LETTER: A great shame of the past

EDITOR - Had the rule that the eldest child, rather than the eldest son, inherits the crown been in place during the 19th Century, Queen Victoria’s eldest child, Princess Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa, would have been next in line to the throne.

This would have meant she would have been kept in the UK and the man she might be expected to marry having to come and live in this country, just as Prince Albert had to do in the case of Queen Victoria and as Prince Phillip did for our present Queen.

This would have meant that Princess Victoria Adelaide would not have married into the Prussian royal house and gone to live in Germany. Hence Kaiser Wilhelm would not have been born, thus changing the course of history so that there would have been no 1914-18 Great War and thus no need for Adolf Hitler and hence no Second World War 1939-45.

This means Sir Peter Tapsell’s assertion that, had the eldest child rule been in place, it would have meant that Kaiser Wilhelm would have become King of England is a total impossibility because he would not have existed.

So, the plain truth is, it was, in fact, a great shame that Princess Victoria Adelaide did not inherit the Crown.

H A Weedon

North Somercotes