u/CommitteeChemical530

I've never been a big Vampire fan I've only watched Twilight and didn't think it was that good is it worth the read.

The whole reason Napoleon divorced Josephine was because she couldn’t get pregnant at that stage. But let’s say she did, and in 1801, Napoleon II is born. Napoleon is still defeated later in life.

What would happen to little Napoleon? Now, Tsar Alexander seemed to get along with Josephine fairly well, so I imagine he wouldn’t be hostile toward her son, assuming the boy was allowed to stay with her. Would she be granted custody of him, or would the Russians take him?

Assuming Josephine was allowed to keep custody over her son, and after her death during the Bourbon Restoration, could Napoleon ensure that his son made it to America? There was actually a plan for Napoleon to escape using two ships, with one being the ship he would hide on while the other served as a decoy.

What do you think? In this timeline, there’s no divorce.

Now, I don't really know much about the Potter family tree. I tried to research it and couldn't find much. I did find a video on it, and I learned that James Potter's parents were pretty old when they had him. But it didn't go into when they died. Based on the books, I'm guessing they were dead before Harry was born, though I apologize if that's incorrect. Since they were dead, who would Harry have gone to live with if James had been the one to make the sacrifice instead of Lily? Being a pure-blood family, the Potters are connected to a lot of people. So, would Dumbledore have tried to get Sirius out of Azkaban and have him take Harry? Or is it anyone with blood ties, or does the protection spell on Harry include anyone with that connection? So, theoretically, could a Death Eater who was related to James have raised Harry.

Now, if Edmund had managed to survive the Wars of the Roses, I imagine he would have had to go into exile with his brother, Jasper, and later with his son. I think he would have taken his wife with him as well. I think history would have played out mostly the same, with Edmund serving as an advisor to his son on the council when Henry VII became king. I do think Edmund would have become Duke of Richmond and quite possibly Duke of Somerset, as the last Duke of Somerset was his father-in-law. Now, with Edmund living until 1511, would anything really have changed? I mean, Margaret Beaufort died in 1509, so I suppose it’s possible he could have married and had a few children—perhaps another child—but I don’t know if that’s realistic. What do you think.

Many years ago, I watched this “What If Imperial Russia Never Fell?” timeline. Now that I know a bit more about the Romanovs, I’d like to check it out and see if people think it’s a realistic timeline. The basis of it is that Alexander III of Russia does not die in 1894, but instead lives until the 1940s. He manages to properly train Nicholas II of Russia to be a tsar. The Russo-Japanese War never happens; instead, a peace is arranged where Japan gets Korea and Russia gets Manchuria. Due to this, the British hesitate to join the Allies, as they still see Russia as the greater threat. In World War I, because of Alexander’s industrialization, the war goes far more in Russia’s favor, with Russia annexing Polish and Ukrainian land that had been part of Austria-Hungary and gaining a protectorate over Czechoslovakia. World War II still happens, but it is a two-front war and is much shorter. The Cold War also still happens, but this time between democratic America and autocratic Russia. The Iron Curtain still forms, only with absolute monarchies being established in Europe and abroad. Nicholas believes that democracy will eventually come and give people power. That is the whole video. I do have some problems with this. I agree that, up to the end of World War I, much of this is within the realm of realistic possibility. However, one of the reasons German nationalists gained support was the threat and fear posed by the Soviets. It was also one of the reasons Britain and France allowed Germany to rearm after World War I. I do not think the Nazis would have been able to gain power in Germany without that fear. I also think the German monarchy likely would have remained intact. By the end of the war, Alexander would probably have been the most powerful leader at the negotiating table, especially if Britain delayed entering the war and Russia ended up in a stronger position. Given Alexander’s autocratic views, I do not see him allowing Woodrow Wilson to abolish the German monarchy. More likely, the Kaiser would have been forced to abdicate in favor of his son. With that, we probably do not get a Second World War. But even if we did, I think America would again be in a weaker position, since the Russians could send troops to Berlin relatively quickly. I also do not think there would be a Cold War, and I most certainly do not think Nicholas—having had more time and attention from his father—would ever have been willing to give the Russian people democratic freedoms. But what do you think.

I must admit, I really know nothing about this guy. I was just browsing the British royal family, and I came across him and thought it would be an interesting idea to change the timeline a little. For this to work, I’m going to say that the would-be George VI was killed in a naval battle during World War I. After the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, Henry becomes King Henry IX.

Now, as I said, I don’t know really, anything about him—so what would his reign have been like? Was he a German sympathizer like his elder brother, or would he have been more like George VI in his thinking? And how do you think history would have changed with him as king?

I’ve read in some places that Edward was far closer to Mary than to Elizabeth before he became king, and that the only reason he later became closer to Elizabeth was because Mary refused to convert and Elizabeth was a Protestant. Is this true at all?

To me, I think it would be kind of like Henry’s dreams coming true. Not only does he have a healthy son, but he also has two more sons who look like him, with red hair and the classic Tudor features. But then the whole Culpepper affair comes out. Would this have cast serious doubt on the boys’ legitimacy? Anne Boleyn was accused of adultery, yet Elizabeth I looked exactly like Henry. So would people simply say, “No, they have red hair — they look too much like Henry”? Or, after the death of Edward VI, could there have been a civil war, with Mary I fighting against the brothers?

As far as I can remember, there’s no chance that Eragon and Nasuada ever had anything between them. If I recall correctly, Eragon describes her as pretty, but he isn’t romantically attracted to her. That being said, if they were inclined toward each other, do you think it could have worked out? For the sake of the scenario, I’m imagining they form a romantic connection either during the latter part of the first book or at the beginning of the second. Because, Eragon leaving Alagaësia would likely put a strain on the relationship.

Aegon wakes up in England in 1066 AD with only his Valyrian armor, Blackfyre, and Balerion. It would take him a moment to figure out where he was and that he wasn’t even in his own universe—or at least that he was very far from Westeros. I don’t think it would take him long to burn the Normans while they were conquering England, and he would likely become king. Knowing how quickly the Targaryens convert to the Faith of the Seven, I think he would also convert to Christianity—though I’d keep his name just to keep things simple. Besides, “Aegon I of England” just sounds incredibly cool. What do you think would happen next? Would he go on to conquer Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, which were at least somewhat independent at the time—especially Wales and Scotland? Since it’s only Aegon, I imagine he would marry a nobleman’s daughter or a princess to give himself legitimacy. Also, how would medieval people react to a king with a dragon? Would they see it as a divine miracle, or view him as something demonic? What are your thoughts.

“What I mean is, did he resent her for taking a lover, and did she resent him for having that lover executed.

The thing Richard I of England is best known for is his crusades in the Holy Land. That’s basically all he did. In fact, he spent more time on crusade than he did ruling in England. But I’d like to change something. Instead of going to the Holy Land, Richard decides to go to war with the Caliphate. His sister, Eleanor of England, was Queen of Castile, so could he have managed to get Portugal, Aragon, Navarre, and the other surrounding Christian kingdoms to join him? Could he have driven the Caliphate out much earlier—could the Reconquista have happened sooner—or would this have just been a spectacular failure for Richard.

What I mean by “all the Romanovs” is that the show would begin with Michael I of Russia in 1613, and there could be additional shows about the Romanovs, but it would ultimately end with the Russian Revolution. I’d personally enjoy this because there’s a gap in my knowledge of the Romanovs. I know a fair amount about Peter the Great, but when it comes to most of the earlier rulers, I really don’t know much about them. Would you want to watch something like this.

Childbed fever was an all-too-common cause of death for women in the Tudor period. Henry’s mother and two of his wives died in such circumstances, so it doesn’t seem too far-fetched that this could have happened. Now, since Elizabeth would be Henry’s so-called legitimate heir, he would still need another wife. At that point, he had been obsessed with Anne for nearly a decade, so would he have mourned her respectfully for a long time? He did mourn Jane Seymour for two years. Then again, Jane gave him the son he had always wanted, so there are arguments for both sides. I imagine some people—including cathrine herself—might have thought Henry would take Catherine of Aragon back, but I don’t see that happening. Henry would have had a much better reputation, as he wouldn’t have executed any of his wives yet, so it’s possible he might have had more marriage options after Catherine of Aragon’s death. Do you think this would seriously affect anything, with Anne never falling out of favor? Her family would still have power. Thomas Boleyn would likely still die, though not in disgrace, and George would probably retain some influence. Elizabeth would probably not be seen as illegitimate. Now, would Henry still have gone jousting in 1536 or later, which could have led to his death in the early 1550s? What are your thoughts.

Now, this is a hypothetical question, meant only to explore what might have happened to the children in a more peaceful setting, so it isn’t intended to be entirely realistic. I think Alexie, if he had married young and been given enough time, could have had a son who was not a hemophiliac, though I don’t expect him to have lived past the mid-1930s. As for the sisters, Nicholas promised Olga that he would never force her to marry someone she didn’t love. I’m not sure whether he made the same promise to Tatiana, though if he did, he likely would have made similar promises to Maria and Anastasia. My guess is that they would have married Russians, as Olga never wanted to lose her Russian identity. The bigger question, however, is whether they would have married grand dukes or the soldiers they fell in love with—men who, though good, were not considered suitable matches for the daughters of the Tsar.