1866 with a British Hanover: King Victor does nothing?

POD: Victoria is instead Victor, with a surprisingly similar history ruling Britain.

Now, Hanover will end up keeping the same king as Britain has. But my question is: So what? By the 19th century, the idea of the British going to war to defend Hanover seems a bit odd.

Could we see a surreal situation where Victor, King of England is neutral in the war that Victor, King of Hanover, is losing terribly?
 
Pretty much yes, especially as Parliament had already passed a law which prevents the monarch from using the UK to declare war as part of Hanoverian foreign policy. Even if Victor wanted to involve the UK, if the situation didn't seem beneficial to the UK, it wouldn't get involved.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
I think the most interesting effect would be all the places scattered around the world that won't be named Victoria (noun) or (noun) Victoria anymore.
 
I think the most interesting effect would be all the places scattered around the world that won't be named Victoria (noun) or (noun) Victoria anymore.

Just to point something out: Carolina was named after King Charles II, not a queen called Caroline; so its conceivable places might have ended up being called Victoria after Victor (which I really want to spell with a 'K', but we're talking about a hypothetical extra Hanover in the UK...). Another example is places called Alexandria, named after Alexander.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Pretty much yes, especially as Parliament had already passed a law which prevents the monarch from using the UK to declare war as part of Hanoverian foreign policy. Even if Victor wanted to involve the UK, if the situation didn't seem beneficial to the UK, it wouldn't get involved.
I found this on parliament's reservations over Hanover and British foreign policy from 1726. When was this put on a legal footing?
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/parliamentary_history/v025/25.1mcjimsey.pdf
The prospective influence of a ‘monied interest’ also weighed against an aggressive
policy. In January of 1726 news that the Spanish had captured Port Mahon caused
South Sea bonds to fall to par. Next month Walpole was defending himself against
charges that he was selling stocks to drive down the price, claiming that he foresaw
no immediate chance of war breaking out.45
This minimal goal became clear as various segments of political opinion were
canvassed before the opening session. French observers commented that the nation
did not want war. A reliable observer of merchant opinion commented in December
1725: ‘We must lose our trade or engage in a war. Many think we shall choose the
former.’46 Similar concerns came up in the wake of George I’s address to parliament,
31 January 1726. The speech emphasized the issues of trade and religion, noted that
the Treaty of Hanover was defensive and made a generalized warning that instability
in continental affairs might encourage the Pretender to attempt an invasion. Although
the speech won approval, opposition lords entered protests demanding assurances
that English foreign policy would not become subservient to Hanoverian interests,
and seeking more concrete assurances about the threat from the Pretender before
parliament would grant requested funds.The ministers also stressed that his majesty
would not seek funds to increase the army, thereby signalling determination to avoid
a row over the dangers of a standing army.48 Walpole was also at pains to assure the
Commons that Hanover was more likely to be drawn into a war on behalf of British
interests than the other way around.49
 
Last edited:

Baskilisk

Banned
Just to point something out: Carolina was named after King Charles II, not a queen called Caroline; so its conceivable places might have ended up being called Victoria after Victor (which I really want to spell with a 'K', but we're talking about a hypothetical extra Hanover in the UK...). Another example is places called Alexandria, named after Alexander.
Oh, is this like how Virginia is named after Maximillian Robespierre?
 
Could we see a surreal situation where Victor, King of England is neutral in the war that Victor, King of Hanover, is losing terribly?

Highly doubtful. A Victor who is the King of England has his potential power hemmed in and curtailed by the British Parliament whereas a Victor who is also King of Hanover has no such restrictions.

The Kings of Hanover, as shown in the historical record after 1837, had extraordinary power, compared to the rulers of England, even to suspending the Hanoverian constitution which was actually done.

A wise King Victor would have kept Hanover neutral between Prussia and Austria. Prussia also probably wouldn't have attacked a Hanover ruled by the British King at the same time she was attacking Austria. Two years earlier, Bismarck and Prussia had to take into account England's possible action in regard to their attack on Denmark. How much more so would they have considered attacking a Hanover directly connected with England?

The marriage of a King Victor also would have probably had some impact. In OTL, Queen Victoria's daughter was married to the Prussian Crown Prince leading to the British royals looking favorably upon Prussia.

Had Victoria, for instance, still been also the Queen of Hanover, it is inconceivable that she would have used her considerably greater royal powers in Hanover to go to war with Prussia in 1866.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
The changes will already start 1864. Before IOTL the Great Powers came and sat themselves like 200-pound gorillas on Schelswig-Holstein, already Hannover and Saxony had assembled an army and sent it to Holstein. Under military pressure from the two Great Powers the middle powers then had to retreat.

Now what would a Hannover still in personal union with GB do?
So, I think we need a kind of Flow chart ;)

First, the German-Danish War. There are three possibilities: Hannover supports Denmark (very unlikely), Hannover stays neutral (very likely), Hannover supports Prussia and Austria and insists on taking part in the war (somewhat likely). Then the German War, where again Hannover has three possibilities: Support Prussia, remain neutral, support the German Confederation (Austria), . Hence, Ill codify that like 2-2 (Hannover remains neutral in oth wars)

1: Supports Denmark. I doubt theyd support Denmark - Denmark blatantly had broken the Treaty of London, after all. Of course, it would be funny if UK and Hannover still did, because it would be mostly a land war. Prussia and Austria could easily just occupy Hannover, which then would become another possibel casus belli to use by Bismarck to start his much-desired war with Austria. Once the dust is settled 1866, territorially there will be no changes to OTL as both Hannover and Schleswig-Holstein are directly Prussian.

---

2: Neutral Hannover in 1864: Well, thats very possible. Hannover itself is just a middle power, after all, and the UK wont really intervene. So its very possible King Victor is careful. Nothing changes.

2-1: 1864 neutral Hannover supports Prussia: Possible if King Victor also wants the end of the GC. Prussia wins the war, of course, just as IOTL. Of course, unlike the other North German states, Hannover cant be pressured into the North German Confederation. Oldenburg (which Hannover surrounds) was a Prussian ally, but somehow I think theyll use the chance of their geographic position to jump off Prussian domination, too. So, the NGC lacks Northwest Germany. Hannover might even push for the other German states not to be annexed, bt Prusis apulled that off so quickly I doubt Hannover can do much.

2-2: Hannover stays neutral. Prussia wins the war as IOTL, and again the NGC doesnt have NW Germany.

2-3Hannover supports Austria: Possible if King Victor wants to retain the GC (which is nice as a guarantee of sorts for Hannover, I guess). Now if Hannover only receives a minimal amount of support from GB (doesnt even need to be diretc military aid, IOTL Hannover mostly needed military supplies...) this could be interesting. Now, again seperating that in a secnario where Hannover is more successful and one where it isnt:

2-3-1:Hannover is more successful: IOTL Hannover won the first battle against Prusisa, but was then faced with way superior numbers. Now, if Hannover could hold out for a bit and rally the other German states of the region that IOTL were just steamrolled (mainly the Hesses and Nassau)... then we could see a situation where Prussia wins against Austria on the primary theatre, but loses on the secondary theatre. This would be catastrophal for Bismarck who wanted a quick end to the war. Without the middle German states being occupied and pinned for annexation, its likely he wont be able to convince King William I to have the basically white peace with Austria. And with the war going on, Bismarcks nightmare will come true and Napoleon III intervenes...

2-3-2: Its still not enough, Hannover loses: Weeelll, thats the big question, isnt it? Personally, I dont see the UK intervening, either. Parliament will be rather against it. Still, its something Prussia will have to fear. Hell, Prussia didnt annex Hesse-Darmstadt because a member of the House was at that point Tsarina of Russia. If theres even a direct personal union - yeah, Hannover will survive, with some territory annexed to Prussia (and maybe some to Oldenburg and Brunswick as well). The question then is wether Hannover will be part of the NGC. Its rather inconceivable that the British Monarch (even if it is NOT in the role of British Monarch but King of Hannover) will be under Prussian domination, but OTOH Prussia already was lenient with letting Hannover live. IMO, such ceremonial problems can be solved... per the epace treaty King Victro is forced to name a regent for Hannover who concludes the NGC business or somesuch. The end result is that the personal union is technically retained, but de facto worthless as Hannover now is in Greater Prussia, i.e. the NGC.

---

3: Hannover supports Austria and Prussia: Funnily enough, King Victor might decide he needs to lessen his reputation as a foreign ruler for a stable reign to suceed, and hence be on Austro-Prussian side (and insist his troops arent sent home, either, and with an implicit UK backing of this insistion Austria and Prussia cant very well decline). Hannover then could (re)gain Lauenburg, as they already once had it, after all, while Prussia still has Schleswig and Austria Holstein.

Now Bismarck didnt care at all about who gains Schleswig-Holstein. He simply wanted a war with Austria in order to destroy the German Confederation. So he could very well let Hannover keep Lauenburg. Of course, Hannover could still follow the call of Confederal War against Prussia. Or support prussia. Really, come to think of it, the choices would still be as in 2-x ;)
 
What an interesting read - anybody ever heard of 1848??? :mad:

During the time the Hanover contingent made up about half the Confederation corps attacking Denmark!
Would Hanover in this case support that action - I guess not. Not as the Tsar didn't like the involvement of Prussia in the war and told them to lay it off.
And why would a British monarch who was also a German one take part in strengthening the German Confederation?

Rather I see a neutral Hanover thus greater Prussian involvement in the Danish action (1. Slesvig War) and when told by the Tsar to bugger off the Insurgents and Confederation troops are cut down 1849 making for quite another treaty in which a lot of the problems still persists as to the German viewpoint but it just might be what necessary to sever Slesvig from Holstein thus twarting the S-H aspiration of both joining the GC.

Thus in 1864 Denmark will only lose Holstein and Lauenburg - perhaps the outcome of the 1. Slesvig War will see an earlier solution to the OTL insolvable constitution problem PERHAPS trading Lauenburg off to Hanover/British King to get recognition of a constitution effectively isolating Holstein and its Ritterschaft within the Danish state.
Thus 1864 will really just see an occupation of Holstein with the Danes as OTL pulling out when the Germans enter! But then the pretence of 1851 Treaty of London will not be in effect making for Bismarck to conjure something up!
Actually it could be a 1460 remake with prince Christian of Glückburg line ceding any claim to the Ducal title upon taking up the rule of Denmark 1863 as had been the case of Christian 1. ;)
 

Susano

Banned
I dont think mcuh will change in 1848. After all, those Hannoverian troops were sent by a liberal government that came into office by the 1848 revolution. Theres no reason why 1848 will happen any different in Hannover ITTL (its not like the UK will intervene).
 
I dont think mcuh will change in 1848. After all, those Hannoverian troops were sent by a liberal government that came into office by the 1848 revolution. Theres no reason why 1848 will happen any different in Hannover ITTL (its not like the UK will intervene).

Didn't expect so, but if there is no King Augustus the 1819 constitution may stay in place and Hanover as such develop differently in the timeframe till 1866.
Then 1848 will be different as a liberal government may already be in place which may or may not share the interest of the GC in Frankfurt.

I just don't take for granted that everthing ITTL goes as OTL! ;)
But its an interesting discussion to bring about as I see this issue the Before-1900 equivalent of the not to be mentioned Sea Mammal! :D
 
Top