AHC: Union of Great Britain and Prussia

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.

Knowing the Parliament who wanted to rid off Hanover because not worth the wars and headache, something like this would happen:

We going to accept you as queen..but your first son will not inhert britain, he can inhernt Hannover and ruled it with blackjack and hookers. your younger one can inhereret GB inteast(obvioulsy the official version will be censored
 
Knowing the Parliament who wanted to rid off Hanover because not worth the wars and headache, something like this would happen:

We going to accept you as queen..but your first son will not inhert britain, he can inhernt Hannover and ruled it with blackjack and hookers. your younger one can inhereret GB inteast(obvioulsy the official version will be censored
Prussia + Hanover is certainly worth the headache. Moreover you're overestimating the antipathy to Hanover in parliament, the Whigs who dominated government under George I and II favored a continental foreign policy of which Hanover was an important piece.
 
Knowing the Parliament who wanted to rid off Hanover because not worth the wars and headache, something like this would happen:

We going to accept you as queen..but your first son will not inhert britain, he can inhernt Hannover and ruled it with blackjack and hookers. your younger one can inhereret GB inteast(obvioulsy the official version will be censored

I think Prussia would be more valuable than that to GB. See, Hanover could certainly be a liability; it's (military) resources were quite insignificant when compared to France. But Prussia is another ball game; it is militarily strong, a ready made ally against the French.
Sure, GB could be drawn into wars against Austria, but, conversely, Prussia would be drawn into wars against France. Having a strong army on the continent can only be a good thing in the event of a war with the French.

Prussia in personal union with Great Britain would be seen very differently to a Hanover-GB Union.
 

katchen

Banned
And having Prussia in personal union could make both for some interesting demographics in the settlement of the English colonies (more Germans settling and some Poles) and make it harder for the Patriots to win the American Revolution (going up against Prussian armies instead of just Hessians, and Baron von Steuben might actually be officering for the other side:eek:.)
 
Not to mention the linguistic and/or religious implications of such a union. And as far as how the Revolution would go differently, I'd imagine that Prussian inclusion in the UK might also mean a different Seven Years' War/French and Indian War.
 
The Whigs with their continental foreign policy will remain in power. I find it difficult to believe there would be a revolution under their rule given how much more sympathetic they were to American demands than the Tories.
 
The Whigs with their continental foreign policy will remain in power. I find it difficult to believe there would be a revolution under their rule given how much more sympathetic they were to American demands than the Tories.

Which means a totally different 7 Years' War. If Great Britain focuses mainly on the Europe, they won't launch a separate theater to kick the French off the North American continent.
 
Which means a totally different 7 Years' War. If Great Britain focuses mainly on the Europe, they won't launch a separate theater to kick the French off the North American continent.

Actually the Whigs were in power during the 7 Years War, it was only at the end when George III inherited the throne that the Tories came to power. It's one of those ironies of history that the Whigs with their continental focus on the balance of power won great North American and Indian Empires, while the Tories with their maritime-colonial focus lost the American empire. The Whigs were simply much more competent and cognizant of the facts of international politics.
 
And having Prussia in personal union could make both for some interesting demographics in the settlement of the English colonies (more Germans settling and some Poles) and make it harder for the Patriots to win the American Revolution (going up against Prussian armies instead of just Hessians, and Baron von Steuben might actually be officering for the other side:eek:.)

This assumes thatthe German and Polish settlers like being governed by the English half of the personal union, and don't join the rebellion if it even arises in this timeline. Of course, perhaps Prussia is simply given Quebec at some point...
 
Actually the Whigs were in power during the 7 Years War, it was only at the end when George III inherited the throne that the Tories came to power. It's one of those ironies of history that the Whigs with their continental focus on the balance of power won great North American and Indian Empires, while the Tories with their maritime-colonial focus lost the American empire. The Whigs were simply much more competent and cognizant of the facts of international politics.

This is a timeline-in-the-making in which it's immensely plausible for someone to one day rule from London as an emperor, rather than a mere king, of Great Britain and Ireland.
 
Top