Britain retains Hannover

[Sonichu]

This is annoying. You have heard how most Scottish people do not like if you call the UK "England"? It is misleading and impolite to call a hypothetical Prussian-led rump Germany (that is very unlikely to encompass everthing but Hanover and Hanover's enclaves) "the Germans" when Hanover, Brunswick, Oldenburg, Holstein and the Hanseatic Cities are no less populated by Germans.

I don't know that this is fair. It's quite possible that the people of a rump Germany sans Hanover might still call their state Germany, in which case it is entirely reasonable to refer to its inhabitants as Germans. There's a distinction to be drawn between "Germans" as an ethnic group and "Germans" as a nationality - for instance, Austrians, especially in the 1800's, might be seen as ethnic Germans, but they were not Germans in the sense of being citizens/nationals of the German Empire.

Or, for instance, if Bavaria were to secede from the German Federal Republic today, and ended up fighting an independence war, I think most historians would refer to the two sides as "the Germans" and "the Bavarians", even though Bavarians are indisputably Germans. When he said "the Germans" I understood it to mean the people living in a Prussian-led rump Germany; there didn't seem to be any impolite implication that the people of Hanover are not German.

 

[Luminous]

No offense taken. I did not feel personally insulted at all, but you probably know that some AH writers project the opinions of 1914-1945 about Germany back into earlier times. Which leads to sloppy AH.

Anyway, you make a lot of good points.
Hanover is in itself indefensible against Prussia unless you station a lot of additional troops there, which no one will want to pay for.

Either Hanover allies with Prussia as a junior partner, protected against treachery by the idea that the wrath of His Britannic Majesty is not to be taken lightly.
This, of course, either means that Hanover will stay outside of the Prussian-led Closer Union and in an alliance with that Germany in a position similar to A-H. Or it keeps this TL's United Germany much looser than the OTL 1867/71 version. In fact, it might be based on the Zollverein as an EEC parallel.

Or Hanover follows a rather antagonistic course towards Prussia. As always since the early 18th century, that means the King needs a strong ally that will be able to hurt Prussia enough, so Hanover will be restored during the peace talks.

a) France? For a German king to openly ally with the Orleans kingdom against fellow German monarchs is a PR nightmare. George will have every German publicist to the left of Tsar Nicholas aginst him. Loudly. The memories of the Liberation Wars against Napoleon are far too fresh.

b) Russia? The same as above, only moreso. Russia was only favored by the fans of absolutist monarchies. While the majority of the German Nationals were Liberals and rather against "Kings' Rights" that kept particularism strong

c) Austria? Possible. The Emperor wil be seen as a power that can at least balance the power oif Prussia, but Austria still is rather far from Hanover and cannot easily project force there. The best of the three not-really-good options.

Reagrding investments: Must the UK government sent money there instead of elsewhere? Favourable condition for private investors from Britain might already help.

I'm examining the antagonistic version, as that is the one that has the largest difficulties and the one that would most likely occur (as I don't see Prussia not wanting to have Hanover join in the German Empire as a constituent kingdom, at the very least). As such, looking at OTL, we see Austria actually allying with Hanover and many of the larger German states and losing in 1866. In that war, they were surrounded by hostile states and eventually were overwhelmed by superior numbers.

If we have Great Britain still in a personal union with Hanover, they may not take part in the war at all, but it is just as likely that, considering that (all things being equal) they would be surrounded by the new North German Confederation. You might see the citizens eventually desiring a union; if the King of Hanover doesn't allow it, the nationalists may try to enact unification themselves.

In order to avert this, the Austro-Prussian War must be averted (doubtful) or end with Austrian victory (moreso). It might be interesting to see a British-Austrian alliance in the middle of the 19th century. This could be enough international support that German Unification doesn't take place, or that it doesn't include Hanover in addition to the South German states (and maybe Saxony). Of course, this also means that the future Germany, as it were, would be a snake of territory between the two sides, which I don't see as really tenable.

In the end, for an independent Hanover, I would say a few things are important: have Oldenburg, Brunswick, Hamburg, and Bremen (along with perhaps Saxe-Lauenburg & Lübeck) to be friendly with Hanover. This means that their nearby borders are secure and they have some common unity in the region. Perhaps playing up the Low Saxon heritage and differentiating from High Germans in South Germany and the Prussians in the East might help, but that probably wouldn't do anything until the 20th century.

Another thing that might draw Britain and Austria together might be a long term common enemy. Perhaps have the Ottoman Empire start to collapse in the 1830s/1840s, with the British needing someone to fill in the gap to prevent the Russians from moving in. The Austrians could, possibly, get carte blanche to move in and prop up the European side of the straits. Not that this would likely do good things for the Empire's long term survival.

At what time can the P.O.D. take place? Back in 1714? I've been assuming P.O.D.s from after the Treaty of Versailles, but we could go back to 1700ish in all reality and still have the personal union come into effect.

 

[VVD0D95]

Hmm, very interesting points, a pre 1714 pod, might change a lot of things though.

 

[Ed Costello]

FWIW, Jared in Decades of Darkness had Edward VII (the child who would have been Victoria was born male ITTL) remaining ruler of Hanover in a federal Grossdeutschland - that comes to a head pretty early on, when everyone realises that giving the British King a voice in the German government is a recipe for trouble. They eventually come to a diplomatic understanding, IIRC (it's been a while since I read that bit).

 

[VVD0D95]

FWIW, Jared in Decades of Darkness had Edward VII (the child who would have been Victoria was born male ITTL) remaining ruler of Hanover in a federal Grossdeutschland - that comes to a head pretty early on, when everyone realises that giving the British King a voice in the German government is a recipe for trouble. They eventually come to a diplomatic understanding, IIRC (it's been a while since I read that bit).

Oh nice

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

It doubt that it would change much, except that Prussia would not annex Hanover in 1866 because that would mean war with Britain. It would also mean that Brunswick would not become part of the German Empire if Duke William did not have a legitimate heir (something he did not have in OTL because of the possibility that his brother, former Duke Charles II, could also get a legitimate heir which would replace William's heir in the line to the throne). According to the the house law of House Welf House Hanover (a cadet branch of House Welf) will succeed if House Brunswick (another cadet branch of House Welf) becomes extinct in male line and vice versa.
BTW, and interesting PoD would be if Victoria died before her uncle, her other uncle, Ernest Augustus would have become king.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

. How might things have gone had Britain held onto Hannover right until German unification?

Wrong premise. Britain never held Hannover; it was a separate personal possession of the Kings of Great Britain. The British crown had no authority in Hannover, and no one in British politics wanted Britain to exercise any such authority or have any responsibility for Hannover.

The end of the union of crowns between Britain and Hannover with the accession of Victoria was welcomed in Britain.

Now, had Victoria been Victor instead, the crowns could have remained united, with interesting consequences. However, my guess is that the British political leadership would push young Victor into "spinning off" Hannover, by giving it to his uncle Ernst Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland (who OTL succeeded in Hannover).

 

[arctic warrior]

Personaly I believe it means that Hanover turns into a big sort of Luxemburg. Britain will remain neutral in theGerman wars, which mean that Hanover will remain neutral and not choose a side. Prussia will be too caution to offend Britain. Hanover is not worth angering the UK. Even if it is likely that the UK will not go to war over it. It will not be worth the risk. I suspect that it will mean that Germany unifies without Hanover. Hanover remains neutral and independent and will probably profit from being independent. So in the end they, like Luxemburg will form their own identity seperate but related to Germany. The personal union will probably remain*, but Hanover will never be part of the UK. Just another country with the same monarch.

*At least if the UK has no female monarch in the 19th and early 20th century. If the UK gets one in the late 20th century, I suspect that Hanover will changes it laws to accept a female monarch, just to continue the tradition.

Regarding 1848 would this neutrality go so far as to not heed the call of the German Confederation and thus not commit the Hanoverian troops to the Confederation Corps moving into the Holstein?
If so the Confederation may feel a grudge towards Britain and the Confederation toops in the Schleswig War may lack some troops which even Prussia with its engagements in other German states may not feel up to replace. Said troops would also miss its commander general Hallkett.
Granted this doesn't make the Danes automatically victorious but it make for political implications; foremost the position of Britain/Hanover vs the German Confederation or rather before the activities of said body the position of Prussia, Austria and Britain vis-a-vis each other. With an indecide Austria during the early days Britain may - if it want to - tell Frederick of Prussia what it wants which may pursuade the Danish government to join the conference Prussia and Austria had called for the early days of March 1848.
With Britain a partner in German affairs the advance into the Kingdom may not happen 2. May 1848 and the war could be contained to the Duchies which would leave the Confederation hostile to Britain.

 

[jonmb]

While the British political leadership wanted to be rid of Hanover, they would have had a impossible time trying to persuade any monarch of the House of Hanover to part with it voluntarily. It's possible that a young, impressionable Victor might be persuaded to pass it over to his uncle, especially if (like Victoria) Victor might want Ernest out of the country. I'n not sure Ernest would accept this. He was so keen to keep the crowns of Britain and Hanover united that he tried to match Victoria with his son Prince George. He was also a real stickler for protocol being carried out to the letter.

While Britain might be happy to give up Hanover diplomatically, there is no way that they would want Hanover taken from their king by force of arms. Such a slight on the monarch of the most powerful nation would have serious repercussions on Britain's global standing and empire. OTL Prussia was able to threaten Hanover in 1866. While Prussia would not threaten Hanover if it was supported by Britain, the King of Hanover and Britain would still have been able to support Austria as George V of Hanover did. This could present a tricky situation for Britain. How could they stop the King of Hanover from doing what he thought was right for Hanover if it was also wrong for Britain? Would the King support Austria and gamble that any Prussian retaliation would draw Britain into the conflict? Would it lead to a new political crisis in Britain?

 

[VVD0D95]

While the British political leadership wanted to be rid of Hanover, they would have had a impossible time trying to persuade any monarch of the House of Hanover to part with it voluntarily. It's possible that a young, impressionable Victor might be persuaded to pass it over to his uncle, especially if (like Victoria) Victor might want Ernest out of the country. I'n not sure Ernest would accept this. He was so keen to keep the crowns of Britain and Hanover united that he tried to match Victoria with his son Prince George. He was also a real stickler for protocol being carried out to the letter.

While Britain might be happy to give up Hanover diplomatically, there is no way that they would want Hanover taken from their king by force of arms. Such a slight on the monarch of the most powerful nation would have serious repercussions on Britain's global standing and empire. OTL Prussia was able to threaten Hanover in 1866. While Prussia would not threaten Hanover if it was supported by Britain, the King of Hanover and Britain would still have been able to support Austria as George V of Hanover did. This could present a tricky situation for Britain. How could they stop the King of Hanover from doing what he thought was right for Hanover if it was also wrong for Britain? Would the King support Austria and gamble that any Prussian retaliation would draw Britain into the conflict? Would it lead to a new political crisis in Britain?

Just to point out the King following William IV would be his son George V, born in 1821 and dying in 1891, therefore in charge of both Britain and Hannover from 1837-1891, and being present during the Prussian issue.