What if history scenarios

[Gough]

Possibly.


Absolutely not. He doesn't have to press any claim. He's King the moment his mother dies and until he dies or abdicates. There was no appetite for a republic in the UK even in the wake of Diana's death.

Charles doesn't enjoy the same social license that his mum had, how much of a problem that is for him remains to be seen.

 

[Roylion]

Charles doesn't enjoy the same social license that his mum had,

Irrespective of that, there is no doubt Charles would have still succeeded to the throne of England in 1997.

how much of a problem that is for him remains to be seen.

I doubt it will be much of a problem.

 

[Roylion]

no there was no appetite because the queen reigned.

There wouldn't have been anyway.

Yes yes, I know technically he’d have had to abdicate, but I think if he didn’t then it might have gotten very rocky. He was despised by a lot of people. Scotland would have tried to go for sure.

A Market Opinion and Research International Poll published in December 1997 in London's Times newspaper found that Charles' popularity actually rose after Diana's death on August 31st 1997.

 

[peetoo]

The whole thing is a tragedy, but titanic now claiming a few more multi millionaires after most of them escaped in the original tragedy, leaving the lower classes with slim chances.

Seems quite ironic

 

[peetoo]

There wouldn't have been anyway.


A Market Opinion and Research International Poll published in December 1997 in London's Times newspaper found that Charles' popularity actually rose after Diana's death on August 31st 1997.

He was seen as alone among the adult royals as giving a toss about the tragedy.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

FDR dies on 12 April 1944, instead?


What changes:

Later in the real 1944, Wallace toured the USSR. He was taken to GULAG camps in Siberia, which were "sanitized" for his visits (he was told all the inmates were volunteers) and came away saying the camps were "a combination TVA and Hudson's Bay Company".

President Wallace is not going to make that tour. So perhaps he will not be as deluded about the USSR as he was in real life.

This will help him to get the nomination for President. As a sitting President, with Roosevelt's implied endorsement, I don't think he could be stopped. In the real 1944 he was the favorite among rank-and-file delegates for the 1944 VP nomination; it was only by Roosevelt's forceful behind-the-scenes intervention that Truman was nominated instead. Roosevelt acted under pressure from several important party leaders.

They in turn were moved in part by Wallace's apparent excessive fondness for the USSR. If that is removed, he's surely going to win the nomination.

But can he win in November? I don't think so. He's not Roosevelt, and he's got a huge vulnerability - his "Dear Guru" letters to the expatriate Russian mystic Nicholas Roerich. The Republicans had the letters. In 1940, they were deterred from using them by Democrat threats to reveal Wendell Willkie's adulterous affair with Irita Van Doren. But in 1944, the Democrats have no such counter.

So it's quite likely that Dewey is elected and becomes President in January 1945. Dewey at the alternate Yalta and Potsdam?

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Another scenario: FDR chooses not to run in the November 1944 election.

#and what was FDR going to do then? Retire and start jogging?#Too soon?

 

[JoondalupJ]

No place for us or other big mammals while the dinos were around. That comet did us a big favour, we'd still be little lemur like things, skulking in trees and eating insects.

Impossible to say never, but unlikely. The huge expansion of the our cerebral cortex is what enables us to be human, to speak and have 'culture'. Dinosaurs, birds and reptiles have very different cortical structures. Not that they can't be pretty intelligent, tool using crows are a good example of what a dino brain could probably do.

I 've known a speaking dinosaur, its called a pink and grey galah!!!