• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Those who died young... don't

Stateless

Statey and Skinless in Da Führerbungalow
#21
Doesn't Ronald Cartland come up in a work of ah? It's presumably going to have been a SLP published title.

Stephen Milligan might be interesting. He was a 'rising star' in the Conservative Party at the time of his death by auto-erotic asphyxiation, but I do wonder whether he would have had a career better than, say, David Willetts - out of government during the prime of his career.
 

Skinny87

SLP Health and Safety Officer (Internet)
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
#22
Doesn't Ronald Cartland come up in a work of ah? It's presumably going to have been a SLP published title.

Stephen Milligan might be interesting. He was a 'rising star' in the Conservative Party at the time of his death by auto-erotic asphyxiation, but I do wonder whether he would have had a career better than, say, David Willetts - out of government during the prime of his career.
Literally, literally writing a post about him for this thread just now

Cartland is the MP I want to eventually do a long-form timeline about, as I've included him in some vignettes previously
 

Stateless

Statey and Skinless in Da Führerbungalow
#23
Literally, literally writing a post about him for this thread just now
"Stephen Milligan put down the orange and bin bags. 'No,' he thought. 'There are better ways to bring about reform of the Conservative Party to ensure that John Major can continue to be Prime Minister after 1997.'"

EDIT: You didn't have the Cartland bit when I started this post.
 

Kato

Resolved
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
#27
Both Alexander II and III died early:

Alexander II: Alexander was planning on taking the first small steps towards a constitution (the first Russia would have ever had), but was killed the very day he signed the decree. His successor, Alexander III, was ultra-reactionary and killed the idea of constitutional reform until the 1905 Revolution forced the issue. Alexander II living could have pushed Russia in a more liberal, constitutional direction, possibly averting the Revolution.

Alexander III: Alexander III made the mistake of not teaching his son Nicholas II anything about statescraft, assuming that he would have years to teach Nicholas. Alexander III died of kidney disease in 1894, several decades earlier than expected. Had Alexander III lived Russia would have had a more stable and smarter leadership during the crucial years of the early 20th century (given that he died at 49 he could easily have lived until 1914). And while Nicholas was temperamentally unsuitable to be Tsar, getting an education in how to lead may have allowed him to at least not be completely terrible.

I've considered playing around with the fate of Alexander III as a butterfly to my current story, but I don't know enough about his specific disease to know how avertable it is - and what year might be considered the point of no return. As you say the "competant reaction" of Alexander III would play out very differently to the style of his son.

Continuing the late 19th Century monarchs theme - Frederick III of Germany used the be an 'overdone' one, I imagine due to a combination of his 80-day OTL reign, his supposed pro-liberal, pro-British inclinations, and the succession ultimately passing from him to William II. That said I don't think anyone has ever made a proper go of it. It'd be interesting to see what directions German foreign policy takes a world where Frederick averts/survives his throat cancer. I'd imagine a less abrupt shift from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik - though Bismarck's career is probably over even sooner than OTL, giving him more time to bend the ear of an impatient Crown Prince.

Albert Victor ("Prince Eddy") is the classic British example from the same era, but to invert the premise of this thread his younger brother Prince George (OTL George V) was also seriously ill only a few months before Albert Victor died. If the other brother had lived, or if both had died, the 20th century evolution of the British constitution might have followed a very different path.

All of this is of course going on while the alliance blocs and militaries of WWI are being built up - in an era where monarchs have much more power over their respective countries' policies than in the following century
 

Geordie

Member of Parliament for the Valley of Old Swazz
Published by SLP
#28
I've considered playing around with the fate of Alexander III as a butterfly to my current story, but I don't know enough about his specific disease to know how avertable it is - and what year might be considered the point of no return. As you say the "competant reaction" of Alexander III would play out very differently to the style of his son.

Continuing the late 19th Century monarchs theme - Frederick III of Germany used the be an 'overdone' one, I imagine due to a combination of his 80-day OTL reign, his supposed pro-liberal, pro-British inclinations, and the succession ultimately passing from him to William II. That said I don't think anyone has ever made a proper go of it. It'd be interesting to see what directions German foreign policy takes a world where Frederick averts/survives his throat cancer. I'd imagine a less abrupt shift from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik - though Bismarck's career is probably over even sooner than OTL, giving him more time to bend the ear of an impatient Crown Prince.
I've only ever seen Frederick III used as a vehicle for wish fulfilment, to be honest.

In the TLs that use him, he either becomes a Beautiful and Attractive Progressive, or becomes obsessed with submarines, and other things that end up providing just the tech advantage needed to stick it to perfidious Albion in a later conflict.
 

Kato

Resolved
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
#29
I've only ever seen Frederick III used as a vehicle for wish fulfilment, to be honest.

In the TLs that use him, he either becomes a Beautiful and Attractive Progressive, or becomes obsessed with submarines, and other things that end up providing just the tech advantage needed to stick it to perfidious Albion in a later conflict.
Yes, very much this in my experience. Its a shame because he needn't be all that different from a typical run of the mill conservative Hohenzollern monarch - though still distinct from his son - to greatly change the diplomatic set up of the Great Powers. A more cautious Germany, or even one weakened by factionalism within the government, or disagreement between Kaiser and Chancellor, is narratively more interesting than "WI Frederick III was basically Gladstone".
 

Ciclavex

Baron Ciclavex of Wales-on-Schuylkill
Moderator
Patreon supporter
Location
New Sweden
#30
I've only ever seen Frederick III used as a vehicle for wish fulfilment, to be honest.

In the TLs that use him, he either becomes a Beautiful and Attractive Progressive, or becomes obsessed with submarines, and other things that end up providing just the tech advantage needed to stick it to perfidious Albion in a later conflict.
Though most TLs I’ve seen go way too far, obviously, it’s hard for a long-reigning Frederick III not to come across as a British liberal’s wet dream Emperor in any realistic scenario. This is the man who loudly objected to almost every war of German Unification that Bismarck started, getting into actual, public arguments with his father over them, a man who would literally, openly represent the United Kingdom at state functions in Berlin while also being the Crown Prince of Germany, and a man who openly and loudly defended Jewish Germans during the disemancipation movement in the 1870s, to the disdain of the Junkers, and the open denunciation of his own son, who thought it beneath a noble to do so (and in many cases, including his son, quietly or not so quietly favoring disemancipation because The Jews Control Everything), and very much angering the voelkisch types in the government and the state church.

People do take it way too far, of course, but it’s frankly nearly impossible to see him being just another Prussian Conservative.
 
#31
Albert Victor ("Prince Eddy") is the classic British example from the same era, but to invert the premise of this thread his younger brother Prince George (OTL George V) was also seriously ill only a few months before Albert Victor died. If the other brother had lived, or if both had died, the 20th century evolution of the British constitution might have followed a very different path.
I can't recall precisely what the rules of succession are. If it's daughters before uncles, then it'd be Edward's eldest daughter Louise and the future King would be Alexander, 1st Duke of Fife. His being a Liberal MP during the 1870s would change things, however, as he'd possibly delay far less than George over offering Asquith the mass-appointment of Peers after December 1910. Assuming he doesn't sink on a ship ITTL, the Unionists would be very bitter in such a case and without hope of a Royal Prerogative sinking the bill, may go nihilistic on the idea that the government can only be removed by armed revolt in Ulster.

A fun scandal, if he does die like OTL and the constitutional crisis kept him busy, is his daughter/heir marrying the youngest Prince of Greece. IOTL, both parents vetoed the marriage, but let's say Alexandra pulls a Edward VIII (especially as said Greek Prince apparently feared becoming a King) and the succession falls to Princess Maud. Now let's say she has her marriage be as it was IOTL.

Because then things get fun.

Her husband-a Charles Carnegie, 11th Earl of Southesk-IOTL had a certain neighbour who he was close to and even made a Warden of a Right Club said neighbour founded. That neighbour went by the name of Archibald Maule Ramsay. For those who don't know him, Google him, and those who do, you may now proceed to panic. He defended said neighbour even after World War 2, I might add. Presuming we're killing butterflies here, having a King who's on the far-right would create a couple of awkward questions from the early 1920s-1990s, going by said King's lifespan. If he was made Prince-Consort, which makes trouble but not as fun as a King, then we have James Carnegie as King until 2015 and then David Carnegie. Assuming that a much more potent republican movement hasn't emerged and ended the Monarchy.

So now I understand why the Dead Babies Society finds these things so much fun.

EDIT: So technically, most of the Kings would be Prince-Consorts, but I presume that Duff would have some influence and Charles' presence alone would be troubling.
 
Last edited:

Elektronaut

Now The Kids Are Up
#32
Stephen Milligan might be interesting. He was a 'rising star' in the Conservative Party at the time of his death by auto-erotic asphyxiation, but I do wonder whether he would have had a career better than, say, David Willetts - out of government during the prime of his career.
He was pretty pro-European, so. The pro-European types of that political generation who've managed to keep on trucking have done it by being backroom boys. He might have a Lidington-like career.

More interesting, particularly given the seat he occupied, is doing what much of the senior federalist old guard did at the end of the nineties and go yellow.
 
#33
One major instance of someone dying young and probably changing the course of European as well as British history is Henry VII's eldest son Arthur - who died aged 15 in 1502 of the 'sweating sickness', a virulent epidemic that kept on breaking out (especially in summer) in Tudor times - thus making his younger brother Henry (VIII) the heir. He was already somewhat delicate and known to be thin and less athletic than the robust Henry, and the Tudor males had a tendency towards chest problems that often broke out into TB (which accounted for his father aged 52 and for Henry VIII's two sons, Edward VI and the illegitimate Henry Fitzroy, aged 15 and 17). So he was not likely to be as active as King as Henry was and leading a major military campaign or catching an infection as an adult would be a risk, but he could easily have lived into his 20s or 30s and fathered an heir (male?) by his wife Catherine of Aragon (who married Henry after his death). C had problems bearing a live child, but was already 24 and weakened by obsessive religious fasting as a devout Catholic by the time she married Henry; she married Arthur aged 16. So she could have an heir by Arthur who succeeds him, and Henry never becomes King (except by deposing his nephew/ niece, Richard III-style, if Arthur dies young?

No Henry as king, but 'King Arthur II' - a young man already known for his scholarly interests, cautious character, and as a meticulous hard worker, like his bureaucratically-minded father. By contrast, the flamboyant and easily bored Henry VIII left a lot of business to his chief minister Cardinal Wolsey as a young man - so Arthur would be more dominant in domestic governance than the young Henry and W would not achieve such pre-eminence. Nor would A be likely to be so obsessed with attacking France and regaining Henry V's empire there. With a child or two and no need to secure the throne, no divorce of Catherine so no Break With Rome? England stays Catholic and keeps monasteries, though possibly tolerating a growing Protestant minority like France did initially; Henry marries a sister of Habsburg Emperor Charles V as planned by his father and stays Duke of York, and Anne Boleyn is at best his mistress. Thomas More keeps his head; so does Thomas Cromwell who is the efficient centralising chief minister to autocratic King Arthur after Wolsey? But would persecution of the Protestants break out under a devoutly Catholic child of the Spanish Queen Catherine, and England be aligned to the European Counter-Reformationary Catholics like its next king's cousin Philip II of Spain in the mid-late C16th? Then Arthur's and Catherine's line dies out due to weak health, and Henry's more robust half-Habsburg children take over?

Another thought on alternative Tudors - if Edward VI does not succumb to TB so young but live into his 20s/30s, he could as a fervent Protestant intervene in the French religious civil wars in the 1560s - in real life Queen Elizabeth was cautious and only sent a small army. This tips the balance on his precarious health and he dies, c. 1564, leaving at best an infant daughter by his (real life intended bride) wife Elizabeth of France. Elizabeth Tudor succeeds aged 30/31, but by then has (secretly?) married Robert Dudley, whose wife died in 1560 (fell down some stairs but was apparently already seriously ill). So Elizabeth has children and the Tudor line continues? No union with Scotland in 1603?
 
#34
A few less unexpected early deaths, and England in 1066 would have presented a rather different target for Duke William of Normandy - and he might have hesitated about tackling its rulers , not least as none of them are likely to have asked him to be their successor as Edward 'the Confessor' was alleged to have done for him c.1051. (In real life, Edward had no son and only one, untraceable nephew at the time and he needed W's help to fend off the exiled earl Godwin, father of the later King Harold II who took the throne after Edward died in Jan 1066. W is then supposed to have been 'cheated' by Harold taking the throne when E died.)

As of 1016-35, the old Anglo-Saxon royal family of England had been driven off the throne by Cnut (Canute), king of Denmark; he invaded England in the time of Edward the Confessor's father Ethelred (known as 'Unraed' ie 'Badly-Counselled', nicknamed later 'The Unready') in 1014 and after Ethelred died defeated his son Edmund 'Ironside' at Ashingdon in 1016. They divided England in two, but weeks later Edmund died (possibly murdered) and Cnut took it all; Edmund's infant sons and his half-brother Edward 'the Confessor had to go into exile. Cnut ruled Denmark too, conquered Norway, and had the greatest fleet and army in NW Europe, so the Dukes of Normandy could not challenge him; to make sure he married the duke's sister Emma of Normandy, mother by Ethelred of Edward the C. and great-auntof the later William the Conqueror. Cnut died in 1035, aged only 40-45; his father and grandfather had lived into their fifties(probably) and his great-grandfather into his late sixties.

Cnut had three sons, but they divided his empire up and all died young. His son Harold I took England after a dispute with his half-brother (Cnut's son by Emma) Harthacnut, successor to Denmark, but died in 1040 aged c.25; Harthacnut took over England too then died suddenly at a banquet in 1042, aged c.24; and Swein, Harold's brother, was thrown out of Norway by local rebels and died mysteriously soon afterwards. With the family extinct, Emma's son by Ethelred, Edward, returned to the English throne in 1042,married his chief minister Godwin's daughter, but had no children. Hence the alleged offer to William - and Edward's nephew , ie Edmund's son, was later located and brought to England but died suddenly in 1057 aged c.42 so the 'Harold Godwinson vs William' situation of 1066 was set up.

But for five early deaths (Cnut, Harold I, Harthacnut, Swein, and Edmund Ironside's son Edward) and Edward the Confessor having no children, William would have been facing either a united kingdom of England and Denmark - plus their combined fleet - or Edward theConfessor's son in 1066 and could no have had any realistic legal claim of Edward having named him as successor. Invasion would just have been a 'smash and grab' raid, with no useful propaganda of 'I was cheated by Harold Godwinson' and no backing from the Pope, and would have been even more of a gamble. Would he have bothered, especially if he faced the Danish army/fleet too - or would England have remained culturally orientated to the Scandinavian world?
 
#35
An earlier POD for the chances of a semi-Parliamentary constitutional order in Russia (and also for no disaster under Nicholas II) is over what would have happened if Nicholas' father Alexander III had never succeeded to the throne. That would have happened if Alexander's older brother Nicholas, born 1843 as the oldest son of Alexander II, had not died aged 22 of spinal meningitis in 1865. Nicholas, who seems to have taken after his liberal father in politics unlike the firmly reactionary Alexander III, was being lined up in the 1860s to follow his reforming father on the throne , but had inherited his German mother Marie of Hesse's frailty - she was to die in 1880 of TB enabling her husband to marry his mistress Catherine Dolgurukya. He had problems with back pain following a riding accident in his late teens (avoidable), and shortly after being engaged to Princess Dagmar of Denmark (daughter of Christian IX and younger sister of our future Queen Alexandra) in 1865 fell ill on a 'Grand Tour' of Europe. His problems and their seriousness were misdiagnosed, and he collapsed and later died of spinal meningitis at Nice in France, with his and Dagmar's practical families proceeding to marry her off a year later to his next brother and heir, Alexander (who succeeded as A III when A II was blown up in 1881) - as when Queen Victoria's son Edward's eldest son Albert Victor died in 1892 his fiancee Mary of Teck was passed on to his brother George (V).

The Czarevich Nicholas was not an out-and-out reformer and had had doubts over the 1861 liberation of the serfs leading to chaos, so the student disorders and revolutionary terrorist groups of the 1860s and late 1870s could well have put him off 'fast tracked' reforms as planned by his father. As Czar after his father's murder he could have listened to his conservative younger brothers Valdimir, Alexis and Sergei as Alexander III did in real life, but he was more intelligent and flexible than A and less likely to cancel all the planned 1881 constitutional reforms - or if he did he could have resumed them later after destroying the revolutionary groups. The plan of 1881 was for consultative local elected councils , not a proper 'parliament' with any power (yet), but this could have served as a 'safety valve' for the educated middle classes and N was not hostile to any reform of autocracy on principle as A III (influenced by his anti-Western tutor Pobodonestzev) was .

Even if the lack of a proper parliament later caused more agitation and the repressed industrial workers were still a long term problem and fodder for the radical socialist groups, Nicholas had the talent to be far more flexible than the real life Nicholas II was in the 1890s. As N not Alexander III would have married Dagmar, the real life Nicholas II would not have been born . Even if his poor health had not led to a long reign (he would have succeeded aged 38) and Russia ended up with a regency by his brother Alexander before his presumed son (born c. 1870?) was adult, Russia would have been in a better position than it was in real life. If N had given full confidence to Alexander II's reformist 1881 chief minister General Loris-Melikov , a consultative 'Duma' (parliament) would have been possible in the later 1880s ready to gain extra powers later. And would the less militaristic Nicholas have kept his generals in their place and avoided the disastrous Japanese war of 1904-5 (or been ruthless about restructuring the army and navy so they put up a better performance in war), so no defeat and revolution then? Or an Emperor less interested in pan-Slav' solidarity than the real Nicholas II was, so he came to an amicable agreement with Germany and Austria-Hungary about spheres of influence, ignored the war office 'hawks', educated his heir to be cautious, and did not try to turn the Balkans into a Russian zone by strong support for Serbia (eg in 1914?).
 

Avalanches

(281) 330-8004
Location
Tampa, FL
#36
This is a bit of an inverse of the topic at hand here, but I couldn't think of a better thread to put this in(if it's not the right the place, I'll gladly remove it) - Caroline Kennedy was nearly killed by an IRA car bomb intended for Tory MP Hugh Fraser.

Now obviously this leads to the idea of the Kennedy Curse being more prominent in American culture, but this could have serious effects in Ireland during the Troubles, seeing how the murder of the 17 year-old daughter of a martyred President isn't the best thing for PR. A crackdown on American gunrunning for the IRA would be sped up as the FBI was already investigating NORAID in 1975, and Gadaffi's support for the IRA would come under closer scrutiny. If the bomb killed Kennedy, Ted could plausibly ride a wave of public sympathy right before the '76 Primaries and take the nomination and the Presidency with relative ease. Hell, with Fraser dramatically killed after standing for the Leadership a few months before, Thatcher could see her stock rising in the aftermath. There's a lot going on here.
 
#37
If Edward IV of England (born 1442, reigned 1461-70, 1471-83), head of the House of York, had not died young there would have been no Richard III, no 'Princes in the Tower' conspiracy industry, and probably no Tudors. Tall - over 6 feet - and physically strong, charismatic, a skilled warrior and general, and resembling his daughter's son Henry VIII, Edward also had a reputation as a womaniser and ruthless traits. Like Henry he seems to have been sporadically lazy and to have become overweight in middle age, and his controversial marriage to the 'Lancastrian' faction widow Elizabeth Woodville (5 years older than him and of gentry status not noble or royal, though with distant European royal blood) had already led to a split with his cousin and chief backer the Earl of Warwick ('the Kingmaker') who overthrew him in 1470. (This is the background to the TV series 'The White Queen' with EW as the said queen, but the stories of witchcraft etc in it from Philippa Gregory's books are unlikely and probably only propaganda by her enemies.)

Edward fled to the Netherlands but later fought his way back to power, aided by his youngest brother Richard of Gloucester (ie R III), killed off his Lancastrian rival Henry VI and the latter's son plus Warwick, and seemed set for a long reign. He had two sons and six daughters and no discernible rivals.. then he died suddenly aged nearly 41 in April 1483 and left his throne to a boy of 12, Edward V. Elizabeth Woodville's family and Richard feuded over the regency, Richard won, Edward V was deposed on an allegation of his parents' marriage being bigamous so he was a bastard, and R became King. Edward and his brother Richard of York, aged 10, were kept in the Tower of London for 'security' (probably due to genuine Woodville plots to free them and depose Richard not just as an excuse), and disappeared, and this wrecked R III's reputation among a large section of the Yorkist faction. After one failed revolt their mother Elizabeth W agreed to her eldest daughter Elizabeth of York marrying the last Lancastrian claimant, Henry VI's exiled nephew Henry Tudor. R III's only son then died aged c.10, destabilising his regime further. HT invaded in 1485 aided by France (which R was threatening), and the result was the Bosworth debacle and Henry on the throne marrying Elizabeth of York - but assorted pretenders claiming to be the missing Princes in the Tower.

Although Edward IV had apparently developed a weight problem in his 30s his death was a surprise, and poison was inevitably rumoured though it was put down to a fever/chill caught fishing on the Thames at Windsor. Richard III claimed he had been weakened by years of Woodville-led debauchery. Had he lived even a few years longer his son would not have needed a regent ('Protector'), and in this era kings could normally rule unaided from the age of around 16 - which in E V's case would have been in 1487/8. The prince was bold enough even at 12 to protest at his uncle Richard arresting his relatives in 1483 so he was evidently capable, and had he become king as an adult, with a brother to succeed him if he had no children, it would have been Richard who was sidelined and under suspicion of plotting. Richard's brother Duke George of Clarence had already been executed in 1478 for apparently trying to deny Edward IV's sons the succession, and in 1447 the young Henry VI's uncle Duke Humphrey of Gloucester had been arrested and died suddenly after a 'plot'. Would Richard have gone the same way (or been killed trying to resist arrest or had to flee the country) and been merely a footnote in history , and the Plantagenet line continued under Edward V?

In the case of no Tudors, logically there would have been no royal 'Break With Rome' in the 1530s and no Reformation , but a continued Catholic England - though possibly a cash-strapped king would have closed down some monasteries to 'reform the corrupt Church' and gain extra income. The Boleyns and Seymours would have been unlikely to gain any power unless a later Plantagenet king chose a domestic not a foreign wife, which was usually ruled out due to the fear of such a match causing inter-noble jealousy and plots from defeated rivals. And would Edward V have taken more interest in John Cabot and Christopher Columbus than the preoccupied, politically unstable Henry VII did, and sponsored a greater English commitment to early exploration of the Americas?
 

TheIO

May, the normal-type gym leader
Patreon supporter
#38
In the case of no Tudors, logically there would have been no royal 'Break With Rome' in the 1530s and no Reformation , but a continued Catholic England - though possibly a cash-strapped king would have closed down some monasteries to 'reform the corrupt Church' and gain extra income. The Boleyns and Seymours would have been unlikely to gain any power unless a later Plantagenet king chose a domestic not a foreign wife, which was usually ruled out due to the fear of such a match causing inter-noble jealousy and plots from defeated rivals. And would Edward V have taken more interest in John Cabot and Christopher Columbus than the preoccupied, politically unstable Henry VII did, and sponsored a greater English commitment to early exploration of the Americas?
Given that the main cause of the Break with Rome was Henry VIII trying to divorce his wife because he didn't have any male heirs when said wife was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor who at the moment the letter arrived to the Pope was currently occupying Rome and holding said Pope hostage, it's pretty easy to butterfly; however, a Plantagenet king in the same circumstance of no male heirs has a decent chance of trying to pull the same thing as Henry VIII did.

The Columbus thing is interesting though. Did he ever approach Henry VII about reaching India via the Atlantic, or was that just Portugal and Spain?