King Ernest Augustus in 1817: British Imperial Policy?

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
If Ernest Augustus gets on the British throne in 1817, what will British Imperial policy look like? Is it a High Tory victory which leads to less expansion and less of a standing army? What does it mean for the various parts of the Empire? For Ireland, I can guess it means bad. Have the Boers just caught a break? Can France colonise Western Australia? How big does British India get? Does the US get parts of OTL Western Canada?
 
If Ernest Augustus gets on the British throne in 1817, what will British Imperial policy look like? Is it a High Tory victory which leads to less expansion and less of a standing army? What does it mean for the various parts of the Empire? For Ireland, I can guess it means bad. Have the Boers just caught a break? Can France colonise Western Australia? How big does British India get? Does the US get parts of OTL Western Canada?

Why in the world would Ernest Augustus become King in 1817? I assume U must mean 1837. Why would British colonization stop? It was a source of Great prestige.
 
So the Hannoverians get a freakish string of deaths putting this guy on the throne?

I don't get your reasoning on imperial policy. Why would it be different? Though it should be noted of course there was no unified imperial policy and Ireland has never been part of the British Empire. British India might not even happen with this early POD and why would the Boers get lucky?

The big impact you'd see would be the continuing of the personal union with Hannover which will continue to tie Britain to Germany.
Things will be interesting politically with increasingly democratic Britain having a king who is a traditional monarch elsewhere. Could be big fuel for republicansm in the UK, in the period it was already there. Especially if he decides he wants to continue meddling, he was pretty active as a prince.
 
I don't think the British Empire would have differed massively, very little of it was actually conquered as part of government policy. India was conquered by men on the ground, first EIC men and then the Viceroys. Large chunks of Africa again were settled by companies or individual action. The American posessions were relics from the 17th and 18th century empire. About the only thing was that a direct governmental action was Australia through the search for a new convict colony and even Australia was already 50 years or so old by the time of Ernest Augustus.

The biggest difference would be no unified Germany or a significantly later German unification. With a Kingdom of Hannover dominating the north and in personal union with the UK and the Southern German axis of Austria-Bavaria, Prussia wouldn't risk the Austro-Prussian War and begin the German unification; or unification would happen elsewhere through a different process.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
As to how he would get on the throne this early, I was planning on engineering a succession crisis. Ernest Augustus' wife doesn't piss off Queen Charlotte, they have a son, George III dies, and George IV forces through a divorce from his estranged wife. Opponents seek out Ernest Augustus, as he is the oldest son who is married and has a legitimate heir. Feedback on the feasibility of this course of events is welcome. Dynastic soap opera isn't my favourite area of research. It would be okay to wait till 1837, but I was hoping for some earlier butterflies, since a lot of important legislation and treaties had already happened by then.

The reason I'm looking at this POD is because I wanted the conservative side of British politics to be stronger. I was concerned the High Tories would be opposed to an expanded empire and too many butterflies would be created, but I'm guessing from your responses that this opposition was over in the 18th century? That's fine because it means less headaches for me. I thought it had continued until the beginning of Victoria's reign.

As for the Boers, they probably did quite well OTL, seeing as they got what they wanted within South Africa anyway, but I was assuming a less aggressively expansionist British Empire might allow an independent Boer state, but since 19th century High Tories weren't opposed to expansion and British policy in the area was pretty much directed from the Cape Colony, I think it's a moot point.
 
As to how he would get on the throne this early, I was planning on engineering a succession crisis. Ernest Augustus' wife doesn't piss off Queen Charlotte, they have a son, George III dies, and George IV forces through a divorce from his estranged wife. Opponents seek out Ernest Augustus, as he is the oldest son who is married and has a legitimate heir. Feedback on the feasibility of this course of events is welcome. Dynastic soap opera isn't my favourite area of research. It would be okay to wait till 1837, but I was hoping for some earlier butterflies, since a lot of important legislation and treaties had already happened by then.

That's not really a succession crisis. Ernest Augustus isn't going to be able to jump up 4 places in the succession just because George IV is unpopular and he's married.
Looking at the line of succession, in order to have him take the throne in 1817, you'd need George III to die 3 years early, and for Ernest Augustus's older brothers George IV, Frederick, William IV, and Edward to all predecease him.

In 1837, you'd just have to get rid of Victoria and he'd have the throne.
 
That's not really a succession crisis. Ernest Augustus isn't going to be able to jump up 4 places in the succession just because George IV is unpopular and he's married.
Looking at the line of succession, in order to have him take the throne in 1817, you'd need George III to die 3 years early, and for Ernest Augustus's older brothers George IV, Frederick, William IV, and Edward to all predecease him.

In 1837, you'd just have to get rid of Victoria and he'd have the throne.
Exactly. British succession simply wouldnt allow what you propose. You'd have to get everybody ahead of him to die or convert to roman catholicism, or something equally dramatic.
 
Ireland has never been part of the British Empire.

Ireland has never been an overseas colony, but the British Empire was always understood to include the United Kingdom, and Ireland before 1922.

Back in the 1830s, the Irish leader Daniel O'Connell had a public quarrel with Disraeli, then a backbench MP. O'Connell suggested that Disraeli was descended from the impenitent thief who was crucified next to Jesus; he also asserted that Disraeli was a disgrace to the British Empire.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Yeah I'm gonna have to find a different POD or find a really good reason to kill all his older brothers. I was hoping to have him on the throne before the major reforms started in the early 20s because a good number of them are already through by 1837.
 
Yeah I'm gonna have to find a different POD or find a really good reason to kill all his older brothers. I was hoping to have him on the throne before the major reforms started in the early 20s because a good number of them are already through by 1837.

What about Prince Frederich Duke of York & Albany? I'm pretty sure he was conservative enough to fight at least some of the reforms. It would be easy to have George IV die early in the 1820's.
 
Top