DBWI :: A Hanoverian England?

There was also Saxony-Poland. It seemed quite relevant in conteporary perception, even if actually Poland was more a drain to Saxonian Electors than anything else.

Not to mention that unlike the other electoral unions, Poland was an elective monarchy that didn't devolve to de facto hereditary monarchy, due to how powerful the nobles were.

And it wasn't like Poland-Lithuania would be effective enough to provide resources for the Saxon electors, despite the size.
 
I wouldn't be so definite about that. Though the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was formally called The Most Serene Republic, and the monarchy was essentially elective, the oldest son of the previous King stood at least a very good chance of being chosen, was in fact the default successor. And under its last King Stanislaus II the by then rump Commonwealth did at last adopt hereditary succession; having no son of his own, Stanislaus would were it not for other events have been succeeded by none other than the Elector of Saxony, and his heirs thereafter.

I will mention in passing a misconception that, who knows, might be prevalent in this other, Hanoverian timeline as well. The first two Prussian Kings were called Kings in rather than of Prussia to avoid offence to Poland-Lithuania rather more than to the Emperor. Half of Prussia was still in Poland, and King of Prussia might have implied a claim to it. There were, naturally, plans as opposed to claims laid, and having gobbled up the rest of Prussia Frederick II made the appropriate change to his title.
 
Not to mention that unlike the other electoral unions, Poland was an elective monarchy that didn't devolve to de facto hereditary monarchy, due to how powerful the nobles were.

And it wasn't like Poland-Lithuania would be effective enough to provide resources for the Saxon electors, despite the size.

Yes, actually the other way round.
But still, the Electors seriously meant to make their position in Poland as de facto hereditary and saw it as an addition to their power.
 
All this analysis of the role of Britain in the Holy Roman Empire is nice but if Henry of Navarre was willing to convert Catholicism (after coming close to being murdered by Catholics), do you really think Stuart heirs wouldn't be falling over themselves to declare their allegiance to Canterbury rather than Rome? I think the history of the Stuart dynasty shows that while religion is nice, power is a far more effective motivation.
 
Mind if a curious Columbian budges in and asks how things would turn out in the old American colonies? Do you think the crown would be able to retain the colonies in New England, Virginia, etc. or would a more distant king lead to losing them to France or somewhat (especially, if as someone said, French expansionism would remain unchecked)? In other words, would there still be a Dominion of Columbia? Or would it be swallowed up by Canada?
 
I don't see why it would have made a direct difference. There was no particular recorded Jacobite sentiment in the then colonies, and the strengthening of such sentiment that might have arisen from this turn would thus have had little to feed on. The cascade of unknown consequences that would arise from having different people at the helm could have led anywhere, of course. One can envisage the exact reverse of the present position, with the British conquering Canada in some war or other that didn't happen in reality, and then some or all of the colonies that in actual history remained loyal, developing towards freely given independence under a shared Crown, finding some reason to rebel while Canada remained under that Crown, even to today! Perhaps resentment at accommodations made to Catholicism in the newly conquered territories could be a factor in both revolt and Canadian loyalty, it is impossible to tell.

A matter that for more direct reasons might have gone differently, and not near so well, is the union between England and Scotland. As we know, this was completed near the end of Queen Anne's life, driven in part by her wish to see her son's position in all realms absolutely secure, in part by a sentimental desire as the last Stuart monarch of the Isles (absent an unlikely Jacobite triumph) to complete the project of the first, her great-grandfather James I and VI, whose desire for a formal rather than personal union was, like most things he attempted, frustrated by the English parliament.

As far as ministers and the legislatures were concerned, for England it was hardly an economic necessity but centuries of the Auld Alliance had not been forgotten, and strategically it was sensible to ensure against Scotland ever again allying with Continental powers against England. For Scotland, so dependent on trade with and by then subsidy from England, it was advantageous to ensure that trade between the countries would forever be free, and their willing consent could itself be traded for very favourable terms.

And so it was done, entirely amicably, and no one now in either country would ever wish for that union to be sundered. It is possible though to envisage a different dynastic situation leading to a different and less happy outcome. Union most likely would have taken place, and perhaps it might even have been earlier, but it is possible to imagine a sulky Scotland being dragooned into it and never really reconciling itself to the union, even centuries later. Dragooned probably not by threats of military force, but by threats or even application of an economic blockade, disastrous to the Scotland of the day.

The difference would be that while no one in Scotland would object to Anne being succeeded by her own son, any more than in England, they might have felt differently about her second cousin, and also felt that, the succession being no longer prescriptive but determined by law, they could make their own law and their own choices thank you very much. England would definitely never accept this, Scotland could never itself pose a military threat to England but it forming Continental alliances could. The course of events from there is unlikely to be as satisfactory as it in reality was.

While pondering this I have taken the time to examine what Protestant alternatives to the Electress Sophia and her son the Elector George Louis there were. In essence, none. He had siblings one of whom might have been chosen, but how likely is it that one of them would accept the Scottish crown in defiance of their mother and elder brother? And though this could not be known then the only one of his siblings who had issue was his sister the Queen in Prussia, who clearly would not be available even had she lived longer than she did (d. 1705). What was known then was that no one apart from George Louis and his sister had an immediate heir. Due to a horrible marital situation the Elector himself had just two children, his son who naturally would be his successor and his daughter Sophia Dorothea, who in 1706 married her first cousin to become Queen in Prussia also! Her husband was an only child, so there are no spares available from that line either apart from his own children, of whom there were a number but clearly too young to be considered even if born before the end of Anne's reign, which they mostly weren't. And the Electress Sophia was literally the most junior descendant of James I and VI apart from her own children and grandchildren. Absent her England would have had to search for a Protestant heir among the descendants of Henry VII's younger daughter Mary, and Scotland turn to the Hamiltons, as representing a daughter of James II of Scots.

That would obviously be absurd, yet the only other possibility would be descendants of the second, bigamous marriage of the Electress Sophia's brother Karl I Ludwig, Elector Palatine. There were Protestants among them, but it is hard to believe that they would have been considered. Even harder though to see Scotland making a Catholic choice. What could be envisioned is that, without specifying whom, Scotland might reserve its right to make a different choice, perhaps refusing to enact parallel legislation to an English Act settling the succession irrevocably upon the Electress and her heirs, and it all flowing from there. Even though it is very unlikely that the two countries would not have become and remained united, it is perhaps not unlikely that a union less freely entered into from the Scottish side would never have been accepted in the way that it was, with agitation for a return to separate rather than shared sovereignty continuing even to this day.
 
With no clear heir to the throne and a Stuart pretender out there the most likely outcome is a war of succession. Ireland and Scotland may well sieze the opportunity to throw off their English overlords. If things get really bad the American colonies may be left their own devices. They may well be inspired to go it alone and form their own nation if Britain breaks up. Or they'll just be swallowed up by other European nations. Either way, this is going to be bad for the English.
 
Not really. Remember that the Electorates were technically vassals of the Emperor, not to mention that the Kingdom of Bohemia had a special status within the Empire. The Elector of Brandenburg was thus King in Prussia, because not only was Prussia outside the Empire, Brandenburg-Prussia did not have control of the entirety of Prussia (with the western parts under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

There were considerable opportunities for each of the elector-kings to assume greater control over the Holy Roman Empire....the Saxon electors (and also kings of Poland) had a historic opportunity to pull Poland-Lithuania out of the abyss which it had descended into, and make it a power to be reckoned with.....unfortunately, the Saxon electors were more interested in looking out for Saxony, and left Poland to be trampled on by foreign armies (often including the armies of the very nation who ruled them).
Brandenburg-Prussia used its opportunity to expand its own state, though they would later unify the Germanies into a single empire. Had they done this in say..1721...or even 1748 as opposed to 1871, Germany would've been able to withstand Napoleon.
Hanoverian Britain did have a bit of a rough start, as the Scots refused initially to back a German elector as their king (they still had high hopes for a Stuart succession). It was only after a trade agreement favorable to Scotland was concluded, and the Scottish MPs given equal representation in Westminster that Scotland finally backed the Hanoverian succession. Now, Britain could've chosen at that time to increase their hold (thru Hanover) of the electorate, and even gained nomination as the next King of the Romans (Holy Roman Emperor). Think of the possibility of an English Holy Roman Emperor!
 
Top