AHC; Larger modern British Royal Family

[WorstOfHumanity]

Your challenge is to have the modern British Royal Family be as large as possible (while still being realistic) - I will draw a blurry line that to be considered 'the family' they have to be Elizabeth's descendants, though I'm not completely opposed to including Margaret's line.

Here is my attempt, just showing the generations following the oldest male heir and their children - mostly just as an attempt to squeeze another generation in before Elizabeth dies, here meeting her Great-Great-Grandchildren;

——————————————————

Queen Elizabeth II, b. 1926
m. 1944
Henry, Earl of Carnarvon, b. 1924

——————————————————

King Henry IX, b. 1945

Princess Mary, b. 1947

George, Duke of York, b. 1950

Alfred, Duke of Wessex, b. 1954

Princess Elizabeth, b. 1956

Princess Anne, b. 1958

Princess Victoria, b. 1960

Reginald, Duke of Edinburgh, b. 1964

——————————————————

King Henry IX, b. 1945
m. 1970
Margareta of Romania, b. 1949

——————————————————

King John II, b. 1971

Edward, Duke of Cambridge, b. 1973

Princess Louise, b. 1976

David, Duke of Sussex, b. 1980

Edmund, Duke of Surrey, b. 1982

Princess Eleanor, b. 1984

——————————————————

King John II, b. 1971
m. 1993
Serena Stanhope, b. 1970

——————————————————

King James VIII, b. 1995

Princess Amelia, b. 1997

Christian, Duke of Oxford, b. 2000

Princess Alice, b. 2003

Michael, Duke of Hereford, b. 2007

——————————————————

King James VIII, b. 1995
m. 2015
Rose Arbuthnot-Leslie, b. 1987

——————————————————

King Stephen II, b. 2015

Princess Charlotte, b. 2017

Princess Margaret, b. 2020

Samuel, Duke of Rothes, b. 2023​

 

[Aichi72]

Your challenge is to have the modern British Royal Family be as large as possible (while still being realistic) - I will draw a blurry line that to be considered 'the family' they have to be Elizabeth's descendants, though I'm not completely opposed to including Margaret's line.

Here is my attempt, just showing the generations following the oldest male heir and their children - mostly just as an attempt to squeeze another generation in before Elizabeth dies, here meeting her Great-Great-Grandchildren;

——————————————————

Queen Elizabeth II, b. 1926
m. 1944
Henry, Earl of Carnarvon, b. 1924

——————————————————

King Henry IX, b. 1945

Mary, Princess Royal, b. 1947

George, Duke of York, b. 1950

Alfred, Duke of Wessex, b. 1954

Elizabeth, Princess Royal, b. 1956

Anne, Princess Royal, b. 1958

Victoria, Princess Royal, b. 1960

Reginald, Duke of Edinburgh, b. 1964

——————————————————

King Henry IX, b. 1945
m. 1970
Margareta of Romania, b. 1949

——————————————————

King John II, b. 1971

Edward, Duke of Cambridge, b. 1973

Louise, Princess Royal, b. 1976

David, Duke of Sussex, b. 1980

Edmund, Duke of Surrey, b. 1982

Eleanor, Princess Royal, b. 1984

——————————————————

King John II, b. 1971
m. 1993
Serena Stanhope, b. 1970

——————————————————

King James VIII & III, b. 1995

Amelia, Princess Royal, b. 1997

Christian, Duke of Oxford, b. 2000

Alice, Princess Royal, b. 2003

Michael, Duke of Hereford, b. 2007

——————————————————

King James VIII & III, b. 1995
m. 2015
Rose Arbuthnot-Leslie, b. 1987

——————————————————

King Stephen II, b. 2015

Charlotte, Princess Royal, b. 2017

Margaret, Princess Royal, b. 2020

Samuel, Duke of Rothes, b. 2023​

Only the eldest daughter gets the title of Princess Royal and only if her father is King and the previous holder of the title has died. Also, are all the kings dying super early or are have you just included the title they would have when they acceded?

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

Only the eldest daughter gets the title of Princess Royal and only if her father is King and the previous holder of the title has died. Also, are all the kings dying super early or are have you just included the title they would have when they acceded?

Huh, I didn't know that - and I am just writing it assuming they each inherit the crown at some point - less likely, I imagine there would be at least one instance of a grandparent-grandchild inheritance given modern life expectancy, but this was just easier

 

[Captain Seafort]

Only the eldest daughter gets the title of Princess Royal and only if her father is King and the previous holder of the title has died.

Slight nitpick - it's the eldest daughter of the current monarch (assuming the title is in abeyance), not necessarily the King (Exibit A: the current holder).

 

[Aichi72]

Slight nitpick - it's the eldest daughter of the current monarch (assuming the title is in abeyance), not necessarily the King (Exibit A: the current holder).

Right, that's what I meant to write but I was half asleep when I wrote it.

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

Slight nitpick - it's the eldest daughter of the current monarch (assuming the title is in abeyance), not necessarily the King (Exibit A: the current holder).

Right, that's what I meant to write but I was half asleep when I wrote it.

This discussion led me to do a quick dive into the title and it's history; It's quite a weird one lol

Only existing because of a desire to copy the French system, and completely useless beyond being ranked 'higher' than a normal princess (which itself is largely useless beyond ceremony). I suppose it could serve a purpose if it were automatically given to the eldest live daughter of any former/incumbent monarch as a way to honour their age/history, but that isn't even the case lol

 

[jkarr]

Also, if history is still the same besides there being extra members to the family, then James would just be called James VIII, not VIII&III
This was due to the Scots bitching about Elizabeth being called the II when there hadn't being a Queen Elizabeth before for them, so during Winstons 50's ministry, they came up with the precedent of titles taking on from whoever was last, depending on which side had the highest number.

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

Also, if history is still the same besides there being extra members to the family, then James would just be called James VIII, not VIII&III
This was due to the Scots bitching about Elizabeth being called the II when there hadn't being a Queen Elizabeth before for them, so during Winstons 50's ministry, they came up with the precedent of titles taking on from whoever was last, depending on which side had the highest number.

Another nuance I hadn't heard of... Personally I think it would have made more sense to keep the numberings separate and have her be Elizabeth II & I, but that's just me

 

[CaesarKhan]

Your challenge is to have the modern British Royal Family be as large as possible (while still being realistic) - I will draw a blurry line that to be considered 'the family' they have to be Elizabeth's descendants, though I'm not completely opposed to including Margaret's line.

Here is my attempt, just showing the generations following the oldest male heir and their children - mostly just as an attempt to squeeze another generation in before Elizabeth dies, here meeting her Great-Great-Grandchildren;

——————————————————

Queen Elizabeth II, b. 1926
m. 1944
Henry, Earl of Carnarvon, b. 1924

——————————————————

King Henry IX, b. 1945

Princess Mary, b. 1947

George, Duke of York, b. 1950

Alfred, Duke of Wessex, b. 1954

Princess Elizabeth, b. 1956

Princess Anne, b. 1958

Princess Victoria, b. 1960

Reginald, Duke of Edinburgh, b. 1964

——————————————————

King Henry IX, b. 1945
m. 1970
Margareta of Romania, b. 1949

——————————————————

King John II, b. 1971

Edward, Duke of Cambridge, b. 1973

Princess Louise, b. 1976

David, Duke of Sussex, b. 1980

Edmund, Duke of Surrey, b. 1982

Princess Eleanor, b. 1984

——————————————————

King John II, b. 1971
m. 1993
Serena Stanhope, b. 1970

——————————————————

King James VIII, b. 1995

Princess Amelia, b. 1997

Christian, Duke of Oxford, b. 2000

Princess Alice, b. 2003

Michael, Duke of Hereford, b. 2007

——————————————————

King James VIII, b. 1995
m. 2015
Rose Arbuthnot-Leslie, b. 1987

——————————————————

King Stephen II, b. 2015

Princess Charlotte, b. 2017

Princess Margaret, b. 2020

Samuel, Duke of Rothes, b. 2023​

I like how you had the amount of children slowly reduce with each generation, that tracks with the reality of modern families.

But you could actually add *another* generation, having 6 generations living at once even with Elizabeth's real death date. If you have each first born child marry when they turn 18 and have a child 9 months later, you get this;

Elizabeth II, b. April 1926

Henry IX, b. January 1945

John II, b. October, 1963

James VIII, b. July, 1982

Stephen II, b. April 2001

Elizabeth III, b. January, 2019

And with nearly 4 years to spare, you could fudge the dates a little to make them slightly more realistic if you wished.

I imagine to create this it would necessitate Elizabeth being a fan of arranged marriages as soon as her descendants are of age (which you could also lower and shave off a good few years given how the British age of consent is 16), but that isn't out of the ordinary for royal families. Less modern, sure, but a possibility.

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

I like how you had the amount of children slowly reduce with each generation, that tracks with the reality of modern families.

But you could actually add *another* generation, having 6 generations living at once even with Elizabeth's real death date. If you have each first born child marry when they turn 18 and have a child 9 months later, you get this;

Elizabeth II, b. April 1926

Henry IX, b. January 1945

John II, b. October, 1963

James VIII, b. July, 1982

Stephen II, b. April 2001

Elizabeth III, b. January, 2019

And with nearly 4 years to spare, you could fudge the dates a little to make them slightly more realistic if you wished.

I imagine to create this it would necessitate Elizabeth being a fan of arranged marriages as soon as her descendants are of age (which you could also lower and shave off a good few years given how the British age of consent is 16), but that isn't out of the ordinary for royal families. Less modern, sure, but a possibility.

That's true! And if Elizabeth lived to 100 (which she very well could have done), we could even have seven generations if they marry at 16;

Elizabeth II, b. April 1926

Henry IX, b. January 1943

John II, b. October, 1959

James VIII, b. July, 1976

Stephen II, b. April, 1993

Edmund III, b. January, 2010

Robert IV, b. October, 2026

Not at all realistic which is why I only went for 5 in my initial post, but still something to ponder

Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand - does anyone have any other thoughts on the initial prompt?

 

[jkarr]

Another nuance I hadn't heard of... Personally I think it would have made more sense to keep the numberings separate and have her be Elizabeth II & I, but that's just me

We only did it really because the Scots, as usual, whined til they got their own way.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Queen Elizabeth II, b. 1926
m. 1944
Henry, Earl of Carnarvon, b. 1924

——————————————————

King Henry IX, b. 1945

With Princess Elizabeth only being 18, her husband being 20 and a son born within a year the strong suspicion will be that they HAD TO GET MARRIED lest there be a scandal that couldn't be hidden.

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

With Princess Elizabeth only being 18, her husband being 20 and a son born within a year the strong suspicion will be that they HAD TO GET MARRIED lest there be a scandal that couldn't be hidden.

Probably true, but let them suspect Though given Elizabeth's nature I doubt she would do anything anyway

 

[yulzari1]

Doubtless fascinating to the sport of royal watching but would it alter history at all?

 

[Lalli]

Doubtless fascinating to the sport of royal watching but would it alter history at all?

Not really since royals have not actual political power.