Politics at the time was very different to politics in the modern day; the modern-day idea that things should necessarily be decided/authorised by the man at the top simply didn't exist in the same way as it does now. The Prime Minister would probably be considered more out-of-order for taking a matter of foreign affairs into his own hands than the Foreign Secretary for acting on a matter of foreign affairs on his own initiative without consulting the Prime Minister. It was just expected that foreign ministers would do this sort of thing themselves; look at Izvolsky and Aehrenthal over the issue of the Straits. Such things as President Poincaré's personal visit to Emperor Nicholas II were very unusual, and indeed were a sign of the fact that Poincaré had deliberately arranged for incompetents to have positions so that he could have more power over the government. Indeed, when heads of state went over the heads of their foreign ministers, what they said simply didn't happen: for instance, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II agreed between themselves to have an alliance together, their respective foreign offices said (paraphrased) "No. Shut up." and the rest is history.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that it's as easy as that to get rid of a man like Sir Edward.
Alright then.
Ah. The thing I'd note is that the thoughts of Wilhelm II were often very different to those of the German government. To give what is undoubtedly the most spectacular example, when Wilhelm II received Serbia's reply to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum he wrote that he thought the reply was a complete concession and that if he were Franz Josef (the Austro-Hungarian monarch) he wouldn't go to war, and told his government to send this to Franz Josef. They simply refused to send it; instead they issued the famous 'blank cheque'.
I honestly have very little knowledge of warfare in this era; what little I do have is centred on its diplomatic ramifications (e.g. the German ships' low fuel confining them to the North Sea and making it blatantly obvious who they were targeted against, and the huge expense to the UK of maintaining troops in India and the consequent pressure to be friendly with Russia to avoid the expense). I'll leave this to the others.
This is wise in a way that might perhaps not have been easily foreseen, because IOTL there were concerns expressed by British politicians that if they didn't enter the war then either Germany and Austria-Hungary would win, in which case they would establish a new hegemony over Europe that wouldn't include the UK, or France and Russia would win, in which case they would be angry at the UK for abandoning them. Given that evidence, it definitely makes sense that the UK would act to get as many new friends as possible.
Depends on the circumstance, but unless Russia is obviously doing very badly then they might well stay neutral. Declaring war on Russia isn't like joining a turkey shoot, it's a risk; the Ottomans will, I agree, take the risk if the reward is sufficient, but it might not do. IOTL, unless I've misremembered, it took British high-handedness to drive the Ottomans from a position of opportunistic de facto neutrality to Germany's side, which suggests that Russia wasn't initially weak enough for the Ottomans to take the risk.
Nice!
On the matter of that next update: I really like Churchill's plan. That's a very clever way of doing things.
The arrogance and foolish decisive-battle thinking of the British naval officers—assuming that, even though they have vast superiority in battleships and therefore it would be utter folly for the Germans to engage the British battleships head-to-head, the war will take the form convenient to the UK, namely a head-to-head battleship battle—is both frustrating and exceedingly realistic.
The touch about the forsaking of German titles, and that it hasn't happened yet, is also nicely done (though 'Lord Baron' isn't a title that would be used; you wouldn't say both titles). The reference to the South American dreadnought race is also nice, as is the fact that "As You Know, Bob" (the tendency for experienced professionals to mysteriously relate the basics of their topic even though they would all know it, just because the audience doesn't know and it's a cheap method of exposition) is fairly minimal. (The only place where that's somewhat present is the reeling-off of the precise number of battleships and battlecruisers in the British and German fleets; shipbuilding was so publicised that lots of ordinary people, let alone naval officers, would already know—but in most of the update, such as the comment on crossing the T, "As You Know, Bob" is wonderfully absent.)
I ought to let you know that it is genuinely nice to read a TL written by someone so clearly knowledgeable about what they're talking about. I wouldn't mention such little issues as I have been if there were any major problems to talk about.
