Anglo-Hanoverian split without Queen Victoria

I have been thinking about a timeline I wish to start (don't get too excited, this is the third timeline I have thought about and I haven't started any so far). The POD is before the birth of queen Victoria (around 1810), so i figured that her birth would be butterflied away. This lead me to believe that without Victoria as queen, Hanover would remain in personal union with the UK (I would like to apologise to all Scotisch, Welsh and Irish for the title). The thing is, I want to include Hanover in the attempt of Prussia to unify/conquer Germay. If Hanover remains British this wil be a lot harder. So I want to accomplish some kind of split between Hanover and the UK, but I have no good idea how to do it. So do you have any ideas, preferably in the early/middle of the 19th century)?
 
Hannover is already a vice-royalty, ruled by a royal prince in an almost independent fashion.

Perhaps if one can bring about the overthrow of the Mughals, and the establishment of an earlier Empire of India, then the viceroyalty of Hannover will be seen as a second-class appendage, and left to its own devices ?

Or perhaps we can wait till 1848, after which the viceroy is declared king, and the two states formally separated ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Susano

Banned
Correction, Grey Wolf: Hannover WAS an independant state, it just happened to be in personal union with the UK. It was not a British colony. Now, if you say there was a Viceroy, well, thats news to me, but Ill trust you. Still, it wasnt a British Viceroy, but just the deputy of a King who happened to be away (in London, that is).

That difference isnt merely theoretical, either: The British King also rules in Hannover, but as an own office and title, as King of Hannover - and the British Parliament, though does of course not. Hannover has an own parliament, but as it was an absolutist state without much power. It also has an own administrtaion, an own government, etc etc etc. It jsut so happens that the head of that government, the monarch, is also monarch of a more senior realm, where he resides.

That being said, as long as the Personnal Union continues, the two (2!) realms will of course have an intertwinned history.Now if you mean with Prussian attempts to unify Germany Bismarck's policy (instead of, say, teh Erfurt Union of 1850)... well, I still maintain that wasnt really Bismarcks aim, but, oh well. One way or another, if unification coems from above (instead of form below, the people, as was tried 1848), Prussia and Austria will come to blows. With such an early PoD it might not be 1866, it might have totally different backgrounds, but a confrontation seems inevitable.

I think Hannover would stay neutral in such a war. Now, IOTL, Prussi apressured all neutral North german states (and its allis, too) into theNorth German Cofnfederation, but Hannover ha steh UK behind it and thus it cant be done with Hannover. And that would effectively shut out Hannover from the German unification process. So, a solution would be that as IOTL, Hannover sides with Austria and then get conquered and annexed by Prussia. Of course that would also mean the Uk sides with Austria, but naval power wont be required in that war, so I dont think much will change.

Another solution is the 1848 revolution. Now, her eliekwise it might not be 1848, but there will be democratic-nationalist unrests. IOTL, 1830 there were of some kind europe-wide, too, and then latr and bigegr again 1848, so I think due to the sentiments of the time there will be some nationalist-democratic unrest. Now, IOTL Prussia was the saviour of absolutism in Germany. Its troops intervened about everywhere and put the unrest down. This gave Prussia enough power to try to force a German Union (above mentioned "Erfurt Union", so named becaus ethe negotiations took place in Erfurt) on those states. The project was eventually ended because the states had no interst in such an union, Prussia became kidna esintersted, too, and eventualyl Austria returned to the German scene.

But lets imagine two alterations to that OTL happenstance:
1) Unrest is much, much worse in Hannover, so much that the King's Government becomes more or less unable to rule even after proclaiming a liberal constitution. Prussia intervenes as per OTL (I cant see Britain intervening to put down a revolt demanding a constitutional monarchy, I dont think Parliament would go along with it), but the Prussian presence is much more needed then IOTL. Hence the King of Hannover (who is also King of the UK) concedes that compromise with Prussia is necessary.
2) Prusisa puruses the Erfurt Union projet more eargerly, and for some reason Austria keeps gettingd sirtacted in Hungary so that, summarised, it comes to pas, including for aforementioned reason Hannover.

Reactions in Britain would be... intersting, surely. This would make their monarch a subordered monarch of a non-souvereign state within another country. They could feel that this will more or less compromitt their Monarchs position and integrity, and hence an act of Parliament (which after all controlls the UK laws of succession) might then force dynastical split on the King.
 
Correction, Grey Wolf: Hannover WAS an independant state, it just happened to be in personal union with the UK. It was not a British colony. Now, if you say there was a Viceroy, well, thats news to me, but Ill trust you. Still, it wasnt a British Viceroy, but just the deputy of a King who happened to be away (in London, that is).

That difference isnt merely theoretical, either: The British King also rules in Hannover, but as an own office and title, as King of Hannover - and the British Parliament, though does of course not. Hannover has an own parliament, but as it was an absolutist state without much power. It also has an own administrtaion, an own government, etc etc etc. It jsut so happens that the head of that government, the monarch, is also monarch of a more senior realm, where he resides.

The Kingdom of Hanover was not an absolutist state since 1819.

But lets imagine two alterations to that OTL happenstance:
1) Unrest is much, much worse in Hannover, so much that the King's Government becomes more or less unable to rule even after proclaiming a liberal constitution. Prussia intervenes as per OTL (I cant see Britain intervening to put down a revolt demanding a constitutional monarchy, I dont think Parliament would go along with it), but the Prussian presence is much more needed then IOTL. Hence the King of Hannover (who is also King of the UK) concedes that compromise with Prussia is necessary.2) Prusisa puruses the Erfurt Union projet more eargerly, and for some reason Austria keeps gettingd sirtacted in Hungary so that, summarised, it comes to pas, including for aforementioned reason Hannover.

Reactions in Britain would be... intersting, surely. This would make their monarch a subordered monarch of a non-souvereign state within another country. They could feel that this will more or less compromitt their Monarchs position and integrity, and hence an act of Parliament (which after all controlls the UK laws of succession) might then force dynastical split on the King.

Georg V was pro-prussia and a founding member of the Erfurter Union.
A stronger revolution in Hanover is not necessary, "just" a weaker Austria + allies if you want a succesfull Union with Hanover within.
 

Susano

Banned
Eh, well, not completly absolutist, correct, but not democratic, either. Or, really, not really a rule by the estates, either. While Hannove rdid have a constitution, most power still was with the King. And certainly way more than in the UK.

As for George V., yes, but he already was King of Hannover alone, the personal union already having been split. Id think circumstance swoul dbe a bit different if the personal union still existed, it would take quite a bit then, I think, for Hannover to take part in such an union.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Prussia will have to fight hard for it.

William IV had amended the constitution to make Hanover more of a parliamentry democracy with a constitutional monarchy. If he was succeeded by a son, like in the timeline I am working on, who inherits both thrones, then the more liberal constitution is likely to continue. It was the separate Kingdom of Hanover that reverted to a more centrist monarchy.

Hanover was forced into Germany by Prussia declaring war on them. Had Hanover not been alone, had she still been in personal union with the British throne, Prussia would have been less inclined to take her on. So you need to separate off Hanover by democratic means before the Austro-Prussian war of unification. I can't see Hanover declaring a revolution given it's liberal constitution and loyalty to the King. At most a defensive alliance with Oldenburg and the neighbouring Hansiatic City States might require some distancing from London. Maybe religious and political outrage at the Reform Act and acceptance of Irish catholicism? Yet Hanover was quite used to Austrian and Bavarian catholicism. Prussia is going to have to beat the British to take Hanover.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Susan

Why would you want to appear that condescending?

Trolling I guess. Sorry for not ignoring you, initially.
 
This lead me to believe that without Victoria as queen, Hanover would remain in personal union with the UK (I would like to apologise to all Scotisch, Welsh and Irish for the title).?

Sorry, I have no intention of changing the topic or starting general chat but I want to point out that you have deeply offended me and potentially many others, by implying that anyone other than the English can't feel British, or are opposed to the idea of the UK.

I usually don't get so wound up, but please, keep those sort of things to general.

Oh, and to have a split is presumably quite easy. The growth in German nationalism + the eventual rise in power of Prussia makes it quite likely, whether by coup or military conquest.
 
Sorry, I have no intention of changing the topic or starting general chat but I want to point out that you have deeply offended me and potentially many others, by implying that anyone other than the English can't feel British, or are opposed to the idea of the UK.

I usually don't get so wound up, but please, keep those sort of things to general.
What I meant to say with my apology to the Scottish, Welsh and Irish was that in the title of this thread I spoke of an Anglo-Hannoverian split. This would insinuate that it was a split between Hannover and (only) England, when it was a split between Hannover and the entire UK, which included not only England, but also Scotland, Wales and Ireland. I know of the dislike of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish, when people use England when they mean the UK, so I decided to apologise before any of them could get upset. I didn't realise that this way I was so unclear about what I meant that I insulted the English. That is why I apologise too the English too, which only seams fair as now I have apologised to the entire UK (or do the inhabitants of Man, the Channel Islands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. an apology too?).
 
So, by (unnecesarily and clumsily IMO) apologizing in advance for the way someone might possibly misconstrue your words, you angered the folks you hoped not to anger.
 
Top