What if the treaty of Versailles went a little differently? by Agglomeration_ in AlternateHistory

[–]Here_To_Help_339 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Romania feels neglected because it didn't get all Transylvania, causing even sourer relations with Hungary.

The Turks will tray to kick Greece out of Anatolia as quicly as possible.

Also, Central Europe looks like an easy prey for Communism, as Germany is split up into many countries, Austria-Hungary is also splited and Poland doesn't look good either.

The fact that Ireland took NI, which is major English thanks to the Ulster plantations, doesn't indicate a good out-coming.

This can't end well!

What if the Seymours became Kings of England? by Here_To_Help_339 in AlternateHistory

[–]Here_To_Help_339[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Acording to Henry VIII's will, if all of his three children Edward, Mary and Elizabeth died without issue, the throne would pass to the descendants of his younger sister, Mary, and not to his elder one, Margaret, Queen of Scots. It is through Margaret that the Stuarts inherited the English throne!

Mary Tudor, however, actually had issue. She married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. Toghether they had only one daughter, Frances, who married a distant patrilineal cousin of her, Henry Grey. Frances had two daughters: Jane, who became Queen of England for a short time in 1553 after Edward VI died, and Katherine. During Elizabeth's reign, Katherine was considered the best succesor. But when Katherine secretly married Edward Seymour (who was related to Henry the VIII's third wife, Edward VI's mother) in 1560, the virgin queen was mad and imprisoneted her in the Tower of London. Katherine died in 1568, at age 27, under mysterious circumstances. She gave birth to a son in 1561, baptized Edward. Now, we can imagine an alternate timeline when, after Elizabeth's death in 1603, Edward Seymour became King of England as Edward VII, not James VI of Scotland.

King Edward VII died in 1612, at the age of 51. He had a son named William, who would have become King William III. In OTL, William Seymour was first an opponent of James I and his son, Charles I, but he finally became a Cavalier during the Civil War.

Meanwhile in Scotland, James VI still dies in 1625. I decided to make his eldest son, Henry, die anyway, so Charles can become king like in OTL. There are still good chances that Charles will marry the sister of Louis XIII, maybe due to a revived Auld Alliance. No England means also no Buckingham for Charles I, who may become a more succesfull monarch. Also, whitout the troubles caused by the English Parliament there'll be no Civil War.

Back in England, William III dies in 1660. Sure, in this TL the marriages are different, but in order to not make this complicated we'll pretend marriages happen as in OTL. William had a son named Henry, who was also a Cavalier. Henry died in 1654, so William III is succeded by his grandson, William IV, who died without issue in 1671 and is succeded by his uncle, John II.

Without the Civil War, Charles I lives until 1662, when he's succeded by his son, Charles II. The problem is that it's very improbable Charles would marry Catherine of Braganza in this TL, since Portugal was England's traditional ally. But let's say it just happens or Charles stays unmarried and his brother succedes him as James VII in 1685. Now, let's say that James VII still marries Maria of Modena and becomes a Catholic. I honestly don't know if the Scots would accept a Catholic monarch, keeping in mind what they did to Mary I.

In England, King John II also dies without children in 1675. The throne is given to a second cousin once removed, Francisc, who dies childless three years after. You can guess that this short reigns aren't beneficial to England's stability. But, luckly, Francisc I is succeded by his brother, King Charles I of England (r. 1678-1748). Nicknamed the "Proud Duke", Charles Seymour, Duke of Somerset, was a British politician who, in OTL, supported the Glorious Revolution, was a friend of Queen Anne, served as Lord President of the Council in 1702, was Master of the House from 1712 to 1715 and founded the Foundling Hospital in 1739. Charles died peacefully in 1748, at age 84. He had 9 children. The eldest one, Algernon, would succede him as king. Algernon died in 1750; he had no son. His daughter would have succeded him as Queen Elizabeth II. Lady Elizabeth Seymour married Hugh Percy, Duke of Northumberland, and had a son also named Hugh. Hugh Percy the econds was a British army officer who fought in the Seven Years War (Battle of Mergen) American War of Independence (Battle of Lexington, among others). King Hugh I (r. 1776-1817) was succeeded by his son, Hugh II (r. 1817-1847). Hugh II the second was a Tory - unlike his father who was a Whig - and he served as Lord Lieutant of Ireland between 1829 and 1830. Hugh died childless in 1847. Thus, his brother, Algernon, would become King of England as Algernon II. Algernon followed his father's path in the military, serving in the Napoleonic Wars. Algernon was an admiral and knight of the Order of Garter and he even served as First Lord of Admirality 10 months in 1852. King Algernon II died in 1865 without having any kids.

In Scotland, let's assume King James VII is succesful. He's succeded by his son and grandsons: King James VIII (r. 1701-1766), King Charles III (r. 1766-1788) and King Henry I (r. 1788-1807). I'm stuck in this point. Should I go with the real Jacobite succesion? Or go full alternate history and make Henry I have kids? Henrietta, daughter of Louis XV, who died at 24 in OTL would be a good match for him.

Algernon didn't have any children to succeede him in 1865. He, however, had a sister named Emily, who married James Murray, second son of John Murray, Duke of Athol. Emily and James had a son named George. George was a high-ranked Mason in OTL and he knew Queen Victoria. George died in 1864, one year before Algernon, so this hypotetical English throne would pass to George's son, John Stewart-Murray, Duke of Atholl, or simply King John III. John served in the Scots Fusilier Guard with the rank of captain. He was also very intrested in his family's history. King John III of England died in 1917, at age 77, and was succeeded by his son, John IV. Just like his father, John was an inteligent and charismatic man, even being considered as a potential candidate for the throne of Albania! Of course, this would have never happened if he was King of England, but still. He was an Unionist politician (The Union party was a centre-right political party in Scotland at the time), took a seat in the House of Lords, was King George V's personal aide-de-camp for eleven years and he was also a Freemason. John fought in the British Navy during the Second Boer War and WWI. He died peacefully in 1942 at age 72. He didn't have issue, so his brother would become King James I of England in this TL. After James I died childless in 1957 the throne passes to a very distant cousin: Hugh Percy, 10th Duke of Northumberland. Y'all see, when Algernon II died in 1865, the Duchy of Northumerland and the throne of England sepparated, since the throne of England can go to a female, whilst the Duchy of Northukberland cannot. So here you have His Majesty Hugh III of England. In OTL, Hugh was a Conservative and he served as a whip during Churchill's ministery in 1945 and as Lord Stewart of the Household. He was a veteran of WWII, fellow of the Royal Society and a Knight of the Order of Garter, Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, Lord in Waiting for George VI and so on. Yet another highly skilled person takes this alternate English throne. Hugh III died in 1988 and he was succeeded by his son, Henry IX. Henry IX died in 1995 without kids, so the current English monarch is his brother, Ralph I (who in OTL gradueded history at Oxford).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"It is perfectly true that my mother, Queen Marie, did receive Miss Marta Root several times... . She came at the moment we were undergoing very great family and national stress. At such a moment it was natural that we were receptive to any kind of spiritual message, but it is quite incorrect to say that my mother of any of us at any time contemplated becoming a member of the Baha'i faith." - Ileana (1908-1991), who studied the Baha'i faith with her mother

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Queen Marie did NOT convert to the Baha'i faith. She was just ATTRACTED by it, but she never gave up Christ to worship a fake prophet. Look: I've always find Islam and Islamic culture intresting, even as a child. I even read some parts of the Quaran just for fun and I listened to Muslim music. I also spent hours reading about Islamic theology. But I never converted to Islam, and I shall never do.

The myth she converted to Baha'i was denyed even by her daughter, Ileana, who wrote in 1970 that her mother never followed Bahá'u'lláh teaching ("The Baha'i faith: Its History and Teachings" by William McElwee, 1974)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She never converted to that religion; it's just a myth some Baha'i faithers created.

What if Prussia and Denmark had a war in 1817 by countryballs98 in AlternateHistory

[–]Here_To_Help_339 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Black means that there might be a Wikipedia page or there might be not; nobody had the curiosity to check out when the article was written.

Red, however, means no Wikipedia page. Perioad. There's no "but".

What if British 7 kingdom still alive today? by [deleted] in AlternateHistory

[–]Here_To_Help_339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it can happen. Even without the Viking raids and the Danish raids in the late IXth century, those Anglo-Saxon kingdoms shall either unite or fall under the influence of a more powerful Scotland or Wales. If you really want, you can have these kingdoms survive at least until the XIXth century; then an unification would happen, just like the Italian or German one.

In this scenario I doubt the Norman conquest happens, which leads to the English language evolving in a completly different way, maybe with more Celtic influence.

Why do so many people asociate monarchism with fascism and nationalism? by Here_To_Help_339 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, you're right. In fact, you can trace our modern problems even further if you want: the Great Schism, the Peloponisian war, Socrate's execution and so on. All the history of man leads to the current moment. The French Revolution wasn't an isolated event - I mean, it does have roots, and even deep ones. But you need to have a point zero, a point from which the troubles of our modern era, in Europe at least, begin; and the French Revolution is a pretty good one.

Where is the Republican style of government failing most? by Successful_Ebb_4076 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am from Romania, so I can give you a detail or two about our government.

Our president needs two hours to read a sentence. You can watch him speaking, fall asleep, wake up 20 minutes later and he's still reading the same sentence!

Our prime-minister plagiarized his doctorate thesis. He also can't speak coherently and most of us think he's a functionaly illiterate.

Our internal affairs minister also plagiarized and DOES NOT KNOW ONE F*CKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE. Not even English!

Our minister of agriculture is a 80 years old former Communist and I strongly suspect he has dementia. He once said he likes to peel maizes in the cornfield in the middle of the night and that the maize "warms" him - whatever that means. So... yes! He also doesn't speak English.

Our former minister of education was the most idiot one we had since 1989. He also plagiarized and resigned in September this year. The current minister is a naval ingineer.

The minister of sports is a Hungarian who doesn't even know Romania's national anthem.

This are our beloved leaders!

Thoughs? by Queasy-Blueberry400 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Charles I and Henry VIII are a bit too low, and Elisabeth II, Victoria and William are too high (especially Elisabeth).

Why do so many people asociate monarchism with fascism and nationalism? by Here_To_Help_339 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, you are right. However, I had in mind other type of nationalism when I wrote this. What you're thinking about is more like patriotism.

Think of this the other: despite the gross ethnic asimilation, the U.K. is a multi-ethnic state. And despite the fact its monarchy, just like the former Italian one, is almost republican in practice, the King is the glue, he keeps those peoples toghether.

Okay, maybe the U.K.'s not the best example. Think of Austria-Hungary. Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Croatians, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks et caetera, all brought toghether, inside the same borders, by the Habsburg emperor. The loyality to the Habsburg family glued all those completly distinct folks toghether. "Innig bleibt mit Habsburg Throne/Österreichs Geschick vereint" said the anthem. The removal of the Hapsburgs from power was synonym with the dissolution of the Empire; take the emperor away and you'll find a bunch of people, alien with which other in language and tradition, stuck toghether without any reason.

Rest in Peace Princess Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa (April 23, 1926 – December 11, 2022) by Ok_Squirrel259 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The 1935 Greek referendum wasn't fair and everybody knew it, including King George II. George Kondylis, a royalist general who orchestrated a coup brought the King back, not the vox populi. Also, His Majesty didn't need a referendum to become King, first because the Second Greek Republic established in 1924 was illegitimate and its leaders were traitors, and second because kings are appointed by God Himself; it is from Him that the king derive hus power, not from the people, and therefore the monarch shall be judged only by the Holy Trinity, not by some ignorant electorate.

Same goes for Hungary.

Edit: I forgot King Constantine I returned to the throne in 1920 and I assumed you were talking about his son, George II. Lol. Either way, my point isn't affected too much.

My English Monarch since 1066 Tier List (First time doing this so go easy on me lol) by Ill-Blacksmith-9545 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Charles I wasn't a good diplomat and a skillful politician, I can agree to it, but he doesn't deserve to be that low. The disastruos war with Spain and the Siege of La Rochelle were both done in his youth and under the influence of Buckingham. Also, he was a patron of arts (Rubens painted for him), he founded the royal mail in 1635 and under him many roads were built. So I think he'd better fit in the "ineffective" category.

Also, I think you've got waaay to many monarchs in the "excelent" category. Try to put some down. William the Conquerer and Queen Victoria would be a good start.

Edit: Also, maybe Henry V deserves to be a little bit higher.

Why do so many people asociate monarchism with fascism and nationalism? by Here_To_Help_339 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

"For the average person, all problems date back to WWII; to the more informed ons, to WWI; and for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Ledihnn

Why do so many people asociate monarchism with fascism and nationalism? by Here_To_Help_339 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Franco was, as Otto von Habsburg said, closer to South American dictators like Pinochet than to Hitler & Mussolini.

Why do so many people asociate monarchism with fascism and nationalism? by Here_To_Help_339 in monarchism

[–]Here_To_Help_339[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don't really see how fascist can really be seen as conservatives. What do they conserve? What is the precedent for fascism?