PC: George VI dies, wartime coronation in 1944?

[trekchu]

While writing my AAR I began to map out a chapter in detail. The main question is: Since George VI died in a UXB explosion in 1942 there is a regency for Elizabeth until she turns 18 in 1944. By now it's early 1943 and I figured that No.10 and the Palace would start asking the same question. Do a full-on coronation (adjusted for wartime of course in terms of Fighter Command putting everything that flies into the air and some other things) or defer things until after the war? Since my usual go-to guy is on holiday I figured I'd ask here.

Help is apprechiated.

 

[stodge]

Thoughts...

I don't believe there is a requirement to have a Coronation on or about a particular time. In OTL, the Coronation was held 15 months after Elizabeth II became Queen. In 1066, it took William two months from defeating Harold to being crowned.

The Coronation was far more politically significant then than now of course. Edward VIII was never crowned at all. I think the Coronation would be postponed until the end of the War and would be part of the Victory celebrations - inauguration of a new era etc, etc.

I'm more concerned about the idea of simply killing off George VI (and Queen Elizabeth). I don't think Hitler wanted that at all. Had it happened accidentally, I think the German response would have been contrite in the extreme. The ramifications of killing the Monarch, whether accidentally or not, would have been considerable starting with Churchill's own resignation as a matter of honour.

 

[Ak-84]

The Germans attacked the Palace a grand total of 9 times and once nearly got the King and Queen. I don't think they would have been contrite at all. Most likely there is a regency (who?) and the yound Queen is someone the country can rally around; she too has suffered loss. After the war, well Hugh Dalton might become Foreign Secretary in 1945; one of the reasons he did not become the same OTL was George VI loathing for him.

 

[trekchu]

It wasn't even the Germans directly that killed the King. King and Queen were inspecting a supposedly safe and cleared area when the bomb exploded. It had been missed and was detonated by a group of nutters who were promptly show the leniency of MI5. As far as the public knows, it was an accident.

There is indeed a Regency, by Princess Mary.


Anyway, keep the opinions coming.

 

[Magniac]

As mentioned, the coronation would be left 'til peacetime, after the war is finished against Japan (this isn't like the general election).

If we want to be Machiavellian about it we could posit Churchill being willing to hold a coronation in late '44 in the event of D-Day failing, but that's purely speculative.

There is indeed a Regency, by Princess Mary.

Okay, it's your story, but I question the plausibility of this.

The Princess Royal is behind the dukes of Gloucester and Kent in the line of succession. Prince Henry was a serving military officer during the war, he was also governor general of Australia towards the end of hostilities.

I don't think the Cabinet would pick anyone but Henry to be regent.

 

[ljofa]

The Queen had to wait 15 months for her coronation on the off-chance that the Queen Mother was unexpectedly preggo with Elizabeth II's baby brother. That shaves 9 months off the wait at the very least.

 

[trekchu]

Magniac Well, there won't be a D-Day as we know it. This thing has an pre-1910 PoD with a tight butterfly net in place around No.10 and the Palace (Hey, I started the AAR before I became a regular poster here!) and because Britain is considerably stronger (ecomically and militarily) we already have substantial Allied Forces on the continent by the time the King Dies.



Princes Mary was picked by the Cabinet due to a different succession law and because of the top-five candidates she was the only one who could be gotten a hold of quickly (part of the new act).


OOC explanation is that I as a furriner and continental just grabbed the next brit I could get a hold of, asked him who he would have the cabinet select and went with what I was told. Hey, I live in a Republic!

ljofa Not an issue here. The Queen Mother died in the same 'accident'.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The Queen had to wait 15 months for her coronation on the off-chance that the Queen Mother was unexpectedly preggo with Elizabeth II's baby brother. That shaves 9 months off the wait at the very least.

I strongly doubt that. In fact, I think that is wrong.

 

[Ak-84]

Thats only happened once. When William IV died the succession proclaimation announced that Victoria would be Queen except in the unlikely case that the now Dowager Queen had a child in the next few months. But Queen Adelaid was young enough to have children, the Queen Mum was fifty two when the King died, it was obvious that she could not have anymore kids.

 

[ljofa]

The world record was a woman age (last time I checked) 56 for giving birth without any medical assistance so the Queen Mother in 1952 could have been pregnant though yes, it's very unlikely she'd still be capable of producing children.

This was also a question on HIGNFY which ended up in a Spitting Image sketch - what if George VI had some sperm frozen which were used to impregnate the Queen Mother long after his death and happened to be a boy - what would that do to the line of succession?

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Wow interesting....

My first thought is no Coronation. There is absolutely no way they are going to take the risk with the Queen’s life. She will be completely shielded away from harm.
Plus I bet Elizabeth and Margaret are packed off to Canada.
If the King and Queen die in 1942, the same year, the Duke of Kent also died there is going to hysteria about the safety of the Royal Family. I think Elizabeth will have to go.
The Duke of Gloucester will be regent; it will always be a man. Queen Mary will come out of retirement at Badminton House and be the focal figure for public attention.
From a war perspective, I think the type of British bombing we saw in Dresden and Hamburg will be even greater as there will be calls for revenge.
From a history of the monarchy perspective it will catapult George VI into legendary status but will deprive Britain of one of its most memorable Queen Consorts in the late Queen Elizabeth.
If Elizabeth II inherited in 1942, we would be celebrating the 70th anniversary of her succession next year instead of her 60th, she’d be a shoe in to become the longest reigning monarch in European history.

 

[trekchu]

Well, this war is rather different from OTL, (again, the King and Queen officially died from a UXB that had been missed, so no direct enemy action) and I think my question has been comprehensively answered.

 

[Lord Grattan]

The Queen had to wait 15 months for her coronation on the off-chance that the Queen Mother was unexpectedly preggo with Elizabeth II's baby brother. That shaves 9 months off the wait at the very least.

That is simply incorrect ljofa. That quite extremely and remote possibility had nothing to do w/the time lag between the king's death and the queen's coronation. It is, however, unless I'm mistaken, the reason why Elizabeth was always George VI's heir presumptive rather then his heir apparent.

 

[Prince Charon]

She'd almost certainly be packed off to Canada, but its possible she might be crowned Queen of Canada during the war, and Queen of the UK later on.

EDIT: Depending on how upset the British are, she might be crowned Queen of Hanover, as well.

 

[Nae'Blis]

As mentioned, the coronation would be left 'til peacetime, after the war is finished against Japan (this isn't like the general election).

If we want to be Machiavellian about it we could posit Churchill being willing to hold a coronation in late '44 in the event of D-Day failing, but that's purely speculative.



Okay, it's your story, but I question the plausibility of this.

The Princess Royal is behind the dukes of Gloucester and Kent in the line of succession. Prince Henry was a serving military officer during the war, he was also governor general of Australia towards the end of hostilities.

I don't think the Cabinet would pick anyone but Henry to be regent.

I do not know if they would wait for the end of the war against Japan, I think they would probably decide that after V.E. day to begin preparations for the coronation. Of course assuming V.J. day occurs at the same time as historically the coronation may very well be after Japan surrenders.