If Queen Victoria died between her accession to the throne in 1837 and the birth of her first daughter and eldest child, the Princess Victoria, in 1840, who would have become the British monarch? And once her first son and second child, Albert Edward (the future Edward VII), was born in 1841, as a male heir did he automatically displace the princess in the line of succession?
From what I can see, the second in line to the throne (after Victoria) when William IV died was Ernest Augustus of Hanover. He became King of Hanover after the death of William; Victoria couldn’t due to being a woman.
Yes. The sons of the monarch are (in order of birth) the first persons in the line of succession, followed by the daughters of the monarch in order of birth.
As to the first part, if we look at the children of George III:
Presumably, we would have to start considering younger siblings than Victoria’s father, Edward. Logically, it would have been Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. The article on him seems to confirm that. It appears that it would have made nobody happy but Ernie himself.
You didn’t mention it, but one major point is that the most of Europe’s monarchs would be entirely different, as the vast majority of them are her descendents.
And there’s also a good bet that course of European history would have been extremely different. In fact, World War I might never have taken place.
The British and German monarchs in WW1 were first cousins. That didn’t prevent the war, or even limit it.
No, this is not true. If the monarch had a son (or several sons), and this son had, in turn, sons himself before dying, then the monarch’s son’s sons will have priority over the monarch’s daughters, even though they belong to an elder generation. The nephews take priority over the aunts, so to speak.
The eldest son’s sons take priority over the younger sons’ sons as well, so the line of succession is:
- Eldest son of monarch
- Eldest son of monarch’s eldest son
- Second-eldest son of monarch’s eldest son
- … and so on for more sons of monarch’s eldest son
- Monarch’s second-eldest son
- Sons of monarch’s second-eldest son in order of birth
- … and so on for more sons of monarch’s second-eldest son…
- … and so on for more sons of the monarch, and their sons
Only at this stage will the monarch’s daughters and their sons and daughters kick in.
Because of this, btw, the first in the line of succession in the UK is currently Prince Charles, followed by his sons William and Harry. At third rank comes the present Queen’s second-eldest son, Prince Andrew, and since Andrew has no sons he is followed by his younger brother Edward. Next in line is Edward’s son James, born 2007.
Should William and Kate have a son, this son would immediately be inserted into the line of succession following William himself, outranking William’s brother Harry and his uncle Andrew.
But even if William and Kate have a daughter, she’ll still outrank Harry. That’s how Victoria became Queen – her father had brothers, BUT, she was the daughter of a higher ranking son. So even though the monarch had other sons, she displaced them.
No, you misunderstand what I’m saying. It’s not because they were related, it’s because of the people themselves. If Kaiser Wilhelm (Victoria’s oldest grandson), had never been born, how different would Europe have been? Remember, he was a major player in WWI. His sabre rattling caused a lot of problems throughout Europe.
This is wrong.
Prince Andrew is fourth in line for the throne (After Charles, William, and Harry). Prince Andrew’s daughters Beatrice and Eugenie are fifth and sixth, respectively. Prince Edward is seventh in line for the throne, his son James is eighth and his daughter Louise is ninth. Princess Anne, her son Peter and daughter Zara are tenth, eleventh and twelfth.
I agree Kaiser Wilhelm rattled his sabre, but he didn’t assassinate an Archduke. There were a lot of fingers in the pot, that was part of the problem.
I’m not sure if Schnitte has conflated with German Salic rules, or it’s a simple oversight, but between his 4. and 5., the daughters of the eldest-son are in the line. Similarly between 7. and 8. (That’s how Victoria got in, after all.) Moreover, between 2. and 3. come the children (and grandchildren!) of the eldest son of the eldest son. Thus a son’s daughter’s daughter inherits before a daughter’s son’s son.
An almost unbelievable application of Salic inheritance rules occurred when Netherlands and Luxemburg were split upon the 1890 death of King Willem III. (I found it fascinating enough to start a MPSIMS thread, but the zero-response result suggests others were less fascinated. 
)
I stand corrected as far as the daughters of sons are concerned, thanks. In any case, it’s quite a long shot to the monarch’s daughters if sons and children of sons are around. It’s not as if the monarch’s daughters came after the monarch’s sons.
Thanks, everybody.
So, did Ernest have any children. The article was tldr, and I didn’t pick it up on any scans. Who would have been next in line after him?
Yeah, he had a son, George V of Hanover. The last king, as Hanover was annexed by Prussia:
ETA:
That, in itself, may have change history a bit, I suppose - perhaps Prussia may not have annexed Hanover if its throne was still united with that of England.
Huh. Two interesting points: he was baptized by Jane Austen’s brother, an Anglican clergyman, and was totally blind by age 13.
Yes, I should have said that the line of succession is determined recursively. The monarch’s sons are found before the monarch’s daughters in the line of succession, but each of these persons is followed by their own heirs in a recursive manner.
Perhaps not, but the rest of Europe didn’t step in until Germany invaded Belgium. Austria’s war on Serbia, as destructive as it may have been to the Balkans, would have been contained (basically, not a “world war”)
Another interesting scenario – what if Wilhelm II’s father, Frederick III had not developed throat cancer and had reigned longer than three months? His wife lived to 1901, (Frederick died in 1888, IIRC), so what part could he have played in Europe? What impact would he have had? (He was a liberal – not as much as his wife, Vicky, but the exact opposite of his father and son, at least)
Maybe, maybe not. Russia might have stepped in anyway to aid plucky little Serbia the same way France and the UK stepped in to aid plucky little Belgium. The trap was already in place, and someone somehow was almost certainly going to spring it.
The current heir/pretender to the throne of Hanover, descended from Ernest, is Ernst Augustus V, Prince of Hanover, married to Princess Caroline of Monaco, but is possibly separated from her. He potentially could reclaim the title of Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, which was the British title held by Ernest, but it’s been suspended since WWI.
If Ernest had died without heirs, the next in line would have been Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, sixth son of George III. (The first five were George, Prince of Wales, later George IV; Frederick, Duke of York; William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV); Edward, duke of Kent (father of Queen Victoria), and Ernest himself, Duke of Cumberland and later King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover.)