'E’s just a cute widdle babay they said. But noooo! ‘E’s got’ big fangs and a mean streak a mile wide. Rip your throat right outta you neck!
I can’t find it but I once had a short thread about and alternate history line of succession to the monarchy.
In S M Stirling’s book “The Peshawar Lancers” time is in the early 21st century, almost a hundred and fifty years after a global disaster, when comets devestasted the northern hemishere.The British Empire, or Raj, is centered in India. The monarchy has continues from it’s original line, but the monarchs after George V are different than in our timeline. The family was evacuated from England and George was thirteen at the time. But who married who became different. George V was succeeded by a daughter, Victoria II. She was childless and a cousin became Albert I. He was followed by his daughter, Elizabeth II, and she by her son John II. In the course of the book John dies and is followed by his son, Charles III.
So I went back to figure out how that Albert got to be king. His uncle would have been George V, and George had three younger sisters, Louise, Victoria, and Maud. All would have been unmarried and presumbably evacuated with the rest of their relative. So probably Albert was the child of one of them. Who his father was was not included in the story, and his mother would have passed by the time he got the crown; It’s fun to speculate on such things.
I thought the description of Victoria II’s reign was great. Apparently she was a wild woman, who had a lot of male favorites. She was said to be “gorgeous, mad and brilliant, who wrote fine love poetry in three languages”
George V also had an older brother, Albert, who in the real world died unmarried and childless at the age of 28 (which is why George, in due course, became king). But in this alternative history he might have married and had a child, and that child (and its descendants) would have acceded to the throne in priority to any of George’s sisters and their descendants. (Plus, the child is called Albert, which might be a hint that he was the son of George’s brother Albert.)
And, on a nitpick, he wouldn’t have been “Albert I”. British monarchs aren’t given post-nominal letters unless/until there is at least one other British monarch with the same regnal name. Elizabeth Tudor was “Queen Elizabeth”. She didn’t become Elizabeth I until 1952. Queen Victoria is still just Victoria.
On the alternate history front, V For Vendetta (the comic, not the movie) briefly mentions that Zara Phillips, Princess Anne’s daughter, becomes Queen after the nuclear war that decimates Britain in the late '80s.
I hope Prince Mike doesn’t fix his nose in that timeline.
But George’s older brother was not mentioned when one character was looking at a series of royal portraits. So he must have died before Edward VII did, as in our line.
You are right, I misremembered about the numbering.
He might have died before Edward VII, but still have found the time to marry and beget a child.
In the alternative timeline, George and his family relocate to India when George is 13; Albert at that time would have been 14 or 15. He might still have died at the age of 28 in the 1889-90 flu pandemic, which was worldwide, but he could certainly have married and had one or more children in the meantime. If the marital history of other family members differs in this alternative history, why should his not also differ?
If the inheritance laws were the same, Albert’s parents would have had to be married for him to inherit the throne. No bastards need apply.
But assuming the inheritance laws were the same, a child of George’s elder brother would inherit the Crown before George.
Oddly when the Prince Edward was created Duke of Windsor he was only created Duke of Windsor. Traditionally dukedoms come with subsidiary titles (usually an earldom and a barony) for the holder’s eldest son & heir (and so on). So instead of having a courtesy title like Earl of ___ he’d have just been Lord ___ Windsor.
D’0h! Yes, of course. So this hypothetical Albert must indeed have been the issue of one of George’s sisters.
When I was house hunting 30 years ago, I saw an obviously uninhabited house which looked very suitable. Windows were boarded up and the garden overgrown, but otherwise it looked pretty okay. There was a poster attached to the front door with a phone number, so I called it.
It was explained that the owners had died intestate and efforts were ongoing to find relatives. The person I spoke to made it clear that I was one of many enquiries.
I used to drive past that house regularly and watched it gradually deteriorate, Some upstairs windows were broken and birds had moved in. There was a large tree far too close to the wall which may well have caused problems with the foundations. This was over nine or ten years.
It was eventually sold at auction for a knockdown price and now looks as smart as all its neighbours. I could never understand why the administrator hadn’t sold it after a couple of years and kept the proceeds in escrow if a relative had ever turned up.
What year did that comic come out? I was going to figure out what her number in the line of succession would have been. I know, from a book I have that in 1988 she would have been eighth in line.
The comic was published in instalments between 1982 and 1985.
In 1982 there were either 5 or 6 people ahead of her, depending on whether you measure before the birth of Prince William of Wales on 21 June 1982 or after it.
I realize I have started this down the side track, but methinks we have gone down too far? 
I don’t know that the reign of a British / Commonwealth monarch really fits in the Politics & Elections category, because their mandate is to avoid politics. And they’re not elected, but hold their positions by virtue of acts of Parliament.
Ah, but it’s the reign of King Charles, and reigning is an inherently political act. Monarchy is an intrinsically political construct.
Thanks for the dates of the comic. The book I saw the family tree in was from 1988, and I could figure from that at the time she was eighth, but William and Harry had been born. So take two places away and she would have been sixth. And now, if I read the charts correctly, she is fifteenth in line.
21st, according to Wikipedia. And who would dare to question the infallibility of Wikipedia?
That sounds better. I’ve looked at a lot of charts but some of them didn’t have, say, Andrew’s grandchild(ren) so I counted the numbers wrong. A long time ago I saw an article that had the line of succession out to five hundred or so.