I commented on this yesterday when I saw Victoria succeed William in 1720 in an AAR thread at .net - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=231532&page=5

As I said over there -
Victoria! In 1720?
She wasn't even born until 1819 and came to the throne in 1837. What happened to Anne and all the Georges?
I'm really surprised that CA didn't just use the historical timeline

1689-1702 William III (and Mary 1689-1694)
1702-1714 Anne
1714-1727 George I
1727-1760 George II
1760-1820 George III
1820-1830 George IV
1830-1837 William IV
1837-1901 Victoria

http://www.royal.gov.uk/Historyofthe.../Victoria.aspx
Great AAR by the way, thanks for taking the trouble

But really, the Victorian era starting in 1720....bah...mutter...mutter...
The only comments so far have been to dismiss it as "Oh well, anything can happen in ETW" and "It isn't the same Victoria"

Seriously, what was wrong with just using a simple list of (historical) Monarch names? And have the right portrait too for that matter? I know TW are 'what if' games but using random or out of sequence monarchs is, well, pointless and just wrong.