Talk:Victoria I of England and Scotland

I'm going to turn this into a proposal within the next month or so. For the record, I've also discovered a mistake I made vis-a-vis the Kings of Kemr. I will first submit what I think will be a "fix" for same. Zahir 08:58, 20 December 2005 (PST)

FK Heir's Title?

I was wondering if, since the UK title of Prince of Wales is not appropriate for a whole host of reasons, if there is some other title that might go traditionally to FK's heirs? For example:

• Prince of the Scots
• (Grand) Duke of Windsor
• (Grand) Duke of Edinburgh
• Dauphin (okay, kinda odd but then Prussia's greatest award of valor was the Pour le Merite)
• Knight of Albion (an order of knighthood reserved for the royal heir alone?)
• (Grand) Duke of London

Just a thought. Zahir 07:59, 21 December 2005 (PST)

Something just occured to me ... Dauphin is literally "Dolphin", so ... how about Prince of Whales by analogy?  ;-) Nik 20:21, 23 December 2005 (PST)

First off, there is no "FK heir", since there are two kings, the King (currently Queen) of England and Scotland and the King of Kemr

Prince of the Scots is out, since A) there was never a position with that name, and B) the Scottish throne was never abolished, merely merged with the English throne

At first, I thought of Duke of Cornwall, which is a title held by the Crown Prince *here*. But, then I remembered that Cornwall is part of Kemr *there*.

And we elects our own kings, anyway, so we don't need some foreign schmuck!

Earl of Chester is another title held by *here*'s Prince of Wales. That could work as a title, perhaps "upgraded" to Duke. Duke of Rothesay is a title held by the Prince of Wales *here* in his capacity as heir to teh Scottish Throne. That could work as well. Duke of Lancaster is another possibility. *Here*, it merged with the Crown. Perhaps *there* it was made into a title of the Crown Prince, as Earl of Chester was.

So, in short, my suggestions:

• Duke of Rothesay (as heir to Scotland)
• Earl or Duke of Chester
• Duke of Lancaster

Nik 20:55, 22 December 2005 (PST)

The last would be kinda ironic since the Lancasters lost the Wars of the Roses. Heh heh. I think it should be a Scots title, so I'm inclined towards Duke of Rothesay. Zahir 21:27, 22 December 2005 (PST)

I don't think there *would* be a single title. Even *here*, the Prince of Wales uses the title Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland. *There*, there would be even more reason to have a dual title. Duke of Rothesay in Scotland and *Duke of Lancaster or *Duke of Chester in England. Or possibly simply not having a special title in England. Simply Grand Duke of England might work, too Nik 21:40, 22 December 2005 (PST)

Isn't Chester in Kemr *there*? Deiniol 04:06, 24 December 2005 (PST)

I checked. Yes it is. Zahir 22:37, 24 December 2005 (PST)

So is Lancaster. --Sikulu 08:06, 7 February 2006 (PST)

Okay! I have changed all references to the Duke/Duchess of Lancaster to that of Kent (which is southeast of London). Whew! Sure wish somebody had noticed this earlier. Thanks Sikulu! Zahir 09:02, 7 February 2006 (PST)

I was checking which parts of England were in Kemr the other day, and I noticed that Lancaster was in Kemr. Any thoughts on how this is acctually going to affect IB's history? --Sikulu 00:27, 8 February 2006 (PST)

Hmmm. Well, offhand the only detail that comes to mind is that the Wars of the Roses presumably did not involve a royal house called Lancaster. I'm absolutely sure there are others, but what they are is unclear. Guess maybe the war was between the Yorks and the Dovers? Zahir 05:16, 8 February 2006 (PST)

Actually, on closer examination of the maps (particularly the pencil drawing of Kemr), Lancaster is (just) in England. I couldn't realy tell from the other maps. Sorry, my bad. --Sikulu 07:31, 15 February 2006 (PST)

Okay. Well, anyone can make a mistake. But I'm not changing it all back. Zahir 07:51, 15 February 2006 (PST)

Just as well, realy. *Lancashire* is mostly in Kemr, and the rest (the English bit) is rather small. So, I'd not expect them to be that powerful *there*. --Sikulu 07:54, 15 February 2006 (PST)

Scandinavian Prince Consort

Did some checking. The "De la Pole" family is a very ancient one with roots in Wales/Kemr. I've found nothing about Albert de la Pole save that he was supposed to be the husband of Queen Victoria (and a suggestion, to my mind legally unworkable) that he succeeded her on the throne of the FK. To make him seem a better match for the young Queen, and more in keeping with IB in general, how does this sound?

Albert de la Pole is the son of a younger son of the Earl of Suffolk. His father, Lord Peter de la Pole, wed a member of the Scandinavian royals (presumably a love match). So Albert is technically a very prestigious Englishman and would move in the same social circles as the young Queen Victoria during the Regency.

What do you think? Zahir 13:07, 22 December 2005 (PST)

This article is up for de-proposalizing. Anyone have any comments, questions, suggestions, corrections, etc.? Zahir 09:43, 30 January 2006 (PST)

Critical Question (sorry!)

Is this based on Victoria *here*? I know there was some level of difference. (Sorry, I'm not too keen on the royals...a republican, after all. ;) ) Are you sure she mothered royals around Europe? BoArthur 18:10, 6 February 2006 (PST)

She is somewhat based upon Victoria *here* but with several major differences. She was not raised by her mother at the outskirts of the Royal Court, for example, and she married an Englishman rather than a German cousin. Neither was she an only child who barely knew her royal relatives. This Victoria didn't become a widow who remained for decades in the depths of mourning, nor did she blame her husband's eventual death (assasination rather than fever, and many years later) on their son and heir--who was quite different from Edward, Prince of Wales in several ways. So many of Europe's royals are essentially the same vis-a-vis this era it made sense to me to keep several of Victoria's children (like Wilhelm II's mother) while "replacing" others (the daughter who in IB becomes Rhoberth II's Queen) and inventing at least one (the Heir who died, which is really taken from George V's real life). The importance of the reign is essentially the same, as are the dates (almost). Does that answer your question? Zahir 19:35, 6 February 2006 (PST)

It seems (according to my addled memory) that there was some good level of discussion of this on the Yahoo! Group. Have you looked it up at all, by chance? That would be my only comment before completely signing off on this very fine article. BoArthur 21:14, 6 February 2006 (PST)

I did look things up in the Yahoo Group, making a thorough search of the name "Victoria." Hence the name "Albert de la Pole" as well as a few other details, such as her successor being named Albert and her brother being King of Kemr. The one suggestion made I kinda nixxed was that Victoria's husband succeeded her, which just makes no legal sense. Zahir 21:21, 6 February 2006 (PST)

But...but...but....okay. :) I figured you would've done so. You have my official stamp of approval! (that's worth so very much, I'm sure....(that last bit's sarcastic, btw.)) BoArthur 21:27, 6 February 2006 (PST)

Scandinavian Relations

The article mentions that Prince Albert Victor Richard, who married Princess Alexandra of the Scandinavian Realm, had a daughter, Princess Maud, who became Queen Consort of Norway. However, Norway *there* is in personal with the Danish royal family. She may very well have married Prince Carl, but he never became Haakon VII, King of Norway, *there*. Thus, she could not have become Queen Consort of Norway.

This reminds me... what about King Christian IX? The article on Victoria mentions that she had several children, who wedded royals throughout Europe. But this does not compare to King Christian IX of the same period, who became known as the father-in-law of European royalty. His many children not only wedded royals throughout Europe, almost all of them became monarchs in their own right. I'd like to keep it that way. So perhaps Prince Carl and Princess Maud were elected to some other throne other than Norway.

Boreanesia 05:56, 15 February 2006 (PST)

I did some checking and I came across the interesting detail that *here* Victoria was called the "Grandmother of Europe" whereas Christian IX was called the "Father-in-law of Europe." So in and of itself that is no conflict. Both existed *here* so both could exist *there*. However--obviously--the bit about Maud and Prince Carl certainly is a conflict. My apologies. I think the simplest way to deal with this is to eliminate any mention of Maud and Carl. Unless you have an objection, that is what I'll do. Zahir 06:52, 15 February 2006 (PST)