British Hanover at the Beginning of WW1
- Thread starter Michael B
- Start date
Personally I believe that if Hanover remains in personal union with Britain it would not get involved in the "unification wars". I don't think British parliament would want to get involved in those wars and thus force the king to remain neutral. Prussia (or any other German power) would fear British involvement and simply leave Hanover alone.I think that in the end Hanover will turn into a big Luxemburg. A "German" country in personal union with another country and thus staying outside of German unification.
An independent Hanover will probably change the unification wars" significantly, but for fun lets assume it doesn't, including the assumption that Prussia still manages to defeat France in the Franco-Prussian war even without the Hanoverian territory. First colonisation will probably be very different. Germany will not have a good port at the north sea, not even Hamburg since that is bordering British Hanover. I am not so sure this Germany would go for colonies. That would change the Anglo-German relations quite a lot. With no colonies there will be no naval race. No colonies would also significantly change WWI, since it would only be fought in Europe.So not much of a WWI. If it means Anglo-Prussian relations are still pretty good because of the lack of the naval race and the fact that Britain and Germany sort of border each other, the Franco-British alliance would be significantly weakened. Even without Belgium Britain was already pro-French. Belgium was a great reason to actualy join the war. If Anglo-German relations are still pretty good at the start of WWI, Belgium might not be enough reason for the British to join the war. France knowing that they can't count on British support might because of that not even declare war on Germany but look for a diplomatic solution thus avoiding the entire world war or simply turn it into a localised conflict. Actualy even if France joins the war, without Britain (and thus the USA) or any fighting in the colonies, this would just turn out to be a major European war, but not into a World War.
An independent Hanover will probably change the unification wars" significantly, but for fun lets assume it doesn't, including the assumption that Prussia still manages to defeat France in the Franco-Prussian war even without the Hanoverian territory. First colonisation will probably be very different. Germany will not have a good port at the north sea, not even Hamburg since that is bordering British Hanover. I am not so sure this Germany would go for colonies. That would change the Anglo-German relations quite a lot. With no colonies there will be no naval race. No colonies would also significantly change WWI, since it would only be fought in Europe.So not much of a WWI. If it means Anglo-Prussian relations are still pretty good because of the lack of the naval race and the fact that Britain and Germany sort of border each other, the Franco-British alliance would be significantly weakened. Even without Belgium Britain was already pro-French. Belgium was a great reason to actualy join the war. If Anglo-German relations are still pretty good at the start of WWI, Belgium might not be enough reason for the British to join the war. France knowing that they can't count on British support might because of that not even declare war on Germany but look for a diplomatic solution thus avoiding the entire world war or simply turn it into a localised conflict. Actualy even if France joins the war, without Britain (and thus the USA) or any fighting in the colonies, this would just turn out to be a major European war, but not into a World War.
Possible but not guaranteed as much would depend by the name he used mostly (who in OTL was Victoria). Plus the only name of ATL male Victoria about which we can be almost sure is Alexander as in OTL she was called Alexandrina in honor of her godfather, the Tsar Alexander (who would be godfather also for a boy)
But we can also be quite sure that it won't be his only name, and, as our own timeline proved it, almost every child gets and got one of multiple "royal" names, be it Edward, George or the one William we've gotten since the Act of Union, which were chosen instead of other names.
Now quoting from Wikipedia:
"Though most monarchs of the United Kingdom have used their first baptismal name as their regnal name, on three occasions monarchs have chosen a different name.
First, Queen Victoria had been christened Alexandrina Victoria, but took the throne under the name Victoria.
When Victoria's son, Prince Albert Edward, became king in 1901, he took the regnal name Edward VII, against the wish of his late mother.[3] The new king declared that he chose the name Edward alone as an honoured name borne by six of his predecessors, and that he did not wish to diminish the status of his father, with whom alone among royalty the name Albert should be associated.
In 1936, after the abdication crisis, Prince Albert, Duke of York, assumed the throne as King George VI rather than "King Albert". His full name was Albert Frederick Arthur George; like Edward VII and Victoria he used another of his names.
There has been speculation that the current heir apparent to the British throne, Charles, Prince of Wales, whose full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, may elect not to be known as "Charles III" out of concern about comparisons with Charles II of England (who was known for his Catholic sympathies), Charles I of England (who was executed after the English Civil War) and the Jacobite memory of the "Young Pretender" Charles Edward Stuart (who claimed the title "Charles III").[4] He may instead choose to be known as George VII in honour of his grandfather. However, the Prince has not as yet announced any decision."
Additionally, Prince Albert Victor, oldest son of Edward VII, would have succeeded him as Edward VIII. But he died before it could happen.
Assuming Hanover stays out of the German unification wars and relations between a unified German state (in whatever ATL form it takes) and Britain be somewhat warmer than OTL, there might be some interesting social/economic consequences. Up until Victoria, affairs in Hanover were handled by a younger member of the Royal Family. presumably free trade exists between the UK and Hanover using the port of Bremerhaven, yielding economic ties between the merchants and manufacturers of Britain and Hanover. Given the Protestantism of the ruling house, it seems likely that intermarriage of upper class and nobility families will increase over time, further cementing ties and many of the British gentry will have cousins in Hanover and vice versa. Germany was becoming a leader in certain technologies, particularly chemistry and pharmacology and these would become more quickly available to a UK with a German connection, further enriching both nations. +
Hanover was a politically separate realm that was for a while a personal possession of the King of Great Britain. It was never British.
Major AH challenge: have the union of crowns between Britain and Hanover become a full political union, as happened with England and Scotland.
I can't think of a possible scenario for this. For one thing, no one in either country wanted such a union. True, not everyone in England and Scotland wanted that union. But geographically, it was a natural and practical (also religiously and linguistically). Which union with Hanover would not be at all.
Still... any ideas?
Victoria was the first to do that and the main reason for that change was the fact who she was usually called with her second name Victoria instead of the first Alexandrina.
Letting Hanover in the first place is already hard enough, but a Second Act of Union is, for what we know, impossible without some serious butterflies.
With butterflies, maybe, after some sort of Great War analogue, Hanover and the UK are forced to politically unite in some way due to the destruction the war has caused in the flat regions of Lower Saxony.
It is possible to let them unite, given a capable author, but not before the 1900s. That's at least how I see it.