Britain refuses to give up Hanover

DMA

Because Queen Victoria came to the Throne of Britain in 1837, sovereignty over Hanover had to be surrendered as only a male heir could inherit the Kingdom of Hanover according to German law. But what if Britain either sees this as an affront to Queen Victoria, &/or to the authority of Parliament, & decided that if a Queen could inherit the Throne of the United Kingdom, & that the Kingdom of Hanover was in Union with Britain, the sovereignty of Hanover could likewise be inherited by a female as per British law. Consequentially Britain decides not to forego its sovereignty of Hanover & is prepared to hold onto it like it was Buckingham Palace.

What happens?

And how is the history of Europe, if not indeed the world, changes?

Anything else?
 

Don_Giorgio

When Victoria ascended the British throne in 1837 the separation was de facto... the only way to avoid that is if Hannover changes the Salic Law... But i dont see a point in that...
 

Rockingham

Banned
The German Confederation would intervene, but on he other hand France might side with the UK... Russia would either remain neutral or ally with the Germans to to it's position in the Holy league... Which is exactly why Britain wouldn't act OTL. Add to this the fact their was absolutely no reason for Britain to want Hannover (it actually was a deadwight on the UK, as it made their splendid isolation near impossible) to joint the UK.
 

cerebus

And of course Britain never had Hannover. It was a seperate posession of the crown with its own government, laws and customs. Parliament had no authority over Hanover as George III had made clear. The only way to make this work is to have a male heir instead of Victoria.
 

The Federation

Would Britain really start a war that would involve most German states and possibly France (for no other reason but to bring the UK down a notch) to retain Hannover? It's going to be expending all kinds of manpower, wealth, resources, and status for a province that probably doesn't contribute that much.
 

Susano

Banned
People do seem to have truble do comprehend the term "personal union". Britain NEVER had souvereignity over Hannover. NOBODY gave up Hannover. The Personal Union just was ended on death of the last monarch to hold both titles of the union, thats all. For that matter, British parliament never even had a single ounce of authority in Hanover, where the King reigned absolutistically. Thats the best way to tell they were two seperate states - in one state the King reigned absolute, in the other he only sorta-kinda reigned with power being with parliament. Which is also the reason the two would never enter a real union: Why would the King submit this realm of his where he rules absolutely to the power of parliament, too? Wouldnt make sense for him.
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

The only way all this could work out is if Hanover was a Home Nation of the UK, and seeing that the House of Hanover only had a personal union between the UK and Hanover, I doubt it would happen.
 

Darkling

It isn't that difficult to envision a King seeking to integrate Hanover.

If, for example, his only heir was female then it is a way to keep things in the family.

Parliament could also decide that if they have to be tied at the hip to Hanover then they should at least get a say in what was going on there and a pliant King might oblige.

Still rather unlikely though.
 

Susano

Banned
Darkling said:
It isn't that difficult to envision a King seeking to integrate Hanover.

If, for example, his only heir was female then it is a way to keep things in the family.
Click to expand...
Well, it was anyways, it remained within the Welf family ("the House of Hannover"), just not immidiate family...

Parliament could also decide that if they have to be tied at the hip to Hanover then they should at least get a say in what was going on there and a pliant King might oblige.
Click to expand...
The British Parliament theoretically had little ground to say so. It would be like, oh, the French parliament demanding a say in Spain. As said, were talking about two different souvereign states here. Of course, the British Parliament could still blackmail the King, but its unlikely theyd do so: If they get authority over Hannover, that means integrating Hannover, and Parliament most likely would not like GB to involve itself with continental affairs.
 

pompejus

England and Scotland were in personal union too, before becoming one country. So theoreticaly the same could happen to Hanover and Great Britain. The question is how and why. If I read the thread correctly the rulers of both countries should agree with it and the problem is that the rulers are not the same. In Hanover the ruler was the British king, while in Great Britain it was the parliament. And the question is why would the British parliament and the king want a union. The king would lose all the power he has in Hanover, which he probably don't want to. Maybe it would be easier if there existed a same kind of parliament as Britain had Is that possible in some way? And if it was why would both parliament wish a union to happen? Maybe the rise of some continental power which the British wish to stop (Prussia, France?)?
 

Darkling

Susano said:
Well, it was anyways, it remained within the Welf family ("the House of Hannover"), just not immidiate family...
Click to expand...

Keep it with his bloodline then.

The British Parliament theoretically had little ground to say so. It would be like, oh, the French parliament demanding a say in Spain.
Click to expand...

Or more accurately like the British government having a say in Ireland post 1782, which of course they did (or having a say in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man which they still do).

As said, were talking about two different sovereign states here. Of course, the British Parliament could still blackmail the King, but its unlikely they'd do so: If they get authority over Hannover, that means integrating Hannover, and Parliament most likely would not like GB to involve itself with continental affairs.
Click to expand...

No but if they have the mill stone of Hanover anyway.

It wouldn't happen in OTL but in a scenario where the British were more integrationist (failed ARW or some such) and Hanover required greater defence (a hostile Prussia?) then it certainly seems possible that they would assert dominance over the area to make them have defences that are likely to shoulder as much of he burden as possible.
 

Susano

Banned
Darkling said:
Or more accurately like the British government having a say in Ireland post 1782, which of course they did (or having a say in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man which they still do).
Click to expand...
With the difference that neither of these territories were souvereign. Hannover was.

No but if they have the mill stone of Hanover anyway.

It wouldn't happen in OTL but in a scenario where the British were more integrationist (failed ARW or some such) and Hanover required greater defence (a hostile Prussia?) then it certainly seems possible that they would assert dominance over the area to make them have defences that are likely to shoulder as much of he burden as possible.
Click to expand...
Then one still has the problem of the King not wanting to share his authority in Hannover with Parliament. But, as said, he could be forced into it, after all, Parliamentc ontrols Brtish succession...
 

Darkling

Susano said:
With the difference that neither of these territories were souvereign. Hannover was.
Click to expand...

Ireland was in Personal union with Britain after 1782 until 1801.

Where is the difference?

The King simply choose to appoint his representative in Ireland based upon Parliaments say so, the crown dependencies are subordinate to Britain because the King said so but they have their own legislatures.

When the British wanted the Manx to stop executing people they didn't write a law telling them to, they just had the Home Office tell the Queen to commute all the sentences (or more accurately the Home Secretary did it in her name).

Then one still has the problem of the King not wanting to share his authority in Hannover with Parliament. But, as said, he could be forced into it, after all, Parliamentc ontrols Brtish succession...
Click to expand...

Or the King could simply be uninterested in Hanover or actually care about his subjects and think it was for the best.
 
Lord Insane

Lord Insane

Grand Prince Paul II. said:
Ireland was an english colony; Hanover was an independent country.
Click to expand...
Calling Ireland an english colony is simplification, but whereas the instruments of government in Ireland during the personal union were more or less created by the English, the instruments of government in Hannover were retained from before the personal union.
 

Darkling

Grand Prince Paul II. said:
Ireland was an english colony; Hanover was an independent country.
Click to expand...

And the fact that Ireland had been subservient to Britain previously affects the situation how?

Both enjoyed the same status as being linked by personal union of crowns.

The only change this differences brings about is that Britain was interested in Ireland (although they were in Hanover out of necessity), the salient detail remains the same between the two cases.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
pompejus said:
England and Scotland were in personal union too, before becoming one country. So theoreticaly the same could happen to Hanover and Great Britain. The question is how and why.
Click to expand...
Well, in 1801, before the Act of Union with Ireland, George III was given the option of changing his style to an Imperial one. One of the possibilities was Emperor of the British, Irish, and Hanoverian Dominions, and the Act of Union would have merged Hanover into the British crown.

OTL, he simply went with the Royal style...but what if he hadn't? Maybe Hanover would have been rolled into the British fold?
 

Susano

Banned
Darkling said:
The only change this differences brings about is that Britain was interested in Ireland (although they were in Hanover out of necessity), the salient detail remains the same between the two cases.
Click to expand...
And even if GB was intersted in Hannover it couldnt have done much. As was said, ireland was subservient from the beginning, whereas Hannover was an own state from the beginning, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion here not in any shape for form subservient to or in any form lesser than Great Britain. In conrast, Ireland was no real pure personal union, but showed signs of a real union from the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top