Anglo-German relations if Frederick III doesn't die of cancer

kernals12

Banned
IOTL Germany had 3 Kaisers in 1888, Wilhelm I died at age 90, then his son Frederick took over but died just months later from cancer at only 56, bringing us the infamous Wilhelm II. Wilhelm spent his life with a raging envy of Britain, most notably in trying to build a navy as big as the Royal Navy, this, combined with gaffes such as the Daily Telegraph interview in 1908 soured relations with Britain and of course Britain went to war against Germany in 1914. Let's imagine that Frederick lived an extra 20 years. He was a major anglophile (his wife was Queen Victoria's daughter). It seems fairly obvious to me that Britain would gravitate toward the Germans instead of the Russians as IOTL and assuming that when Wilhelm does take over, he wouldn't be willing to so abruptly break it off with London, therefore Britain would side with the CP in World War I.
 
There's no particular reason for Anglo-German relations to be 'better' with a 20 year Frederick III reign, as until the naval race they weren't really 'bad' at all by late 19th century standards. At least, they were no worse than any of the relationships Britain had with the other Great Powers, and probably better than some of the relationships that Germany had. Whether Germany still does try and build a large fleet to challenge Britain is as much subject to butterflies as it is a different Kaiser, and honestly you could write a TL either way without much difficulty.

The real variables come in how Frederick III effects German domestic political development. IIRC he was considerably more amenable to liberal reforms than Wilhelm, and while he is unlikely to establish a fully-fledged constitutional monarchy a la Britain after 20 years of such leadership Germany could be considerably more politically harmonious than it was in the OTL 1910's, which weren't terrible to begin with. How this effects foreign relations however is still subject to major international trends that could, again, go either way.
 

kernals12

Banned
There's no particular reason for Anglo-German relations to be 'better' with a 20 year Frederick III reign, as until the naval race they weren't really 'bad' at all by late 19th century standards. At least, they were no worse than any of the relationships Britain had with the other Great Powers, and probably better than some of the relationships that Germany had. Whether Germany still does try and build a large fleet to challenge Britain is as much subject to butterflies as it is a different Kaiser, and honestly you could write a TL either way without much difficulty.

The real variables come in how Frederick III effects German domestic political development. IIRC he was considerably more amenable to liberal reforms than Wilhelm, and while he is unlikely to establish a fully-fledged constitutional monarchy a la Britain after 20 years of such leadership Germany could be considerably more politically harmonious than it was in the OTL 1910's, which weren't terrible to begin with. How this effects foreign relations however is still subject to major international trends that could, again, go either way.
Germany was a fully fledged constitutional monarchy, the Kaiser's powers were outlined by the constitution. I believe you mean ceremonial monarchy a la Britain.
 
Honestly the worsening of the German-British relationship was the choice of UK, it had very little to do with the actions of Germany. Of course Germany would build a navy, it seem really weird to see the fact that Germany build a navy as a act of aggression.
 
There's no particular reason for Anglo-German relations to be 'better' with a 20 year Frederick III reign, as until the naval race they weren't really 'bad' at all by late 19th century standards. At least, they were no worse than any of the relationships Britain had with the other Great Powers, and probably better than some of the relationships that Germany had. Whether Germany still does try and build a large fleet to challenge Britain is as much subject to butterflies as it is a different Kaiser, and honestly you could write a TL either way without much difficulty.

The real variables come in how Frederick III effects German domestic political development. IIRC he was considerably more amenable to liberal reforms than Wilhelm, and while he is unlikely to establish a fully-fledged constitutional monarchy a la Britain after 20 years of such leadership Germany could be considerably more politically harmonious than it was in the OTL 1910's, which weren't terrible to begin with. How this effects foreign relations however is still subject to major international trends that could, again, go either way.

Interesting thoughts here, also Britain's monarch is Parliamentary I think, hadn't been constitutional since the reign of George III.
 

kernals12

Banned
Interesting thoughts here, also Britain's monarch is Parliamentary I think, hadn't been constitutional since the reign of George III.
Technically, Britain has no written constitution. The closest thing they have is the 1689 Bill of Rights (and obviously the Magna Carta).
 
The British Monarchy is absolutely Constitutional. There is nothing 'ceremonial' about a monarchy that still has vast powers. The fact that these powers are almost never used is one feature; the fact that they definitely could be used is another feature. It helps to keep the system stable, or so the British say. Britain also absolutely has a constitution, it is simply not codified in a single document.

In any case, if Germany under Frederick III is able to develop into something resembling the British style of government it will help to stabilise Central Europe and continue the pre-war trends of general improvements in the relationships between all Western European nations. It would help make a proper Franco-German detente much more likely, remove the sometimes-problematic influence of the Kaiser, and most importantly break the back of the old German elite and eventually give much more power to the decidedly less war-like ordinary German citizenry. 'Prussian Militarism' is often overstated but nonetheless like other Europeans it was the normal German who was most opposed to war. Giving them power would help further reduce the likelihood of a World War, which was already decreasing in likelihood every year.
 
Technically, Britain has no written constitution. The closest thing they have is the 1689 Bill of Rights (and obviously the Magna Carta).

Bill of Rights, Petition of Right, Magna Carta, Act of Settlement, EU Convention of Human Rights all founding parts of our unwritten constitution.

The British Monarchy is absolutely Constitutional. There is nothing 'ceremonial' about a monarchy that still has vast powers. The fact that these powers are almost never used is one feature; the fact that they definitely could be used is another feature. It helps to keep the system stable, or so the British say. Britain also absolutely has a constitution, it is simply not codified in a single document.

In any case, if Germany under Frederick III is able to develop into something resembling the British style of government it will help to stabilise Central Europe and continue the pre-war trends of general improvements in the relationships between all Western European nations. It would help make a proper Franco-German detente much more likely, remove the sometimes-problematic influence of the Kaiser, and most importantly break the back of the old German elite and eventually give much more power to the decidedly less war-like ordinary German citizenry. 'Prussian Militarism' is often overstated but nonetheless like other Europeans it was the normal German who was most opposed to war. Giving them power would help further reduce the likelihood of a World War, which was already decreasing in likelihood every year.

The thing is though, the powers if used would get the crown overthrown, in some constitutional monarchies up until the early 1900s, the monarch could and sometimes did exercise their prerogative for the benefit of the nation. From George IV onwards, the power of the crown to do that greatly lessened.
 
The thing is though, the powers if used would get the crown overthrown, in some constitutional monarchies up until the early 1900s, the monarch could and sometimes did exercise their prerogative for the benefit of the nation. From George IV onwards, the power of the crown to do that greatly lessened.

The powers if abused would get the crown overthrown. In an appropriate crisis it would be expected that they would be employed judiciously. It has not happened in Britain in a long time, but the powers of the crown were used here in Australia only 40 years ago. Despite being extremely controversial, they monarchy was (sadly, IMO) not overthrown. The situation is slightly different in the UK, in that the monarch actually understands the local politics and has a personal stake in them while also having personal relationships with the politicians, but nevertheless if the government was in total gridlock/chaos for some reason or another the monarch would be expected to intervene.
 
The powers if abused would get the crown overthrown. In an appropriate crisis it would be expected that they would be employed judiciously. It has not happened in Britain in a long time, but the powers of the crown were used here in Australia only 40 years ago. Despite being extremely controversial, they monarchy was (sadly, IMO) not overthrown. The situation is slightly different in the UK, in that the monarch actually understands the local politics and has a personal stake in them while also having personal relationships with the politicians, but nevertheless if the government was in total gridlock/chaos for some reason or another the monarch would be expected to intervene.

Hmm interesting, I'm not sure our politicians and our public in the UK would like that, we've got some very odd ideas about our monarch. We like them being ceremonial, but then want them more relatable but dislike it when they are aha.

Anyway, re Frederick, I do think a strong centralized government with him at the helm could be a good thing.
 
The powers if abused would get the crown overthrown. In an appropriate crisis it would be expected that they would be employed judiciously. It has not happened in Britain in a long time, but the powers of the crown were used here in Australia only 40 years ago. Despite being extremely controversial, they monarchy was (sadly, IMO) not overthrown. The situation is slightly different in the UK, in that the monarch actually understands the local politics and has a personal stake in them while also having personal relationships with the politicians, but nevertheless if the government was in total gridlock/chaos for some reason or another the monarch would be expected to intervene.

Wasn't that thing the Governor-General's choice and not Elizabeth's?
 

kernals12

Banned
The British Monarchy is absolutely Constitutional. There is nothing 'ceremonial' about a monarchy that still has vast powers. The fact that these powers are almost never used is one feature; the fact that they definitely could be used is another feature. It helps to keep the system stable, or so the British say. Britain also absolutely has a constitution, it is simply not codified in a single document.

In any case, if Germany under Frederick III is able to develop into something resembling the British style of government it will help to stabilise Central Europe and continue the pre-war trends of general improvements in the relationships between all Western European nations. It would help make a proper Franco-German detente much more likely, remove the sometimes-problematic influence of the Kaiser, and most importantly break the back of the old German elite and eventually give much more power to the decidedly less war-like ordinary German citizenry. 'Prussian Militarism' is often overstated but nonetheless like other Europeans it was the normal German who was most opposed to war. Giving them power would help further reduce the likelihood of a World War, which was already decreasing in likelihood every year.
If they were used, Britain would quickly become a Republic.
 
Is there any actual evidence that Frederick III was personally much more liberal and would gave ruled as such? I can't help but feel that after the fiasco of Wilhelm II there was/is a certain amount of people pinning their hope onto him without much in the way of justification.
 

kernals12

Banned
Is there any actual evidence that Frederick III was personally much more liberal and would gave ruled as such? I can't help but feel that after the fiasco of Wilhelm II there was/is a certain amount of people pinning their hope onto him without much in the way of justification.
Even if he wasn't a liberal, he certainly didn't suffer from his son's narcissism or lack of self discipline.
 
Honestly the worsening of the German-British relationship was the choice of UK, it had very little to do with the actions of Germany. Of course Germany would build a navy, it seem really weird to see the fact that Germany build a navy as a act of aggression.

I wouldn't say that, necessarily. A lot of the issues between the two nations came from both sides, but arguably more of them came from Willy. Wilhelm had his extreme Anglophilia and inferiority complex. These combined to make it where nearly every time he tried to get closer to the Brits, it backfired horribly. Not helped by Edward not liking Wilhelm or Bülow and friends doing their utmost to sabotage things on the German side.

This even comes in with the Kaiserliche Marine. It wasn't so much Germany having a navy, per-se. It was the fact that Wilhelm (and Tirpitz, especially Tirpitz) wanted a navy with BIG BATTLESHIPS (and later Battlecruisers) that was pretty clearly angled to be large enough to challenge the RN in a local conflict, knowing they had global concerns. Willy himself may have not understood how he was poking the British in trying to emulate them, Tirpitz most certainly did. Were Germany to have kept a fleet that was only sufficient for self-defense and fighting the French or Russians, there would have been less of an issue.

(there's also an issue on the British side with people like Jacky Fisher and Churchill involved, admittedly.)

At least, that's what I've read into the situation.

NOTE:

I'm not trying to make the British look good, mind you. They were extremely extremely extremely touchy about anything that looked like it would challenge the wooden steel walls of the Royal Navy. Some would say too touchy.
 
I wouldn't say that, necessarily. A lot of the issues between the two nations came from both sides, but arguably more of them came from Willy. Wilhelm had his extreme Anglophilia and inferiority complex. These combined to make it where nearly every time he tried to get closer to the Brits, it backfired horribly. Not helped by Edward not liking Wilhelm or Bülow and friends doing their utmost to sabotage things on the German side.

This even comes in with the Kaiserliche Marine. It wasn't so much Germany having a navy, per-se. It was the fact that Wilhelm (and Tirpitz, especially Tirpitz) wanted a navy with BIG BATTLESHIPS (and later Battlecruisers) that was pretty clearly angled to be large enough to challenge the RN in a local conflict, knowing they had global concerns. Willy himself may have not understood how he was poking the British in trying to emulate them, Tirpitz most certainly did. Were Germany to have kept a fleet that was only sufficient for self-defense and fighting the French or Russians, there would have been less of an issue.

(there's also an issue on the British side with people like Jacky Fisher and Churchill involved, admittedly.)

At least, that's what I've read into the situation.

NOTE:

I'm not trying to make the British look good, mind you. They were extremely extremely extremely touchy about anything that looked like it would challenge the wooden steel walls of the Royal Navy. Some would say too touchy.
Would Frederick have handled things with more panache?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Wilhelm had his extreme Anglophilia and inferiority complex. These combined to make it where nearly every time he tried to get closer to the Brits, it backfired horribly. Not helped by Edward not liking Wilhelm or Bülow and friends doing their utmost to sabotage things on the German side.

Well shouldn't the onus be shared. Willy was doing what he was doing, and it was not smooth or well-received. But is there not also a problem with Edward and others confusing the annoying with the dangerous, and for unduly letting personality preferences shape the policies of the state?
 
The British Monarchy is absolutely Constitutional. There is nothing 'ceremonial' about a monarchy that still has vast powers. The fact that these powers are almost never used is one feature; the fact that they definitely could be used is another feature. It helps to keep the system stable, or so the British say. Britain also absolutely has a constitution, it is simply not codified in a single document.

In any case, if Germany under Frederick III is able to develop into something resembling the British style of government it will help to stabilise Central Europe and continue the pre-war trends of general improvements in the relationships between all Western European nations. It would help make a proper Franco-German detente much more likely, remove the sometimes-problematic influence of the Kaiser, and most importantly break the back of the old German elite and eventually give much more power to the decidedly less war-like ordinary German citizenry. 'Prussian Militarism' is often overstated but nonetheless like other Europeans it was the normal German who was most opposed to war. Giving them power would help further reduce the likelihood of a World War, which was already decreasing in likelihood every year.
A Franco-German detente was impossible regardless of Germany's form of government, that's kind of the whole point of French war guilt. France was implacably hostile to Germany almost no matter what Germany did. Even giving back AL may not have changed this. This is precisely what Bismarck predicted. For the record, the Germans did try on several occasions to improve relations with France, and any cooperating French government was promptly removed from office.
 
Top