daniel maybe?)

4) Prince Samuel of Wessex (B. 1996)

5) Prince Arthur of Wessex (B. 1999)





Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

This is not how British titles work.

First, a person who holds no titles in their own right takes their territorial designation from their father's titles (unless their mother is the monarch). If a person is the child of the Prince of Wales and doesn't hold their own titles then he/she is "of Wales" - so, Harry is "of Wales" as the son of the Prince of Wales, while William is not since, while also being the son of the Prince of Wales, he holds his own title.

In the event of David being King his children would not be "of Wales." They would not be "of" anything officially - if they held no other titles they would be "Prince Charles" and "Princess Margarita."

However, Charles would certainly hold higher titles. He would be Duke of Cornwall, as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would also be Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and High Steward of Scotland as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would go by the titles Duke of Cornwall or (in Scotland) Duke of Rothesay, not Prince Charles, if he wasn't created Prince of Wales.

However, your assertion that he couldn't be Prince of Wales because of his age is wrong. The current Prince of Wales was created such when he was 10. His predecessor, the future Edward VIII, was 17 when he became PoW. The future Edward VII was 1 month old when he was created PoW, and the future George IV was only a week old. There is no age requirement, only the requirement that they be the heir apparent.

It's unlikely that Daniel would have been created Earl of Wessex as that was a title that hadn't been used in about 1,000 years and was revived specifically for Edward because of a movie that didn't come out until 1998. That said, I still doubt Sarah and Daniel's children would have been created royals. This doesn't hold with the precedent since 1917 - Anne's children weren't created royal despite being the then only grandchildren of the Queen, nor were Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood's. It is not a requirement that one be royal in order to be in the line of succession.

Looking at other royal families we see that it's not typical for the children of royal daughters who aren't heir presumptives to be created royals just because the heir hasn't procreate yet. The children of Princess Caroline of Monacco were never created royals despite the fact that Caroline was a grandmother before her brother had legitimate children. Princess Martha Louise of Norway ha children before her brother, but they weren't created royals.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not really. It is just a title. It is up to the holder to do what they want with the title.


As the heir apparent he would already be Duke of Cornwall and that does have responsibilities - to run the duchy when of age - but other than that there are actually no responsibilities to being the heir to the throne at all.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

This is not how British titles work.

First, a person who holds no titles in their own right takes their territorial designation from their father's titles (unless their mother is the monarch). If a person is the child of the Prince of Wales and doesn't hold their own titles then he/she is "of Wales" - so, Harry is "of Wales" as the son of the Prince of Wales, while William is not since, while also being the son of the Prince of Wales, he holds his own title.

In the event of David being King his children would not be "of Wales." They would not be "of" anything officially - if they held no other titles they would be "Prince Charles" and "Princess Margarita."

However, Charles would certainly hold higher titles. He would be Duke of Cornwall, as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would also be Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and High Steward of Scotland as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would go by the titles Duke of Cornwall or (in Scotland) Duke of Rothesay, not Prince Charles, if he wasn't created Prince of Wales.

However, your assertion that he couldn't be Prince of Wales because of his age is wrong. The current Prince of Wales was created such when he was 10. His predecessor, the future Edward VIII, was 17 when he became PoW. The future Edward VII was 1 month old when he was created PoW, and the future George IV was only a week old. There is no age requirement, only the requirement that they be the heir apparent.

It's unlikely that Daniel would have been created Earl of Wessex as that was a title that hadn't been used in about 1,000 years and was revived specifically for Edward because of a movie that didn't come out until 1998. That said, I still doubt Sarah and Daniel's children would have been created royals. This doesn't hold with the precedent since 1917 - Anne's children weren't created royal despite being the then only grandchildren of the Queen, nor were Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood's. It is not a requirement that one be royal in order to be in the line of succession.

Looking at other royal families we see that it's not typical for the children of royal daughters who aren't heir presumptives to be created royals just because the heir hasn't procreate yet. The children of Princess Caroline of Monacco were never created royals despite the fact that Caroline was a grandmother before her brother had legitimate children. Princess Martha Louise of Norway ha children before her brother, but they weren't created royals.

Hmmm, maybe. I still think "Daniel, Earl of Wessex" has a good ring to it!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app