House of Hanover Line of Succession Question

King George II's son William, the Duke of Cumberland, was unsuccessful at the Battle of Hastenbeck in defending Hanover. Consequently, he was essentially disowned by his father. Could Cumberland have become King instead of George III? How would that change things in the Seven Years War? Moving forward, how would that change things in the American Revolution?
 
King George II's son William, the Duke of Cumberland, was unsuccessful at the Battle of Hastenbeck in defending Hanover. Consequently, he was essentially disowned by his father. Could Cumberland have become King instead of George III? How would that change things in the Seven Years War? Moving forward, how would that change things in the American Revolution?

He was hardly disowned! He was George's favoured son.

The line of succession is determined by an Act of Parliament. Cumberland could have only become King had George III and all his siblings died.
 
King George II's son William, the Duke of Cumberland, was unsuccessful at the Battle of Hastenbeck in defending Hanover. Consequently, he was essentially disowned by his father. Could Cumberland have become King instead of George III? How would that change things in the Seven Years War? Moving forward, how would that change things in the American Revolution?

No. Unless all of Frederick, Prince of Wales' children die then Cumberland would never be King. However, I know George II was looking for a way have Cumberland inherit Hanover, though IDK if that was really possible or not.
 
King George II's son William, the Duke of Cumberland, was unsuccessful at the Battle of Hastenbeck in defending Hanover. Consequently, he was essentially disowned by his father. Could Cumberland have become King instead of George III? How would that change things in the Seven Years War? Moving forward, how would that change things in the American Revolution?
Butcher Cumberland....disowned by his father. :confused::rolleyes:

Yeah!!! The favored son disowned by the father. No! Do not see it happening. Ever.
 
Butcher Cumberland....disowned by his father. :confused::rolleyes:

Yeah!!! The favored son disowned by the father. No! Do not see it happening. Ever.

On Cumberland's return to London he was treated badly by his father despite the fact that he had previously been given permission to negotiate such an agreement. When they met George II remarked "Here is my son who has ruined me and disgraced himself". In response, Cumberland resigned all the military and public offices he held and retired into private life.

Maybe not disowned, but definitely disgraced, as the king himself put it.
 
There's a far cry between disowned and disgraced. Geo. II was referring to the fact that the rest of Europe might have seen Cumberland's peace as disgraceful in the sense of it was not how war was done in those days.

Disowned is what most of the Hannoverians would've liked to do with their eldest sons - think George II, Poor Fred, George IV (even Victoria did it with Ed.VII). And I second what Constantine said above - Geo. II was looking for a way to leave Britain ("the devil take this island, as long as I can get out of it to return to Hannover") to his less-favored son, Fred, and his beloved Hannover to his favored son, William. Unfortunately, Parliament replied that such a move was not optional since the crown of Britain was not a personal possession of the king (as perhaps Hannover was) and could not be "assigned" in a will and testament.

Also, Geo. II's problem was compounded when Fred was killed by a cricket ball in attempts to appear wholly English:D. His son was a minor - thereby requiring a regency, and England didn't exactly have the tradition of naming mother's regent, but rather the uncles exercised the power on behalf of the young king. So, he created a situation whereby, in the event of a regency for the young Geo. III, the Dowager Princess of Wales (Auguste of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg) would share her power of regency with Cumberland.

And if Cumberland were to be ruling his own country at that point, Parliament would hardly be more likely to let him be regent, any more than they would've allowed D. Felipe II of Spain any say in the regency of a child he had by Mary. Because while 18c Hannover and 16c Spain are not really equatable, it's more the principle of a foreign king meddling in the politics to run the English kingdom.
 
There's a far cry between disowned and disgraced. Geo. II was referring to the fact that the rest of Europe might have seen Cumberland's peace as disgraceful in the sense of it was not how war was done in those days.

Disowned is what most of the Hannoverians would've liked to do with their eldest sons - think George II, Poor Fred, George IV (even Victoria did it with Ed.VII). And I second what Constantine said above - Geo. II was looking for a way to leave Britain ("the devil take this island, as long as I can get out of it to return to Hannover") to his less-favored son, Fred, and his beloved Hannover to his favored son, William. Unfortunately, Parliament replied that such a move was not optional since the crown of Britain was not a personal possession of the king (as perhaps Hannover was) and could not be "assigned" in a will and testament.

Also, Geo. II's problem was compounded when Fred was killed by a cricket ball in attempts to appear wholly English:D. His son was a minor - thereby requiring a regency, and England didn't exactly have the tradition of naming mother's regent, but rather the uncles exercised the power on behalf of the young king. So, he created a situation whereby, in the event of a regency for the young Geo. III, the Dowager Princess of Wales (Auguste of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg) would share her power of regency with Cumberland.

And if Cumberland were to be ruling his own country at that point, Parliament would hardly be more likely to let him be regent, any more than they would've allowed D. Felipe II of Spain any say in the regency of a child he had by Mary. Because while 18c Hannover and 16c Spain are not really equatable, it's more the principle of a foreign king meddling in the politics to run the English kingdom.

Interesting, thank you for clearing up my confusion.
 
Top