Hannoverian Dynasty Continues

If Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent had been Prince Alexander Victor then instead of the Hannoverian crown and the UK crown diverging Hannover would have remained linked with Britain, sharing a monarch and Prussian influence deflected and the German states not united under Prussia.

A British supported Hannover could stand up to Prussian ambitions leading the assorted German states in some loose confederation that would be strong enough to repulse French, Prussian or Austrian aggression without territorial ambitions of it's own.

Maybe a 19th century proto European Union if the created a single market tempting the Low Countries and Scandinavia to associate themselves for access to the German market and UK allowing access to the Empire market.
 
Oddly enough, you wouldn't need to change the gender of anyone for the British-Hanoverian union to continue. Ernest Augustus, king of Hanover and Victoria's uncle, had wanted to marry his son to Victoria so that the thrones would be re-united. If his son George hadn't gone blind as a child, he would probably have been more seriously considered as a suitor to Victoria.

But...I don't think British control alone is going to hold back 19th century German nationalism.
 
Aside from German nationalism like Sucrose mentioned the other major problem is the British government in that they never liked the whole idea of the union of the crowns and were heartily please to see the back of Hanover. Even if Victoria was a male or the laws on inheritance had been changed to allow a female to inherit come the Austro-Prussian War I really can't see the British government authorising the use of British forces to intervene to protect a state that has little is anything to do with them.
 
Aside from German nationalism like Sucrose mentioned the other major problem is the British government in that they never liked the whole idea of the union of the crowns and were heartily please to see the back of Hanover. Even if Victoria was a male or the laws on inheritance had been changed to allow a female to inherit come the Austro-Prussian War I really can't see the British government authorising the use of British forces to intervene to protect a state that has little is anything to do with them.

Hanover was called the noose around Britain's neck several times so I can't see anyone in Britain being excited about keeping it. Maybe Hanover would become like Luxembourg was with the German Confederation, part of it but having a foreign ruler. Or Parliament will force George V to hand over Hanover to Prussia if he still sides with Austria. However, if George of Hanover marries Victoria then he would have to live in London, cause there's no way the Queen of the United Kingdom would leave the country on a semi-permanent basis. Therefor, Hanoverian foreign policy would be more in line with London's policy and not independent. The best way to have the Hanoverian Dynasty continue would be to have Victoria marry her other cousin, George of Cambridge. The dynasty continues and isn't weighed down by Hanover itself.
 
I don't quite get why Victoria wasn't married matrilineally.

Because she was persuaded to marry Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. The marriage was planned out by her favorite uncle, Leopold I of Belgium. Personally I think they were badly match. Albert was a power hungry foreigner who had no idea how to govern Britain and tried to force his idea's on the Political establishment.Not to mention he isolated her from making any friendships within Britain's nobility because 'darling Albert' thought they all had lose morals and would be a corrupting influence on his wife.
 
Because she was persuaded to marry Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. The marriage was planned out by her favorite uncle, Leopold I of Belgium. Personally I think they were badly match. Albert was a power hungry foreigner who had no idea how to govern Britain and tried to force his idea's on the Political establishment.Not to mention he isolated her from making any friendships within Britain's nobility because 'darling Albert' thought they all had lose morals and would be a corrupting influence on his wife.

But why wasn't she married matrilineally to him if she was higher ranked? Isn't the current queen married matrilineally?
 
But why wasn't she married matrilineally to him if she was higher ranked? Isn't the current queen married matrilineally?

Ok that really doesn't exist outside of Crusader Kings. Or at least didn't until the modern era. The name of the Dynasty would always be the father's back then, even if the father is lower ranked. In the idea that Alber would become King if he married her, then I guess U could call it a matrilineal marriage,in that he became Prince-Consort, and even then it wasn't until 1857.
 
Ok that really doesn't exist outside of Crusader Kings.

You got me. :p Okay, I knew that the current Queen of the UK is married matrilineally, I didn't know that was purely a modern convention. It makes sense now.

Or at least didn't until the modern era. The name of the Dynasty would always be the father's back then, even if the father is lower ranked. In the idea that Alber would become King if he married her, then I guess U could call it a matrilineal marriage,in that he became Prince-Consort, and even then it wasn't until 1857.
 
Because she was persuaded to marry Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. The marriage was planned out by her favorite uncle, Leopold I of Belgium. Personally I think they were badly match. Albert was a power hungry foreigner who had no idea how to govern Britain and tried to force his idea's on the Political establishment.Not to mention he isolated her from making any friendships within Britain's nobility because 'darling Albert' thought they all had lose morals and would be a corrupting influence on his wife.

Ah yes those bad ideas such as promoting financial reform and technological innovation :rolleyes:
 
Ah yes those bad ideas such as promoting financial reform and technological innovation :rolleyes:

I don't deny that he did good as well. He was very much involved in the Great Exhibition and helped reform royal finances. However, the points I brought up are also true. He isolated his wife from her nobles, he tried to govern England as one would govern a German duchy and ended up pissing of almost all of the political Establishment. He did do good things and had good ideas, unfortunately, Albert thought himself infallible and that arrogance led to his being hated, and his encouragement that his wife isolate herself from the 'corrupting' influence of her courtiers.
 
I don't deny that he did good as well. He was very much involved in the Great Exhibition and helped reform royal finances. However, the points I brought up are also true. He isolated his wife from her nobles, he tried to govern England as one would govern a German duchy and ended up pissing of almost all of the political Establishment. He did do good things and had good ideas, unfortunately, Albert thought himself infallible and that arrogance led to his being hated, and his encouragement that his wife isolate herself from the 'corrupting' influence of her courtiers.

Albert did not try to govern Britain at all.

The Establishment were upset becuase he was an outsider - he could have been the second messiah and Melbourne Plamerstone et al would still think of him as "Johnny Foreigner".

Part of his "arrogance" probably came from being right most of the time (labour reform, free trade, education, the Great Exhibition, army reform, war with Russia, Trent Affair to name but a few).
 
Hanover was called the noose around Britain's neck several times so I can't see anyone in Britain being excited about keeping it. Maybe Hanover would become like Luxembourg was with the German Confederation, part of it but having a foreign ruler. Or Parliament will force George V to hand over Hanover to Prussia if he still sides with Austria.
That might work since IIRC the Hanoverians were quite pleased with an absentee monarch represented by a Viceroy since it gave them a fair amount of independence, something they would lose if a monarch of just Hanover resided there or as a Prussian state. The main problem I can see though is one of prestige, especially after 1871. You'd effectively have the King or Queen being under the King of Prussia for part of their territory - bad flashbacks to Aquitaine and France - which would become even more intolerable once he was promoted to Emperor effectively outranking them. Although I suppose that could see the Emperor/Empress of India title introduced earlier, but that still leaves them having to pay homage to a foreign monarch. Best solution could probably be if after the war Hanover continues to survive as a state like Bavaria but under a junior line, that in itself would throw up a number of butterflies.
 
The key thing is that Prussia need not have dominance over the various German states were there a credible countering force. Hannover, with British gold, could have been that force and Prussia limited to the east and turning it's ambitions that way.

Britain has, traditionally, been prepared to fight in the Low Countries and Germany. With a British paid Hannoverian led land force and the Royal Navy exerting naval control there would be little need to deploy significant numbers of British troops. For Britain it gives a chance to limit France on land as well as at sea. For Hannover and Western Germany it gives them a chance to jointly maintain their individual states in the face of Prussian and Austrian pressure.

A Germany allied to Britain would restrain NapoleonIII so no 1870 war.

Now what effects would an Anglo-German bloc have on the alliances whose clauses and rail driven mobilisations dominoed them into WW1?

Austria would still face challenges from Serbia and internal divisions and Russia would still pose as the defender of the Slavs.

What of Poland next to an ambitious but restricted Prussia. Would Polish nationalists cut a deal with Prussia to support Prussian expansion in return for autonomy within Prussia? Could the Finns do the same with the Swedes in the event of a Russo-Prussian war?

If no WW1 then what would be the future for the Ottoman Empire? Dissolution or modernisation? My great grandfather could pass and trade from Rumelia to Yemen whilst still, technically, being in the same country, same laws (or lack of) and same currency. A United Middle East or a succession of bloody civil wars?

No WW1 so the liberalisation of Russia could continue. It was the fastest growing economy in Europe before WW1.

Wilhelm was only declared Emperor after defeating France in 1871. No problem to promote King Victor (or whoever) to Imperial status at will. He would not have to compete with the Prussian King for status.King Victor's domains and allies would not coincide with Prussian ones. So no 100 Years War status conflict.

Aquitaine? The Duke of Aquitaine (Edward of Woodstock aka Black Prince in later years) burned down my village. We rebuilt it away from the road and changed the name. It worked. Never been burned down since.
 
Last edited:
Hanover, with British gold...
But would the British government really be willing to fork out large amounts of money, even proxy wars cost a lot, and have the Royal Navy actively intervene to protect a country that has no real connection to them and which they were glad to see the back of? Without their having a fair amount of hindsight I remain to be convinced personally.
 
But would the British government really be willing to fork out large amounts of money, even proxy wars cost a lot, and have the Royal Navy actively intervene to protect a country that has no real connection to them and which they were glad to see the back of? Without their having a fair amount of hindsight I remain to be convinced personally.

They had quite a history of forking out war subsidies.
 
Top