AHC: who could take control of NZ from Britain, post 1840

After 1840 when the treaty of Waitangi was signed and NZ became a colony of Britain. Is there a conceivable way of someone else taking over, maybe with rebel Maori help or some such. I just can't really see it happening without there being or being from major butterflies removing most of British Imperial power. Is it do-able?
 
Japan, after a very different WWII. Or Germany after a very different WWI.

If you mean soon after 1840, no it would require BatPower. Prior to , maybe, 1820, possibly.

Unless you consider Australia as 'not Britain'. That would be quite easy.
 
After 1840 when the treaty of Waitangi was signed and NZ became a colony of Britain. Is there a conceivable way of someone else taking over, maybe with rebel Maori help or some such. I just can't really see it happening without there being or being from major butterflies removing most of British Imperial power. Is it do-able?

Maybe. I think the most realistic POD would be some sort of Great Power diplomatic arrangement. Where NZ is traded or given away for some other, more important reasons. Whatever that might be.

There is a narrow window of opportunity here, as NZ was not heavily settled by the British till the early 1850s, after which point things started massively skewing towards the Settlers, demographically. Responsible government being granted/enacted around 52-54.

The British in NZ up to that point were much less solidly placed - lots of traders based out of the Australian colonies, missionaries, freed convicts looking for a new start. They numbered in the low thousands (under 2?) by 1840 and not a lot more by 1850. By 1853 or so they were getting close to parity with the Maori.

The 1840s saw a few planned settlements, mainly in the North Island and northern South Island. The planned settlements in the sourthern/central South Island, where my ancestors came into the picture, didn't occur till the 1850s.

The Australian colonies would be very annoyed if this happened, as they saw NZ as their economic hinterland. Which it remains till this day. There would be a lot of people in the UK proper who would be annoyed too, as the project to make NZ British enjoyed widespread public support.

But, end of the day, it was a marginal colony and could be relatively easily traded away up till this point. So, find a reason why it would be!
 
The French settled colonies in the Pacific. Noumea, New Caledonia, Tahiti etc. If France for some reason was obsessed by expanding the Pacific empire, at any cost? At any rate they are really the only candidate.

But, after 1840, New Zealand has Britain's name on it. British prestige is involved. If Britain is going to haul down the flag, the price will be high.

And there wasn't really much in New Zealand to justify a very high price. Some gold, but it's not another South America. Timber and some natural resources, but nothing sensational. It works for Britain because of proximity to Australia, but for France it's going to be isolated , a potential hostage in time of war, hard to supply.

Britain loses a war to France or the USA and the victor picks New Zealand up in the loose change at the peace treaty? I hear the rustle of leathery wings.
 
An 1848 revolution that sweeps away the British establishment, and leads to a retraction of empire?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top