What If WWI/WWII Hadn't Happened?

[Prinsara]

Would Poland have regained independence?

Piłsudski only managed to do it by using WWI to Batman Gambit literally everyone, with the small side effect that he was considered completely untrustworthy afterwards.

Considering he wasn't even a formal soldier, did someone that intelligent and far-seeing have a peacetime version of doing this? Maybe. Probably. But would it have worked...? Who knows?

 

[Futurist]

I suspect that in Germany, the idea f equal marriage would have and gemale succession brought in. This would have prevented the extinctions of Mecklenburg Scjwerin say. And the Emporer of Germany would not be Georg Friedrich but his uncle. Friedrich.

Yeah, I certainly do think that both non-morganatic marriages and female succession would eventually have to be allowed in a scenario where the German monarchy--or, for that matter, any other Western European monarchy--survives up to the present-day. I suspect that even without the World Wars, egalitarian principles would have still eventually become too entrenched there for the pre-World War I status quo to indefinitely continue.

Former (currently non-existing) monarchies can get away with not changing their succession laws because there's no throne to actually contest at the present time and because they can quite legitimately say that this is a topic that should await a monarchical restoration or something along those lines.

 

[Futurist]

​

Would Poland have regained independence?

If there's an eventual successful revolution in Russia, then very likely Yes.

 

[Futurist]

It would depends what would happen to Russai. But probably independent Poland, either republic or monarchy, would be pretty much under German influence.

It would help if there would be no Polish Corridor since this would make Germany much less hostile towards Poland and since this would make Poland much more dependent on Germany and German goodwill for sea access.

 

[Futurist]

Israel, yes.

No WWII, no Holocaust. (Although there would still be discrimination and probably even a pogrom from time to time.)
Millions of Jews still living in Europe, making their mark in so many ways.
No Israel, even if the Ottoman Empire fragmented. It would be "Next year in Jerusalem" every year.

Someone would have taken over in the power vacuum of a fallen Ottoman Empire. Russia is contender number one!
Britain contender number two, to curb Russia.
Germany that already had established connections with the Young Turks prior to WWI might have had a considerable influence in Turkey itself.

No WWI would have meant that the mechanization of Europe, in regards to cars and planes would have been delayed. Perhaps by twenty years?

Would Lindberg have crossed the Atlantic at the time he did, if it had not been for the technological leap during WWI? Or would that have been delayed by a decade or two as well?

What about Japan? One of the reasons why Japan became a militarized society with territorial ambitions (for fear of USA in particular) was that they gained significant territories in the Pacific as a result of being on the winning side during WWI. Would Japan have entered Manchuria? Would Russia? Would there be a Second Russo-Japanese War over Manchuria?
Could the Russian monarchy survive a second defeat if that became the result?
Would China have been carved up by the Western powers, as was already happening with gunboat-policy there?

Interestingly, Tibet would have been left in peace I think. Too remote to make it worth the effort.

Would Latin America have continued to accept the Monroe Doctrine, with the odd Banana Wars? Or would USA have found itself mired down in endless conflicts in Latin America - that was supported by Europe?

The Great Powers gave up on partitioning China with the Open Door Policy of 1900, no?

If the Ottoman Empire collapses and breaks up, then Germany might insist on direct control of the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway--or at least to have Britain control it in the event that Germany and Britain will already make up by that point in time due to their common fear of a more powerful and more threatening Russia.

 

[Futurist]

It's hard to say what would have happened but I guess it depended on the way Hungary got its independence. The main reason a Habsburg didn't become king after the war was because of allied pressure and not because the Hungarians didn't want one. The country did officially remain a monarchy until 1946 under the regency of Horthy so it's not unlikely that we'd seen a king ascend the throne like we did in Spain.

Do you think that Italy's monarchy survives up to the present-day if France doesn't fall in 1940 and thus Italy never actually enters World War II?

 

[Futurist]

I don’t believe that by 1919 Hungary wanted anything more to do with the Habsburg dynasty. And the country seemed to be perfectly happy as a republic between the wars, though admittedly extremely right-wing.

Hungary was actually a kingdom without a king in the interwar era, with its Regent being Miklos Horthy, a former Admiral in a country that no longer had a navy due to it becoming landlocked as a result of its post-World War I territorial losses!

 

[Futurist]

If World War One had not occurred and Hungary had separated from Austria, should a different Habsburg be King of Hungary or a Hungarian nobleman be chosen to be King of Hungary?

A Hungarian attempt to separate from Austria in such a scenario might have itself been a trigger for an alternate World War I, actually. And if the Hungarians would have wanted the Russians to militarily help them secure their independence from Austria, then they might have needed to offer the Hungarian throne to some Russian Grand Duke or something like that. Seriously.

 

[Futurist]

Just in terms of monarchies I think long term trends meant that Russia & Turkey (once the Ottoman Empire went) were likely to become republics.

Both the Ottoman & Austrian Empires were eventually going to be swept away by nationalism. There were already lots of cracks by 1914. I'm not sure what would be the fate of the Hapsburgs. Presumably emperors of a territory similar to modern day Austria. Or possibly Austrians might have wanted to become part of the German Empire?

Ireland might possibly have found peace within the UK with home rule or it might just have been a step towards inevitable independence. There would presumably have been no Easter Rising.

Without Vimy Ridge & Gallipoli what would have happened to national identity in the dominions?

And what about Poland? Carved up by three empires. A great & historic European people without a country of their own. It would surely have gained some sort of freedom in the C20th. After all once the Austrian controlled part became free then there would have been enormous pressure on German & Russian controlled Polish territory.

If Austria-Hungary implodes, Germany likely annexes the German and possibly Czech parts of Austria.

And if Russia ever actually experiences a successful revolution, then renewed independence for Poland is almost guaranteed, in my honest opinion. Poland might then subsequently be able to expand into Austrian Galicia through negotiations but German Poland would probably be off the table without a war.

 

[Futurist]

I wonder, had there been no war, would George offer asylum to the Russian Imperial Family. I think Nicholas II was finished no matter what, but perhaps without the war, the family could have been saved.

Very possibly Yes considering that without World War I, the perceived risk of revolution in Britain in response to a British offer of asylum for the former Russian Imperial Family should have been much, much smaller.

 

[Futurist]

Without WW1:

- Russian monarchy was going to collapse, not same way as in ours world but it would be ended probably in ten years. Nicholas II was just too stubborn and reactionary and there was already huge problems which just waited to be solved with way or another.


- Austria-Hungary might survive but it would need much of reforms.


- Ottoman Empire might survive but it not be sure. There too was tons of problems.


- German monarchy is going to survive and probably develope as British style monarchy.


Without WW2 but WW1 still happens:

- Italian monarchy probably would survive. It almost did that even during WW2 and was abolished on referendum only with small margin.


- It is questionable can Yugoslavia even survive. Serbian monarchy might do that but I bit doubt that Yugoslavia would do that when it was such mutlinational nation. Much too depends what its neighbors are going to do. If treaties after WW1 are similar than in ours world, Italy would be still mad about betrayal on treaties and Hungary wants take back regions which it lost on extremely humiliatin Treaty of Trianon.


- Bulgarian and Romanian monarchies would survive easily without WW2 when Soviets not occupy the countries.


- Hungary was actually monarchy without king between world wars so we can include that too. If Horthy manage keep power until his death he might decide appoint Otto von Habsburg as his successor. But that is not so sure.

What about with World War I, with World War II, but without the 1940 Fall of France? Would anything have been different in comparison to a with World War I but without World War II scenario?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I wonder if the two countries of Austria and Hungary would have separated from one monarch. Austria would still have had its Emperor. However, would an Archduke of Austria have become the sovereign of Hungary?

 

[Futurist]

I wonder if the two countries of Austria and Hungary would have separated from one monarch. Austria would still have had its Emperor. However, would an Archduke of Austria have become the sovereign of Hungary?

Depends on what the Hungarian nobility would have wanted and also on what the other European Powers' thoughts on this would have been. Because Germany, for instance, might decide to support the Hapsburgs' claim (or at least, *some* Hapsburg's claim) to the Hungarian throne while, say, Russia might theoretically support a different claimant--perhaps one of their own Romanov Grand Dukes, even!

 

[Alison H]

Hungary was technically still a kingdom until after the Second World War, and the Habsburgs were more popular there than in Austria. It was probably more likely that Hungary would have kept the monarchy than that Austria would, even though that seems odd because we tend to think of the Habsburgs as being Austrian.

 

[Futurist]

Hungary was technically still a kingdom until after the Second World War, and the Habsburgs were more popular there than in Austria. It was probably more likely that Hungary would have kept the monarchy than that Austria would, even though that seems odd because we tend to think of the Habsburgs as being Austrian.

Without the 1940 Fall of France (or without the outbreak of World War II in general) and the subsequent Sovietization and Communization of Hungary (which would have been avoided in this scenario), it's entirely possible that Miklos Horthy could make Otto von Hapsburg his designated successor after his death, but only if the Anglo-French and the Little Entente will both actually approve of such a move on Horthy's part. If they won't, then it very likely won't happen.

Interestingly enough, there was no huge movement to restore the Hungarian monarchy after 1989, but then again, almost half a century had already passed since 1946 by that point in time.

 

[Futurist]

I doubt the Russian monarchy would have survived very long, the WW I was not in it self the reason for the fall of the Romanovs. There was too much internal unrest in the country and a weak monarch unable to or unwilling to make a change towards democracy.

If both France and Russia would have been republics, then this would have made the Franco-Russian alliance of an exclusively republican character. It would have then been put in contrast against the monarchical Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Italy, and perhaps even Britain if Britain would have eventually left the Franco-Russian orbit due to fear of Russia's growing power and instead moved into the German orbit. I wonder if the Franco-Russians could have gotten a lot of sympathy from the US in such a scenario due to their shared mutual republican character.

 

[Futurist]

I suspect that in Germany, the idea f equal marriage would have and gemale succession brought in. This would have prevented the extinctions of Mecklenburg Scjwerin say. And the Emporer of Germany would not be Georg Friedrich but his uncle. Friedrich.

*Female succession (not gemale succession; corrected typo)

Anyway, agreed with your analysis here. But of course there's also the butterfly effect to consider. For instance, Prince Wilhelm of Prussia might have actually had a son in this scenario--and perhaps even a different wife, to boot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Wilhelm_of_Prussia_(1906–1940)

 

[Futurist]

This is actually rather difficult to do as so mush could have turned on some many things.
1. it is unlikely the Saxa-coberg- Gotha's would have changed their name - but then again they might have faced an a communist revolution later. It must be remembered that WW1 and WW2 halted communism. Also WW1 and WW2 both cemented the monarchy in the UK at least, as a shared rally point of nationalism.
2. We might still have a monarchy in Germany and several other countries. However it is more then likely that we would have had localized if not ethic conflicts that kicked them out. So we might have several small German states and princes. It must be remembered that royals families have bound ethic groups together in unlikely friendships. This about Belgium and Spain. No wars - might have resulted in the families unable to bind those regions together.
3. It is very likely that the royals would have continued to marry into each other and we might have been something like a Scandinavian country emerge and not the 5 that exist today.
4. Another thing about WW1 especially is that it destroyed the structured class system that existed in Europe - titles nobles were essentially knocked off their pedestals. So if communism hadn't engulfed the whole of Europe and possible the world - we would still have a rigid class system.
Women would have remained in the home - so universal suffrage and there would only be men in work force and Empire would remain. As many of the countries only broke off the various empires due to their weakened state after the wars and surges of independence
Mind you that you are only saying no wars - not no raise of Fascism. Fascism might have engulfed Europe and if Germany was anything to go on - the royals would have joined up.
However my guess is most if not all the royal families would have been executed or gone into exile with the spread of communism into the Europe.

The trend towards women's suffrage already began before WWI. WWI simply significantly accelerated it. I suspect that *Communist* revolutions in Europe without the World Wars would have been VERY unlikely, though more moderate socialist revolutions or at least socialist cultural and political transformations would have been very possible. Socialism was strong in places such as pre-WWI Germany and France, after all.

 

[Futurist]

No WWI might have meant that Lenin would have remained in Switzerland, politically impotent. Or just as importantly: Have arrived too late.

It was very much the deprivations of WWI that led to the (relatively limited) rise of the communists. The communists/bolsheviks were extremists who didn't have that wide a political public appeal and without the suffering of the war a more moderate (Social-Democrat) government might have cemented their power and reduced the power of the Tzar - something that at the time had a wide public appeal.
A democratic Russia sure would have had its fair share of challenges, but still...

Agreed with all of your analysis here.

Not to mention the Baltic mercenaries who got close to blocking the Communist coup.

Can you please elaborate on this part?

Oooooohhhhhhh I love alternate-history

Let me see...if WWI and WWII didn't happen.

Honestly, I'd say that Austria-Hungary would've balkanized even if Archduke Franz Ferdinand's United States of Greater Austria plan was implemented mainly because of so many languages and a few religious differences within the Danube Realm. I think the Habsburg monarchy would've remained in German Austria and/or Hungary so we would've seen an Archduchy of Austria, Imperial State of Austria, or the Kingdom of Hungary but whether the Habsburgs would still be the royal family to this day because of those circumstances, I can't say for certain.

Would the identity of the Hapsburg ruling over German Austria be the same or different? As in, would it be the same person or would it be different members of the Hapsburg royal family?

I think the Ottoman Empire would've balkanized too because of the exact same problems that Austria-Hungary was facing and we still probably would've seen the Republic of Turkey in my opinion.

Though Turkey's territorial fate is likely to be worse in this scenario. It's likely to lose Constantinople, eastern Anatolia, possibly Turkish Kurdistan and Hatay, et cetera.

I think the German monarchy easily could've survived if WWI never happened, as long as it modernized and kept up with the times.

Agreed.

As long as the 1914 act was honored, I think Irish Independence could've been avoided.

Weren't the Irish Protestants severely unhappy with that act, though?

I think the Russian Empire would've balkanized too considering how backward, diverse, and despotic the regime was in that nation. I honestly think that Tsarist Russia was a ticking time bomb by 1914.

To be replaced by a Russian Republic? And what about places such as Ukraine, the Baltics, the Caucasus, and Central Asia? What kinds of governments would they have had?

I think a royal Yugoslavia might've had a chance had surviving if a proper conclusive Yugoslav identity was established and all of the ethnic and religious groups were respected.

A proper conclusive Yugoslav identity through widespread secularization?

Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania's monarchies could've easily survived without both World Wars.

Makes sense. Anyway, does Romania still get Transylvania, Bukovina, Bessarabia, and the eastern Banat in this scenario?

I think Otto von Habsburg could have been asked to take the Hungarian throne overtime or maybe a new Hungarian royal dynasty might have been established. Heck, I think a royal restoration could've happened if the 1956 revolution was successful and Prince Otto pressed for a restoration afterward.

Not sure about in 1956, but otherwise, Yes, completely agreed.

Japan's imperial family would probably be a lot more revered assuming if WWII never happened. I think Japan probably could've held onto Taiwan, Southern Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, and Micronesia without issue but Korea is a whole different matter. I suppose a Korean monarchy restoration is possible in the events of independence and depending on the circumstances and the timing of said independence.

Isn't the Japanese imperial family still very revered even right now, though?

Otherwise, Yes, completely agreed.

There is no way that an independent Manchuria/Manchukuo, let alone as a monarchy under a restored Qing Dynasty, could've survived easily because of Manchu nationalism being so artificial and the old Qing monarchy being unpopular unless Emperor Puyi really tried and succeeded at being one heck of a statesman and the Japanese actually letting him do what he needed to do in this situation.

Agreed.

Considering that Mongolia was between Russia and China, Mongolia as a monarchy could only survive if Mongolian independence is fully respected, which isn't too likely in my opinion.

Though Mongolia can be outright annexed by Russia, no?

An independent Lao and Vietnamese monarchy could still be around and probably be like Cambodia and Thailand depending on how independence happened and how complacent the local monarchies were with the Third French Republic.

Makes sense.

The Italian monarchy would probably still be around assuming if the kings were competent and popular.

Makes sense.

Spain, this depends on what happens between the wars, and assuming if Franco still came to power, the monarchy might now be restored.

Makes sense.

-Frozen Royalist

Off-topic, but do you think that there was any chance of a French monarchical restoration in the event of a French defeat in World War I?

 

[Futurist]

I doubt it.
For one, invading China was already on the plan since before Edo period, even the idea was already there since Heian even when it's still Ming with Korea as stepping stone. World War or not, Sino-Japanese War would happen. After China, expanding to other areas in Asia would be very likely since you know, the Emperor was God and Japan was the centre of the world (prolong isolation is not good for their mentality). And by mid 19th century, China was an important market for UK, French, US, and Russia. So "conflict" with those "barbarian" would also happen sooner or later (kind of "revenge" of 1858 Treaties). Basically war is inevitable for Japan.

Furthermore, the self-sacrifice for Japanese was on different level compare to westerner. They would (read: must) give everything for the Emperor. Everything! During WWII, the ordinary Japanese in Japan suffered as bad as people they're invaded in other Asia countries. Now, British had George V visiting the troops or Princess Mary's hospital work. Meanwhile, even though every morning Japan's troops had to "salute" to the direction of Kyoto every morning, the Emperor would never visit them as a gesture of support nor any Princess would leave the palace giving comfort to peasant. Not going to happen, no way.

In any way, Japan would also lose this war. The only difference maybe the atomic bombs, so the war possibly would last longer. For ordinary Japanese, it might be something like sengoku jidai all over again, maybe worse. In that case, it would only bring more resentment towards the imperial family, particularly the emperor.

Do you think that Japan could have ever fought a war with Spain over the Philippines in the absence of the Spanish-American War?

 

[Futurist]

There is a segment that hasn't been mentioned so far: The royal families of the colonies and protectorates.
Malaya.
Jordan.
Morocco.
Persia. (Strictly speaking independent, but considering how the Soviets brushed everything aside, Persia would hardly have been able to maintain independence in the face of an invasion and might conceivable become a contested area between Britain and Russia.)
Iraq.
Egypt.
Afghanistan.
And last but by no means least Ethiopia. Would a non-fascist Italy have tried again?

I actually wonder if an alternate World War I could have eventually broken out over Persia in a scenario where World War I would not have broken out in 1914--especially if the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention would not have been renewed in 1915 and in response Britain would have gradually drifted into the Germano-Austro-Hungaro-Ottoman orbit.

 

[Alison H]

Interestingly enough, there was no huge movement to restore the Hungarian monarchy after 1989, but then again, almost half a century had already passed since 1946 by that point in time.

I don't remember it even being mentioned, although there was talk of restoring the monarchies in Romania, Bulgaria and, later on, Serbia. I think too much water had passed under the bridge for any of those things to be likely, though: I know Spain's monarchy was restored after a long gap, but that was a different situation.

I think Tsarist Russia could possibly have survived with someone like Alexander II who was willing to make changes, but not with Nicholas II. And nationalism was on the rise long before the war: it was probably only a matter of time before the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart. I think it would have been divided up very differently without the war, though, with more land going to Austria and Hungary and less to Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia ... and Poland and Ukraine, come to that. What a lot of countries were involved!

 

[Futurist]

I don't remember it even being mentioned, although there was talk of restoring the monarchies in Romania, Bulgaria and, later on, Serbia. I think too much water had passed under the bridge for any of those things to be likely, though: I know Spain's monarchy was restored after a long gap, but that was a different situation.

I think Tsarist Russia could possibly have survived with someone like Alexander II who was willing to make changes, but not with Nicholas II. And nationalism was on the rise long before the war: it was probably only a matter of time before the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart. I think it would have been divided up very differently without the war, though, with more land going to Austria and Hungary and less to Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia ... and Poland and Ukraine, come to that. What a lot of countries were involved!

For what it's worth, I don't think that Nicholas II actually governed too differently from Alexander II. After all, in 1905-1906, Nicholas II finally created the figurehead and mostly powerless Duma that his grandfather Alexander II wanted to make right before his assassination in 1881, 25 years earlier. And both got their countries involved in large wars--the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 for Alexander II and World War I for Nicholas I. But Alexander II might have possibly had a stronger will than his grandson had. As in, being more forceful and whatnot. Nicholas II was too waffling and indecisive, IMHO.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

This is actually rather difficult to do as so mush could have turned on some many things.
1. it is unlikely the Saxa-coberg- Gotha's would have changed their name - but then again they might have faced an a communist revolution later. It must be remembered that WW1 and WW2 halted communism. Also WW1 and WW2 both cemented the monarchy in the UK at least, as a shared rally point of nationalism.
2. We might still have a monarchy in Germany and several other countries. However it is more then likely that we would have had localized if not ethic conflicts that kicked them out. So we might have several small German states and princes. It must be remembered that royals families have bound ethic groups together in unlikely friendships. This about Belgium and Spain. No wars - might have resulted in the families unable to bind those regions together.
3. It is very likely that the royals would have continued to marry into each other and we might have been something like a Scandinavian country emerge and not the 5 that exist today.
4. Another thing about WW1 especially is that it destroyed the structured class system that existed in Europe - titles nobles were essentially knocked off their pedestals. So if communism hadn't engulfed the whole of Europe and possible the world - we would still have a rigid class system.
Women would have remained in the home - so universal suffrage and there would only be men in work force and Empire would remain. As many of the countries only broke off the various empires due to their weakened state after the wars and surges of independence
Mind you that you are only saying no wars - not no raise of Fascism. Fascism might have engulfed Europe and if Germany was anything to go on - the royals would have joined up.
However my guess is most if not all the royal families would have been executed or gone into exile with the spread of communism into the Europe.

The royal families wouldn’t have still married one another because Queen Victoria overtime stopped advocating for marriages between her descendants and other royals, she started with Louise, Duchess of Argyll, then her grandson married Queen Mary, who was morganatic. Even after communism came, there is is still a class system. Just because you get rid of one, doesn’t mean it will go away completely, it will always be perpetuated in other systems. Aside from the nobles that existed under the former monarchies, the industrial revolution occurred in many countries and created a newly wealthy class of industrialists.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

*Female succession (not gemale succession; corrected typo)

Anyway, agreed with your analysis here. But of course there's also the butterfly effect to consider. For instance, Prince Wilhelm of Prussia might have actually had a son in this scenario--and perhaps even a different wife, to boot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Wilhelm_of_Prussia_(1906–1940)

I think that female succession would have been allowed, but it would be male preference primogeniture unless there were no legitimate male lines left or maybe illegitimate lines would be added or adopted.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The royal families wouldn’t have still married one another because Queen Victoria overtime stopped advocating for marriages between her descendants and other royals, she started with Louise, Duchess of Argyll, then her grandson married Queen Mary, who was morganatic.

I'm not sure how much influence Queen Victoria exercised on the marriage customs of other European royal families. As you pointed out, she permitted her daughter to conclude a dynastic marriage with a non-royal nobleman as early as 1871, but the Spanish and Scandinavian royal families treated such marriages as unequal until the late 20th century.

The case of Princess Mary of Teck was slightly different as she was a member of the British royal family by maternal descent, despite her morganaut father. Note that even the Spanish and Swedish Royal Houses, which used to enforce very strict standards of marriage equality, accepted Lady Louise Mountbatten and Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg as equal wives because they were British royals through the maternal line.

I think that female succession would have been allowed, but it would be male preference primogeniture unless there were no legitimate male lines left or maybe illegitimate lines would be added or adopted.

Alternatively, if a still monarchical Germany followed the example of most other Western European monarchies in real life, the federal parliament would have introduced equal rights to the throne for the reigning house of Hohenzollern, but the other non-reigning houses would continue to follow the old male-only or male-preference succession rules.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I'm not sure how much influence Queen Victoria exercised on the marriage customs of other European royal families. As you pointed out, she permitted her daughter to conclude a dynastic marriage with a non-royal nobleman as early as 1871, but the Spanish and Scandinavian royal families treated such marriages as unequal until the late 20th century.

The case of Princess Mary of Teck was slightly different as she was a member of the British royal family by maternal descent, despite her morganaut father. Note that even the Spanish and Swedish Royal Houses, which used to enforce very strict standards of marriage equality, accepted Lady Louise Mountbatten and Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg as equal wives because they were British royals through the maternal line.




Alternatively, if a still monarchical Germany followed the example of most other Western European monarchies in real life, the federal parliament would have introduced equal rights to the throne for the reigning house of Hohenzollern, but the other non-reigning houses would continue to follow the old male-only or male-preference succession rules.

I was giving Queen Victoria as an example, I’m not saying she influenced the marriages of other royals on the continent. Louise of Battenberg was of morganatic extraction and why the marriage was allowed, I don’t really know why, but I’m sure the reason was because the King of Sweden was a widower and already had a son who had secured the succession so even if Louise was not equal, it didn’t matter because he had a son and grandson.

I don’t think they would have changed the laws for the Hohenzollerns because they had the title King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany, which were separate titles. Also, Prussia was a conservative state so I doubt it. The other ruling houses of Germany weren’t deposed because the Hohenzollerns were made Emperors of Germany or German Emperor, the Kings of Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Saxony, and Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg still reigned. But I think for the Hohenzollerns, it would be male preference but females having succession rights after males or females would have succession rights with the extinction of all Hohenzollern males.

The Princes of Liechtenstein would be much richer than they are today and would have retained all their property holdings considering all the legal wrangling they’ve had to deal with the Czech Republic over their confiscated properties.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Louise of Battenberg was of morganatic extraction and why the marriage was allowed, I don’t really know why, but I’m sure the reason was because the King of Sweden was a widower and already had a son who had secured the succession so even if Louise was not equal, it didn’t matter because he had a son and grandson.

Constitutionally, it did not matter that the then Crown Prince (Kings could theoretically marry whomever they wanted) was a widower who already had four sons. As of 1923, the Act of Succession provided that any "prince of the Royal House" who married a "private man's daughter", even with the consent of the King, lost his right of succession to the crown. Had Lady Louise not met the standard, her husband would never have succeeded as King Gustaf VI Adolf. However, she was declared equal because British King George V affirmed that she belonged to the British Royal House: see her profile in the Dictionary of Swedish National Biography.

I was giving Queen Victoria as an example, I’m not saying she influenced the marriages of other royals on the continent.

I understand now.

[...] they had the title King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany, which were separate titles. Also, Prussia was a conservative state so I doubt it. The other ruling houses of Germany weren’t deposed because the Hohenzollerns were made Emperors of Germany or German Emperor, the Kings of Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Saxony, and Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg still reigned. [...]

True, but I am assuming that even if the German Empire remained a sovereign monarchy, its constituent kingdoms etc. would have ceased to be treated as sovereign states.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Constitutionally, it did not matter that the then Crown Prince (Kings could theoretically marry whomever they wanted) was a widower who already had four sons. As of 1923, the Act of Succession provided that any "prince of the Royal House" who married a "private man's daughter", even with the consent of the King, lost his right of succession to the crown. Had Lady Louise not met the standard, her husband would never have succeeded as King Gustaf VI Adolf. However, she was declared equal because British King George V affirmed that she belonged to the British Royal House: see her profile in the Dictionary of Swedish National Biography.



I understand now.



True, but I am assuming that even if the German Empire remained a sovereign monarchy, its constituent kingdoms etc. would have ceased to be treated as sovereign states.

They wouldn’t have allowed that because then the idea of Imperial Germany would fade away, there is a reason the Imperial title is German Emperor not Emperor of Germany. The other states would never agree to that.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Depends on what the Hungarian nobility would have wanted and also on what the other European Powers' thoughts on this would have been. Because Germany, for instance, might decide to support the Hapsburgs' claim (or at least, *some* Hapsburg's claim) to the Hungarian throne while, say, Russia might theoretically support a different claimant--perhaps one of their own Romanov Grand Dukes, even!

How would Russia interfere in the issue of a claimant to the Hungarian throne?