Tuesday 04 January, 2005
What If...
The “Chaos Theory” posits that the tiniest
event half a world away can have enormous consequences, in the most unexpected of ways.
History is not immune from causality or the strange twists of fate. A crazy monk, a face
on a coin, an assassination, a baby’s death… these things can have unexpected,
long-lasting consequences. In fact, they can change the course of history. But what if
some of these seemingly minor, inconsequential events had never occurred?
Today, we’ll explore that subject and some of the
hypothetical situations which could have arisen if events had turned out differently. The
potential outcome is obviously speculative and up for conjecture, but there is usually
evidence to support one side or another. In this light-hearted parlour game, I’ll
tell you a few of the things I sometimes wonder about, and how I think history was
impacted. Perhaps you will see a different outcome. If so, let me know, along with some of
your own favorite “what ifs.” At the end of my column, I’ll give you some
information on submitting your choices.
What if...
What if Catherine of Aragon had given Henry VIII a male heir? Much of Henry’s
obsession with securing the succession stemmed from the lessons he had learned from his
father, Henry VII, and the bloody conflict of the War of the Roses. Henry knew full well
that a male heir would secure the Tudor line, prevent rival claimants and preclude another
devastating political conflict.
Had Catherine of Aragon given Henry a son (or two), it’s
quite likely that Henry would have remained married to her. If he had not sought to
remarry, he would never have split from Rome or created the Church of England to justify his actions. He certainly would
not have married Anne Boleyn. Yes, he probably would have continued his affairs, but it’s
unlikely he’d have had six wives. Even more significantly, there would not have been
a legitimate daughter called Elizabeth,
who would later become one of England’s
greatest monarchs.
What if...
What if Arch-duke Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914?
One might argue that, but for the assassination, the tenuous balance of power which had
existed between various rival empires would not have been upset. If World War I had not
occurred, then neither would have the political, economic and social conditions of the
interwar years, which led to World War II. And that, in turn, led to the rise of Hitler,
Nazism, the Holocaust, the spread of Stalinism after Hitler’s defeat and much more.
Even if we don’t string out causality so far down
the line, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand had other big consequences. The war which
ensued decimated much of the aristocratic class in England, triggered economic ruin in Russia, led to the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire. Some historians might argue that the economic and
social conditions in Russia would have
made Revolution inevitable, but there is little doubt that the Great War exacerbated
existing conditions and speeded up the eventual outcome.
The Great War also created much of the conditions and
problems existing today in the Middle East. In the Balfour Declaration, and some other contradictory documents such as
the Sykes-Picot treaty, the British promised all things to all people in the Middle East in return for their support against the
Ottoman Empire. Present-day Israel,
the area being fought over as Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan (formerly Transjordan)…
all these areas were impacted by British promises, both during and after the War.
In short, the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand is
perhaps the best example of the Chaos Theory. Franz-Ferdinand was not the ruler of an
Empire, and he was merely the Emperor’s nephew, albeit very close in the line of
succession. Nonetheless, his death triggered events which led to cataclysmic changes at
every level of society, and in almost every country on earth.
What if...
What if George III had agreed to taxation with
representation for the American colonies? One of the key causes of the American Revolution
was the question of taxation. The English government felt that the colonists should pay
taxes as compensation for the services and benefits which they received. The colonists
believed that they shouldn’t be taxed if they were not given political
representation.
Conflicts between the colonists and the Crown grew
worse after the French and Indian war, which severely depleted the Treasury. King George
III wanted the colonists to pay for the war through higher taxes and issued something
called the Stamp Act. The angry colonists, led by Samuel Adams and James Otis, came up
with the slogan “No taxation without representation” and petitioned the King to
revoke the Act. He didn’t. A few years later, another statute – the Townshend
Act – was enacted which taxed tea, among other daily necessities. Although the
Townshend Duties were subsequently revoked, the tea tax remained in place. A few years of
relative calm ensued, but trouble lurked under the surface:
[T]he
crises of the past decade had created incompatible mindsets on opposite sides of the Atlantic. King George III and Parliament still
faced money problems and were determined to assert their powers to tax the colonies and
regulate trade for the benefit of the entire British empire. On the other hand, the colonists' ideas about taxation without
representation, about actual versus virtual representation, about tyranny and corruption
in the British government, and indeed about the nature of government, sovereignty, and
constitutions had crystalized during this period.
The Library of Congress, The American Revolution 1763-1783, at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/features/timeline/amrev/rebelln/rebelln.html
The wheels of change were moving inexorably towards
rebellion and, eventually, towards revolution. But what if the King had agreed to provide
the colonists with a voice in Parliament when they had asked back in 1765 or at later
points in time? The decision might have diffused the seeds of resentment and prevented
them from being fanned into the flames of actual conflict.
Or perhaps not. One cannot discount the impact of
ideas, and the Age of Enlightenment had sown the seeds of intellectual questioning against
the established political order. From Russia to Europe to the Americas, revolutionary ideas about the nature of
government and its relationship to the people were being debated. The feelings held true
regardless of whether it was France or
America, Voltaire or John Hancock, a
feudal regime or the New World, a
question of daily bread or taxes on tea. In both cases, the result was the same: the Old World political model was seen as unfair,
undemocratic and inherently corrupt.
Then again, ideas are one thing, but economic reality
is another. History has shown time and time again that the masses are rarely moved to
radical revolutionary change unless their economic livelihood is on the line. Karl Marx
published Das Kapital in 1867 but few Russians actively sought revolution until
famine, huge wartime losses and an influenza pandemic turned their daily existence upside
down. That was almost fifty years later.
Clearly, ideas only go so far; but people don’t necessarily act on them until there
is no food on the table.
In short, the taxation issue probably had a greater
impact on the daily life of the American colonists than any intellectual discourse on the
nature of government. Had there been some change in the laws – even if it was only
indirect change, through political representation and the hope of softening future tax
duties – the American Revolution might not have occurred. At the very least, the
parties might have arrived at an arrangement similar to that of the British government and
the present-day Commonwealth.
If either of these two scenarios had come to pass,
history might have been very different. All it would have taken was one tiny law regarding
representation, representation in a Parliament already dominated by British aristocrats
who would have voted for their own vested interests and along party lines. They certainly
would not have supported measures benefiting far-flung colonists against the Crown, so
where was the harm? Yet that’s the very reason why, realistically speaking, the
colonists would have remained dissatisfied. Representation might have been nothing more
than a temporary band-aid on an already infected wound. We will never know one way or
another but, oh, the possibilities….
What if...
What if Charles II’s wife, Catherine de Braganza, had been able to have an
heir? The Queen’s inability to conceive and carry a child to term led Charles II to
designate his younger brother, James, as his heir. James, the Duke of York, was a Roman
Catholic and extremely unpopular.
He ascended the throne as James II in England (and James VII in Scotland), and was England’s
last Catholic monarch. His subjects distrusted him due to his religion and “Popish”
policies which they felt made him a pawn of Rome. James II was eventually deposed in “the Glorious Revolution” of
1688, and fled to France where he
lived out the rest of his life. He was replaced on the throne first by his daughter Mary
(Queen Mary II), and then by his daughter Anne. Both daughters were Protestants.
Charles II’s failure to have a legitimate heir and
his choice of a Catholic as successor triggered a chain of consequences whose impact
lingers to this day. The two interconnected events led to political statutes which changed
not only the line of succession, but also the qualifications for succession. In 1701,
Parliament passed the Act of Settlement which ensured that no Catholic would ever rule England again. It stated that, if Queen Anne had no
heirs, only descendents of Sophia, the Protestant Electress of Hanover, were eligible to
ascend the throne. It also stated that any member of the royal family who married a
Catholic would be excluded from the line of succession.
The Act changed the political landscape. Queen Anne had
no surviving heirs. Since she outlived the Electress Sophia, the terms of the Act of
Settlement kicked in. Sophia’s son ascended the British throne as George I, the first
of the Hanoverian kings. And, obviously, the line remains unbroken to this day, since the
current monarch is also one of Sophia’s descendents.
The Act’s proscriptions regarding marriage to a
Catholic also remain in effect. When Prince Michael of Kent married a Catholic, Baroness Marie-Christine Von Reibnitz, in 1978, he
immediately and automatically lost his place in the line of succession. At the time, he
was eighth in line to the throne.
Would things have been different if Charles II had had
a legitimate heir? Possibly. Although Protestantism had a strong hold in England by the 1600s, James II was not the wisest
or the best of kings. One can argue that his religion was the straw which broke the camel’s
back. Had there been a different ruler on the throne, Parliament might not have felt the
need to pass a formal rule prohibiting Catholic monarchs or marriages. At the very least,
the succession would not have passed to the descendants of the Electress of Hanover.
What if...
What if Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI had been successful in their attempt to escape France? The
initial stages of the French Revolution took place in 1789. The King and his family were
imprisoned in the Tuileries palace but life was not (yet) the horrific misery which it
would eventually become. Although the palace was a dark, dank, gloomy (and allegedly
cursed) place, the Queen was permitted a few ladies-in-waiting, her possessions, and some
minimal comforts. The King received the same treatment.
Part of the reason was a political fiction which was
thrust on the King. Although the King tried to pretend the Revolution had occurred with
his consent, few were fooled by this pretense. The simple reality was that the King was a
prisoner who had little choice but to accede to the decrees of the National Assembly.
The royal couple remained imprisoned for two years. But
in 1791, the Queen’s alleged lover, a Swede by the name of Axel Ferson, helped plan
an escape. His plan had initially called for the King and Queen to leave Paris in a small, fast coach; their children would
travel separately to avoid suspicion. But Marie-Antoinette refused to leave her children.
While her maternal instincts are understandable, her position on another issue was not.
The Queen stupidly insisted on bringing almost every possession, article of clothing, and
knickknack she owned. Between her insistence that the entire family travel together and
her wish to bring everything but the kitchen sink, there was no choice but to travel in a
large, slow coach.
The decision proved catastrophic. Not only did it slow
down the escape but it also made the royal family stand out. The overburdened coach made
it as far as Varennes, almost to the German border, when they were caught. A peasant
recognized Louis from his face on French coins! He sounded the alarm and the royal family
was captured. They were brought back to Paris under armed guard and their fate hung in the balance. The National Assembly
suspended the rights and “powers” of the King, and began to discuss abdication.
More significantly, for the first time, they began to discuss the possibility of a
Republic. And execution.
One might argue that
abdication, assassination and a republic were inevitable outcomes of the Revolution, but
there is another school of thought which disputes that conclusion. Before the royal family’s
flight, regicide was generally considered an unthinkable option which was advocated only
by the most violent of extremists. While kings
had been killed in the past, it was usually by foreign enemies, or during periods of
political upheaval, warfare or invasion. More to the point, it was usually something which
only an equal was permitted to do. As Alexander
the Great reportedly said, “only a King may kill a King.” With a few exceptions,
such as Oliver Cromwell, it was almost unheard of for a king’s subjects to kill him.
One reason was the theory of the Divine Right of Kings which argued that kings were God’s
appointed, annointed representative on Earth. To kill God’s representative….
Well, you know how the story goes.
Here, there is no doubt
that the French Royal Family’s failed escape cemented their fate. After the flight,
it was no longer possible to continue with the illusion that the King supported the
Revolution or its reforms. The moderates in the National Assembly were pushed aside by
extremists who argued that the royal family’s attempted escape proved they were
enemies of the French people. And from that point, it was only a tiny hop, skip and a jump
to demanding their heads. Literally.
How would things have ended
if the royal family had succeeded in their escape? There is little doubt that the
extremists like Robespierre would have used a successful escape to hijack the Revolution,
as he did with the unsuccessful attempt. But once the sound and fury of the Reign of
Terror ended, then what? It’s quite probable that the course of events would have
continued as they did until Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. At that point, however,
the “what if” scenario becomes interesting. If the French royal family had
survived, they would probably have sought the protection and shelter of England. After
Waterloo, it wouldn’t have been Louis XVIII, the King’s brother, who would have
been placed on the throne but his son, the young Dauphin and future Louis XVII. What would have happened then? I don’t have
the faintest clue but it’s certainly an intriguing hypothetical to contemplate.
What if...
What if Tsarevitch Alexei, Tsar Nicholas II’s heir, had not been a
hemophiliac? Nicholas and Alexandra had tried
desperately for a son, only to have four daughters until, at long last, Alexei was born.
His hemophilia was the only reason why Empress Alix turned to the mad monk, Rasputin, who
seemed able to stop Alexei’s bleeding. In Alix’s eyes, Rasputin was the only one
capable of helping and curing her young son. As a result, he gained enormous influence and
control over the Empress who treated him as her closest confidant after the Tsar himself.
No matter how debauched or depraved his actions, she looked the other way. By 1911, many
of the top positions in the government were filled with his appointees and followers.
Rasputin’s unpopularity and her refusal to curb
his increasingly degenerate behavior led to enormous scandal and vicious rumours. Gossip
ensued about Alix’s relationship with Rasputin, as well as that of her young
daughters. By 1916, things had reached a fevered pitch. The war was going badly, Russia was suffering enormous casualties, and food
was scarce. The people were beginning to mutter about the Empress’ German origins. It
was well known that the Tsar’s policies and decisions were shaped by “that
German woman,” as Alix was labeled. It was equally well known that “the German
woman” was controlled by Rasputin. People were beginning to think that Rasputin had
become the true lord of Russia, and
rebellion was in the air. Yet Alix still would not hear a word against him.
In 1916, Rasputin was murdered by a group of
aristocratic princes. But it was too late. Only a few months later, the Tsar was forced to
abdicate and the Romanovs were imprisoned. The wheels of revolution had slowly begun to
turn, leading to the tragic events of 1918.
Would things have turned out differently if Alexei had
not been a hemophiliac? I don’t believe so, given the impact of the war and Russia’s underlying economic and social
problems. However, it’s quite likely that Rasputin would not have gained power over
the Imperial couple, thereby obviating the need to assassinate him. And his assassination
was, arguably, almost as damaging as his life had been. As the Tsar’s sister, Grand
Duchess Maria Pavlova, wrote in her memoirs: “His death came too late to change the
course of events. His dreadful name had become too thoroughly a symbol of disaster. The
daring of those who killed him to save their country was miscalculated. All of the
participants in the plot, with the exception of Prince Youssoupov later understood that in
raising their hands to preserve the old regime they struck it, in reality, its final blow.”
What if...
What if Prince Charles had been permitted to marry the woman he loved from the onset? I’ve
phrased this question carefully because I’d really prefer to stay out of the endless
Charles, Camilla and Diana debates. My question is not about Charles and Diana’s
marriage but, rather, how things might have been if the marriage had never taken place.
Obviously, one thing to take into consideration is the
fact that Camilla Shand was unavailable from 1973 onwards. Camilla married Andrew Parker
Bowles while Prince Charles was away on a naval mission. By some accounts, she was mad
about Andrew Parker Bowles from the onset. Other reports, however, claim that she only
married him because she thought Charles would never propose since she didn’t fit the
bill as a suitable consort. Whatever the truth, let’s pretend that Camilla was
available and single.
What if the future King of England had married the
woman he loved from the onset? Perhaps the better question is, what if the rules about
suitable consorts had been different back then, such that Charles could have married the
one woman whom he obviously can’t be without? Charles is in his mid 50s now, but he
got married when he was 32. Although people’s characters are rather well-formed by
that age, how would he have been if he’d been in a happy marriage? How would it have
impacted his eventual reign as monarch? We’ll never know the answers to these
questions but, again, it’s something to consider.
What if...
Speaking of marriages, what if the relationship between David, The Prince of
Wales and subsequent Duke of Windsor, and Wallis Simpson had ended in a different manner?
There are numerous reports which indicate the British Establishment was more concerned
about Edward as a monarch than it was about his relationship with an American divorc�e.
For example, the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, was contemptuous of the Prince’s
overall character. And it didn’t help that Edward/David seemed to be ratifying, if
only in appearance, the Hitler regime. Quite simply, the Establishment was alarmed of what
would happen when the Prince ascended the throne.
Be that as it may, if Parliament and the Commonwealth
had agreed to a morganatic marriage or if Edward VIII had not abdicated but given up
Wallis instead, how would history be today? Would the future King have seen Hitler as he
truly was, and not just as the man who saved Germany from the brinks of an unbearable Depression and economic collapse? Or would
he have continued in his support, unaware or disbelieving of Hitler’s plans for the
Jews? Would he have continued despite inevitable opposition from his close friend and
supporter, Winston Churchill, one of the lone voices in the desert warning against the
German threat? Or would he have approved of Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy, as
did so many in positions of power at the time? More to the point, what would have happened
when war broke out, something which Hitler’s long-term plans made inevitable?
It’s impossible to know the answers to these
questions but one thing is likely: so long as there was an independent Britain, there would still be a Queen Elizabeth II.
In the early 1930s, there was a popular saying that Edward VIII, then Prince of Wales, was
not “heir conditioned.” It meant that he was sterile. The reason was that the
Prince of Wales had the mumps when he was young. Some reports even allege that he suffered
the rare occurrence of a viral outbreak on his testicles.
Regardless of location, the mumps made one thing very
clear: whether or not he abdicated, whether or not he married Wallis Simpson, it’s
quite unlikely that he would have been able to have children. Thus, his brother and his
heirs would have been next in line. And Princess Elizabeth would have eventually ascended
the throne.
What if...
What if Princess Charlotte, the daughter of the Prince Regent (later George IV) had not
died in childbirth with her baby? The Prince Regent had only one child with his wife,
Caroline of Brunswick, whom he detested. His beloved daughter, Princess Charlotte, married
Prince Leopold of Belgian in a love match. Her death in 1917 came as a huge blow to the
Prince Regent. More importantly, it changed the line of succession to the throne. After
the death of George IV, his younger brother ascended the throne as William IV. The new
King had no legitimate heirs, so his niece, Victoria, became his heir. In short, if
Princess Charlotte had not died, there would not have been a Queen Victoria.
Without Queen Victoria, and her wise consort Albert,
many of the incredible achievements of Victorian era might not have occurred. Under her
reign, there was incredible overseas expansion; Prince Albert’s brilliant handling of the “Trent Incident” which kept England out of the American civil war; there was a
long period of domestic stability, free of the internal political upheavals or profligacy
which had marked the reigns of earlier rulers; and Britain experienced an unprecedented economic boom. True, the Industrial Revolution
would have occurred regardless of the person occupying the throne, but the impact of Prince Albert’s contributions in this area
cannot be discounted.
Similarly, one cannot ignore the beneficial impact of
royal continuity. By having the same monarch on the throne for decades – especially
one who had numerous legitimate heirs– Victoria provided political stability in a way
which England had not experienced
since the George III.
More importantly, “[t]o the Empire, she brought a
dignity, style, and most important, a validation of the monarchy that had not been
witnessed since, perhaps, Elizabeth I.” Ilana Miller, Queen Victoria, http://www.victoriaspast.com/FrontPorch/queenvictoria.htm.
She wisely used her powerless position to unite the country, particularly in the political
realm where she sought to avoid the political strife which had plagued her predecessors.
She accomplished this through her style of working with her prime ministers, especially
Disraeli and Melbourne.
Victoria also united the
country in the example she set in her personal life. By emphasizing the family unit and
simple values, she seemed a more approachable monarch than the profligate, extravagant
Prince Regent or the very Germanic, early Hanover kings. The people were able to feel as though she – and her family
– were just like them, although obviously nothing could be further from the truth.
But, if Princess Charlotte had lived and given birth to a child, none of that would have
happened and England might be a very
different place today.
* * * * *
To My Readers: These are just a few of the many
“what ifs” that intrigue me. If you have any other royal scenarios which capture
your imagination, please submit them. Ideally, I’d like my column next week to be
devoted to your ideas or comments on this subject. Almost every country has a rich royal
history, so the more wide-ranging, the better.
When you write, please
let me know if I have your consent to publish your comments (with possible editing for
space or clarity) and the name/email/description which you’d like me to use in
quoting you. If you can write a brief explanation on why a certain event is important in
your eyes, all the better, but please don’t think that a long discourse is necessary.
All that’s needed is a few sentences to explain your thinking or the background of
events to other readers who might not know as much as you on a subject.
-
|
