AHC: Union of Great Britain and Prussia

Actually this is quite easy, Fredrick the Great was quite close to the line of succession through his mother Sophia. If her brother died before siring children she would have been queen.
 
Let Georg August of Hanover (OTL George II) get killed at the Battle of Oudenarde in 1708. When his father becomes George I in 1714, he takes Prince Frederick Lewis (GA's only child) to England with him, rather than leaving him in Hanover as OTL.

A few months or years later, young Frederick catches smallpox or something and dies unmarried. Queen Sophia Dorothea of Prussia (mother of FtG) becomes heiress to the British throne. George I considers remarriage but in the end does nothing, and his daughter succeeds him in 1727.
 
If we do have an Anglo-Prusso-Hanoverian union, for one thing the United Kingdom will never view a powerful continental state like Prussia the way it viewed Hanover (an unwelcome burden to be thrown away ASAP). This could have two completely opposite effects. On the one hand, Prussia-Hanover (Hanover will probably be absorbed into Prussia) will be a good start to unifying Germany, and that might lead to a German unification supported by the United Kingdom in order to create a friendly power in personal union with the UK and able to counterbalance France. On the other hand, it could mean that Prussia-Hanover is seen as a British puppet so another state, such as Austria or Saxony, becomes the main hope for uniting Germany.

Or, to provide a really wild alternative, let's say the other powers of Europe are afraid of Great Britain, Hanover and Prussia all together, and they invade in order to break up the new alliance—in which case we get a completely different 18th century.
 
If we do have an Anglo-Prusso-Hanoverian union, for one thing the United Kingdom will never view a powerful continental state like Prussia the way it viewed Hanover (an unwelcome burden to be thrown away ASAP). This could have two completely opposite effects. On the one hand, Prussia-Hanover (Hanover will probably be absorbed into Prussia) will be a good start to unifying Germany, and that might lead to a German unification supported by the United Kingdom in order to create a friendly power in personal union with the UK and able to counterbalance France. On the other hand, it could mean that Prussia-Hanover is seen as a British puppet so another state, such as Austria or Saxony, becomes the main hope for uniting Germany.

Or, to provide a really wild alternative, let's say the other powers of Europe are afraid of Great Britain, Hanover and Prussia all together, and they invade in order to break up the new alliance—in which case we get a completely different 18th century.

That would likely require a war of succession since Hanover runs on Salic law. However the two men in line for succession are old, childless and almost powerless so a major power would have to dig up an extremely distant relation and back him or her. Of course there were major wars going on over the succession in Austria and then Poland in this time frame, so it could get subsumed in one of those conflicts.
 
That would likely require a war of succession since Hanover runs on Salic law. However the two men in line for succession are old, childless and almost powerless so a major power would have to dig up an extremely distant relation and back him or her.

Great Britain was looking for any excuse to dump Hanover on someone else, so Prussia would get British support (i.e. British money) in our hypothetical War of the Hanoverian Succession; Hanover would have no choice but to accept the inevitable, unless the European powers opposed to Great Britain and/or Prussia—France, Saxony and Austria—intervene. So unless those powers are willing to fight a major war for the sake of the succession in Hanover—not a major country like Spain or Austria, just Hanover—I don't think a war of succession is likely.

On the other hand, a war of succession over the Anglo-Prussian personal union does sound reasonably likely. It would be a gun to the head of Saxony, in particular, since Prussia would be assured of British funding in its expansionist ambitions against Saxony. The question is whether the Saxons would be able to convince France to take their side; Saxony would be insanely foolish to go to war against both Prussia and Great Britain without the support of France.
 
Great Britain was looking for any excuse to dump Hanover on someone else, so Prussia would get British support (i.e. British money) in our hypothetical War of the Hanoverian Succession; Hanover would have no choice but to accept the inevitable, unless the European powers opposed to Great Britain and/or Prussia—France, Saxony and Austria—intervene. So unless those powers are willing to fight a major war for the sake of the succession in Hanover—not a major country like Spain or Austria, just Hanover—I don't think a war of succession is likely.

On the other hand, a war of succession over the Anglo-Prussian personal union does sound reasonably likely. It would be a gun to the head of Saxony, in particular, since Prussia would be assured of British funding in its expansionist ambitions against Saxony. The question is whether the Saxons would be able to convince France to take their side; Saxony would be insanely foolish to go to war against both Prussia and Great Britain without the support of France.

If Sophia is allowed to inherit Hanover along with Great Britain, her son Fredrick will inherit both of them along with Prussia. Surely the other great powers would want to try and nip that in the bud right away.
 
If Sophia is allowed to inherit Hanover along with Great Britain, her son Fredrick will inherit both of them along with Prussia. Surely the other great powers would want to try and nip that in the bud right away.

Certainly true—but I don't think she would. Salic law wasn't the reason why Hanover separated from its personal union with Great Britain, it was Great Britain's excuse to drop Hanover. In a scenario where the King of Great Britain is also King of Prussia (a nearby German nation powerful enough to protect Hanover), the best solution for Great Britain is to make Hanover part of Prussia. In a scenario where the monarch of Great Britain is not the monarch of Prussia (yet), the best solution for Great Britain is to give up Hanover as soon as it has the chance.

So if Great Britain inherits Prussia before getting a queen for the first time, I think Prussia will take Hanover. But if Great Britain gets a queen and doesn't (at the time) have any other way to get rid of Hanover, it'll get rid of Hanover that way.

I'm probably not making myself very clear, am I? :eek:
 
Or simply have it that Victoria had no sons and her eldest daughter Vicky be married to Fritz and let the Kaiser have both Empires after 1901. Not a happy thought but if Willy already had such a lopsided power base, WWI may have been somewhat muted if not avoided by other European powers.
 
Or simply have it that Victoria had no sons and her eldest daughter Vicky be married to Fritz and let the Kaiser have both Empires after 1901. Not a happy thought but if Willy already had such a lopsided power base, WWI may have been somewhat muted if not avoided by other European powers.

That situation is very, very different to the situation in the 18th century. In that case, even if Kaiser Friedrich III did marry Princess Victoria (which would be very unlikely in that circumstance), Parliament would adjust the succession to avoid an Anglo-German personal union. The United Kingdom has never had much respect for the principle of maintaining the proper line of succession. When Queen Anne died, her successor George I wasn't top of the line of succession, he was the man highest up in the line of succession whom Parliament was prepared to tolerate.

A personal union with a little country like Hanover could be lived with, and even with Hanover the United Kingdom tried to get rid of the personal union as fast as it could. A personal union with the German Empire would disturb the balance of power. Parliament wouldn't permit it in the 1900s, a time when the entente cordiale was such an important part of British foreign policy.
 
Or simply have it that Victoria had no sons and her eldest daughter Vicky be married to Fritz and let the Kaiser have both Empires after 1901. Not a happy thought but if Willy already had such a lopsided power base, WWI may have been somewhat muted if not avoided by other European powers.

If Victoria had had no sons, Vicky would never have been married to Fritz. ETA it's not like she chose him of her own volition, like Beatrice and Henry of Battenburg or Nicholas and Alexandra of Russia, true love matches; Vicky's marriage was arranged, and she went along with it.

A more plausible scenario: Victoria bears only four children, Vicky, Albert Edward, Alice, and Alfred. (This is easily enough accomplished by having Victoria experience difficulties at Alfred's birth that render her unable to bear more children.) Then marry Vicky to Fritz, then have Albert Edward and Alfred die of typhoid shortly after the wedding.

As for the succession rules, it absolutely isn't the fact that the English ignore their succession laws. George I was the next heir under the terms of the Act of Settlement - anyone closer by birth didn't qualify due to religion. Parliament is not going to step in and amend the Succession Act just to keep Vicky and Fritz off the throne; there's no serious perceived threat, not like the burning of the Protestant Martyrs, the attempted bombing of Parliament by Fawkes et al., or the Great Fire, all of which had been either caused by Catholics or unfairly blamed on them. Nobody would have seen them as enough of a risk to bring in a bill to change the succession over - they were liberal and popular. Prussia is in my opinion more likely to amend its succession to prevent it from being subsumed into the powerful British Empire.

I suspect that in this case they would be asked to live in the UK - which if done early enough might just result in a less traumatic birth for the future Wilhelm II. Without a withered arm and under the control of less reactionary governors, Wilhelm would certainly turn out more balanced and less insecure, and probably more like his grandfather Albert.
 
Last edited:
If Fritz and his issue are excluded from the Prussian succession who succeeds Wilhelm I in 1888? I am coming up with Prince Albrecht who reigns from 1888-1906.
 
Will Kürlich Kerl, thanks for the link.

anyone closer by birth didn't qualify due to religion.

And who instituted the rule that Catholics couldn't inherit the throne, directly against the will of the reigning monarch, and then proceeded to overthrow their own country's reigning monarch against his will? Parliament.

The Glorious Revolution proved that if Parliament doesn't like someone who has succeeded to the throne, they change the rules so that someone else succeeds, and kick the unwanted King out by force. Since Parliament had no legal authority to do such a thing, it was a coup d'état—and by accepting the crown on that basis, William III implicitly conceded that Parliament has the right to change succession laws as they see fit. I'm not saying that Parliament had the de jure authority to do that, but de facto they did.

Parliament is not going to step in and amend the Succession Act just to keep Vicky and Fritz off the throne; there's no serious perceived threat, not like the burning of the Protestant Martyrs, the attempted bombing of Parliament by Fawkes et al., or the Great Fire, all of which had been either caused by Catholics or unfairly blamed on them. Nobody would have seen them as enough of a risk to bring in a bill to change the succession over

Not even the threat that British foreign policy was based on the Anglo-French entente cordiale and the Anglo-Russian Convention, in order to keep France and Russia on Britain's side and to contain Germany? I think that's a pretty big threat to the British government. For all the ideas of 'Good Kaiser Fritz', by the time Friedrich III succeeded to the German throne the battle lines in Europe were already drawn.

Prussia is in my opinion more likely to amend its succession to prevent it from being subsumed into the powerful British Empire.

Now this I hadn't thought of at all. Good point.

Without a withered arm and under the control of less reactionary governors, Wilhelm would certainly turn out more balanced and less insecure, and probably more like his grandfather Albert.

Quite possibly true (I wouldn't know) but I don't think it matters much. The power of the German Kaiser is often exaggerated by the sort of people who want to believe that the First World War was a justified conflict fought by western democracies against an evil absolute monarchy. The Kaiser wasn't powerless but the Junkers and in particular the German Army had enough power that his authority was not sovereign over the German state; by the time it came to WW1, the Kaiser's will was ignored by the German government whenever it chose to, even on incredibly important matters of state. It's a matter of established fact that after Serbia gave its response to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum, Wilhelm II wrote a note to Franz Josef I of Austria-Hungary, saying that this removed any reason for war and advising him to back down, and the German government simply refused to send Franz Josef the note.
 
Not even the threat that British foreign policy was based on the Anglo-French entente cordiale and the Anglo-Russian Convention, in order to keep France and Russia on Britain's side and to contain Germany? I think that's a pretty big threat to the British government. For all the ideas of 'Good Kaiser Fritz', by the time Friedrich III succeeded to the German throne the battle lines in Europe were already drawn.

The Anglo-French entente cordiale and the Anglo-Russian Convention didn't come until 1904 and 1907 respectively, decades past the original POD.
 
The Anglo-French entente cordiale and the Anglo-Russian Convention didn't come until 1904 and 1907 respectively, decades past the original POD.
I agree with this.
About the only person in Britain who had much time for the French pre 1900 was the Prince of Wales. They served their purpose in Crimea but the UK's major ally in Europe had usually been Prussia. Russia at the time was a rival.
So if PoW and Alfred die there would be no real oppostion to Victoria II especially if she comes to the throne pre 1870. There may well be a dual monarchy as per WilliamIII and Mary II but more likely Victoria II in Britain and Frederick stays Crown Prince of Prussia.
Now what does Bismark do?
 
If Fritz and his issue are excluded from the Prussian succession who succeeds Wilhelm I in 1888? I am coming up with Prince Albrecht who reigns from 1888-1906.

I looked this up recently, after reading that Fritz was on a train that crashed in 1851 and that he apparently got really lucky there. Anyway, if he and his issue are removed from the line of succession this guy will succed Wilhelm I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Friedrich_Leopold_of_Prussia
He was Wilhelms grandnephew and only 22 years old by the time of Wilhelms death.
 
Certainly true—but I don't think she would. Salic law wasn't the reason why Hanover separated from its personal union with Great Britain, it was Great Britain's excuse to drop Hanover. In a scenario where the King of Great Britain is also King of Prussia (a nearby German nation powerful enough to protect Hanover), the best solution for Great Britain is to make Hanover part of Prussia. In a scenario where the monarch of Great Britain is not the monarch of Prussia (yet), the best solution for Great Britain is to give up Hanover as soon as it has the chance.

So if Great Britain inherits Prussia before getting a queen for the first time, I think Prussia will take Hanover. But if Great Britain gets a queen and doesn't (at the time) have any other way to get rid of Hanover, it'll get rid of Hanover that way.

I'm probably not making myself very clear, am I? :eek:
Her husband is the King of Prussia. Her son will clearly inherit it. There is no way that Parliament is going to over rule her if she wants to go to war over Hanover.
 
Top