The fact is that neither the Duke of Edinburgh in the 19th century nor the Duke of Kent in the 20th stood any chance at all of ever succeeding to the throne of Great Britain as king. So the best prospect of a crown for either was in a foreign country, which we have seen the "branched out" family of King Christian IX of Denmark, as well as the Habsburgs and Bourbons.
Now to be sure, the former did inherit a throne; but it obviously had nothing to do with being elected or offered one. Rather, it happened because he was heir presumptive to a childless uncle, whose younger brother (Prince Albert) died without ever renouncing his succession rights to the duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
And like I said, the Prince of Wales would have inherited the said German duchy, but for making an agreement to have succession to the throne be reversionary.
One gets to wondering what would have happened had Albert lived: for then, there would have been a married couple where both the husband and wife were reigning monarchs. How do you suppose things would have panned out in the UK, then? Would Albert have left his wife and returned to Germany, in order to claim his inheritance and rule (this was a time when monarchs, even constitutional, wielded some political powers)?
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index