King of Great Britain, Hanover and Prussia?

How plausible does the idea of a Hanover-Hohenzollern ruler of Great Britain, Hanover and Prussia sound:

Point of Difference: Crown Prince Frederick William of Prussia, dies in December 1812 while still only heir apparent to his father, Frederick I of Prussia.
Leaving behind, his wife, Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, one daughter, Princes Friedrike Wilhelmine of Prussia, aged 4 years old, and one son, Prince Frederick of Prussia, who at only a year and 11 months became Crown Prince to his grandfather.

As Regent to her son, who became King Frederick II on the death of his paternal grandfather, Frederick I, on 25 February 1713 aged, 2 years, 1 month and a day old, Sophia Dorothea was able to arrange the marriages of her children to their English cousins, with King Frederick marry Princess Amelia of Great Britain and Princess Wilhelmine marry Frederick, Prince of Wales.

When news reached Prussia, that Prince George of Wales, was not keen on the proposal of his son and heir, Sophia Dorothea and her daughter, travelled quickly to Hanover, where on March 1727, she was able to have Frederick marry Wilhelmine.
A year later, the royal couple and their first child, Prince William, arrived in England in 1728, the year after his father had become King George II.

On 12 June 1733, twenty-two year old, Princess Amelia of Great Britain, who had travelled with her father, King George II to visit his holdings in Hanover, was married to King Frederick II of Prussia.

Because like in OTL Frederick II died childless, he was succeeded by his nephew, King William IV.
Who became King William IV of Great Britain, King William I of Prussia, Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg.

How does the rest of Europe react to Britain now holding two states that can vote for the Holy Roman Emperor (Elector of Brandenburg and Elector of Hanover)
 
I would suscept that Austria and France would be willing to argee that such an alliance is an abomination and putting aside whatever beef they have with each other for long enough time to 'convince' House of Hanover that the crowns should be split.
 
I would suspect that Austria and France would be willing to agree that such an alliance is an abomination and putting aside whatever beef they have with each other for long enough time to 'convince' House of Hanover that the crowns should be split.

But can France and Austria beat out the Anglo-Germans? They failed in 1755 and whilst thats not the same as the early 1730s/40s/whatever, I can see the Anglo-Germans winning.
 
I would suscept that Austria and France would be willing to argee that such an alliance is an abomination and putting aside whatever beef they have with each other for long enough time to 'convince' House of Hanover that the crowns should be split.

That's the alliance situation of the Seven Year's War, which in OTL occurred 20 years later than when we're talking. But history will rhyme in this ATL and Britain and Prussia will win. I see no reason to think the French and Austrians could stop this personal union from happening.

Another problem- The War of the Austrian Succession starts in 1740. We have a problem if ATL has a war in the 1830s and there's no reason to think it would butterfly away the problem Marie Theresa to the Austrian and Hungarian thrones. If we have a War of the Prussian Succession in between the War of the Spanish Succession and the Austrian; we're going to Europe very war wary. Is ARW going to happen earlier? Won't be George III. And the British will have even more German mercenaries at its disposal.
 
OTL Frederick II die childless, here i can imagine the parliament will agree a provisional personal union as long FII have enough children to later divide the kingdoms(maybe merging prussia with hannover) that or parliament say bloody hell and now try to managed this behemoth too.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think it would be a purely personal union rather than one of government - you wouldn't get a United Northern Anglic Kingdom or something silly like that.

Though, actually, what were the succession laws of Prussia? OTL Hannover fell out of personal union with the UK due to a different set of succession laws, that could happen here.

(Assuming ofc. that the War of the Prussian Succession winds up with the Protestants keeping everything.)
 
In TTL, Frederick William (and his male line heirs), Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt would be the heir of Frederick II not his sister. Now it is possible that Frederick II might try to have the Estates of his assorted realms make his sister his heir but I doubt they would do that without Frederick giving them large concessions in return. In the case of the electorate of Brandenburg, according to the Golden Bull of 1356, Frederick II would not be able to pass it to any female heir. Now if in TTL Frederick II were to marry OTL’s Anne, Princess Royal of England and have sons, then a personal union between Britain, Hanover, and Prussia would be possible.
 
7YW wasn't a sure thing for Britain and her allies so could easily go the other way here. Question is whether Prussians would accept a King that mainly spent time outside the country.
 
I would suscept that Austria and France would be willing to argee that such an alliance is an abomination and putting aside whatever beef they have with each other for long enough time to 'convince' House of Hanover that the crowns should be split.

But how would it split does the first son of Prince Frederick of Wales and Wilhelmine get Britain and Hanover, while the second son gets Prussia?

Is forty-five year old, Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, willing to risk being the emperor who dictates to his Empire who can and cant be electorates?

And as for Louis XVI of France, can he afford to send an army against Britain and Prussia, following his already disastrous Seven Years' War, which saw an overall victory for the British-Prussian?

But can France and Austria beat out the Anglo-Germans? They failed in 1755 and whilst thats not the same as the early 1730s/40s/whatever, I can see the Anglo-Germans winning.

The question of Prussian Succession, should not arise until the Friedrich II death in 1786, which at that point, already saw a coalition between the two nations during the Seven Years' War.

That's the alliance situation of the Seven Year's War, which in OTL occurred 20 years later than when we're talking. But history will rhyme in this ATL and Britain and Prussia will win. I see no reason to think the French and Austrians could stop this personal union from happening.
At the date of marriages, every one would be expecting King Frederick and Princess Amelia, to carry on the Hohenzollern independently, its only when no children are born and he dies in 1786, that we have a mild succession crisis.
The marriages would seem as normal as the French marring the Spanish or Austrians marrying the Bavarians

Another problem- The War of the Austrian Succession starts in 1740. We have a problem if ATL has a war in the 1830s and there's no reason to think it would butterfly away the problem Marie Theresa to the Austrian and Hungarian thrones. If we have a War of the Prussian Succession in between the War of the Spanish Succession and the Austrian; we're going to Europe very war wary. Is ARW going to happen earlier? Won't be George III. And the British will have even more German mercenaries at its disposal.
The War of the Austrian Succession will still happen and King Frederick II of Prussia will most likely still violated the Pragmatic Sanction and invaded Silesia on 16 December 1740, using the 1537 Treaty of Brieg, under which the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg were to inherit the Duchy of Brieg.

However I doubt that the Treaty of Warsaw (1745) also known as the Quadruple Alliance, between Great Britain, Austria, the Dutch Republic and Saxony, would go ahead.

Great Britain would leave Prussia and Austria, to fight over Silesia, while GB would just concentrate on Spain and Russia.

As for the ARW, in 1760 George II would be dead and would be succeeded by either his son, Frederick or his grandson, William, whose personalities, politics and rule will be completely different to that of OTL George III.

If the ARW, does go ahead in 1776, we now have a Britain with more German mercenaries at its disposal as Prussian Generals would be seeking favours from their future union, when they know that their 62 year old King, will not father any children.

OTL Frederick II die childless, here i can imagine the parliament will agree a provisional personal union as long FII have enough children to later divide the kingdoms(maybe merging prussia with hannover) that or parliament say bloody hell and now try to managed this behemoth too.
All three nations would have separate Governments, similar to GB and Hanover.
As for dividing up the nations between children, I always find this messy, with it causing more complications down the line.

I think it would be a purely personal union rather than one of government - you wouldn't get a United Northern Anglic Kingdom or something silly like that.

Though, actually, what were the succession laws of Prussia? OTL Hannover fell out of personal union with the UK due to a different set of succession laws, that could happen here.

(Assuming ofc. that the War of the Prussian Succession winds up with the Protestants keeping everything.)
I believe that the Germanic kingdoms follow Salic law, but could a male from a Female line, succeed, if they are the closest or would it have to trace the line back to Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg (1620 – 1688) and go with sons, born from his second wife Sophie Dorothea of Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg?

In TTL, Frederick William (and his male line heirs), Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt would be the heir of Frederick II not his sister. Now it is possible that Frederick II might try to have the Estates of his assorted realms make his sister his heir but I doubt they would do that without Frederick giving them large concessions in return. In the case of the electorate of Brandenburg, according to the Golden Bull of 1356, Frederick II would not be able to pass it to any female heir. Now if in TTL Frederick II were to marry OTL’s Anne, Princess Royal of England and have sons, then a personal union between Britain, Hanover, and Prussia would be possible.

Frederick William, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt is dead by 1771, with no sons.
While Frederick Henry, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt, who did live until 1788, had no sons. These were the only living sons of Philip William, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt.
All of Albert Frederick, Prince of Prussia, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt, sons were dead by 1762, all of whom had no children.

Even going as far back as John George, Elector of Brandenburg (1525 – 1598) finds no male line that continue.

Does this spell the end of the Hohenzollern family, or does the Prussian government, support the branch line of Hanover-Hohenzollern?

7YW wasn't a sure thing for Britain and her allies so could easily go the other way here. Question is whether Prussians would accept a King that mainly spent time outside the country.

I think the nobility of Prussia would be happy to govern it self as a regent council or under a viceroy.

It is impossible to inherit Prussia, Hanover, and Britain in one man, because Hanover and Prussia are Salic, and Britain isnt. Britain can be inherited through the female line, but Hanover and Prussia can't be

So we can get a situation where one King has both Hannover and Britain, and someone else gets Prussia, or we can get Prussia and Britain, and someone else gets Hanover, but you can't get all three without major changes to the House of Brandeburg house laws.

Even if it means the end of a mighty house such as the Hohenzollern? The Hohenzollern Dynasty, has held Brandenburg since 1415. Who would be in succession, if the male like of Hohenzollern, died out?
Would the area return to the House of Wittelsbach?

So we have a Britain-Prussia union, and an enlarged Hanover containing almost all the remaing Welf inheritances.
The Hanover line is not in question, it's the Prussian Hohenzollern line I am trying to squeeze in.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Interestingly, This could fundamentally shift the focus of British foreign policy. Or at least the end result. Rather than being against continental hegemons, they'd have every interest in becoming the hegemon themselves.

I'd assume some attempt to try and unite the crowns, probably beginning with the institution of semi-salic (or whatever we call British inheritance) in Germany.

THe most obvious action would be to name the heir apparent the "Prince of Prussia" immediately and sending them over to govern Prussia in their stead - people are right that a distant King will be unpopular, but a Prince in Prussia, can later inherit and assuming his rule was good, be successful at ruling in London.

Any other integration will be to try and balance the systems of government. Britain is a constitutional monarchy with a strong parliament, and Prussia is an absolute monarchy that historically was interested in suppressing people. I have the feeling that the best compromise will end up being to create a German and Polish Parliament(s), all fundamentally governed under the same rules. The advantage is that Britain may be more popular with the Polish than the Prussians were - and that could lead to an interesting policy to try and take advantage of Poland, being able to be King OF Prussia (rather that in), and King of Poland would be a rather impressive claim.

People mention an early version of the seven years war - I'm not sure that it'd happen quite like that. We're on the cusp of Russian interference in Poland - this now has Anglo-Prussian involvement, which may be to the benefit of Austria, if they work together in negotiations. That would align their interests in the long term.

Now, the threat of France still exists (if smaller), and the attempts to integrate Prussia may set the precedent on what do to with the Americas. The idea of "Join or Die" is still relevant, and a plan similar to the Albany Plan might still take place - and if integration of Prussia leads to a pseudo-federalist approach, then it isn't such an alien plan, and whilst it couldn't be as radical as the Galloway Plan - a similar parliament may be viable. However, depending on the pace of integration (probably much slower than required for this), it is more likely an attempt for the Albany Plan, if for some reason more successful (3 main governmental organisations are easier to manage than 2 and 13 lesser perhaps? Directly petitioning the Crown instead of the Board of Trade) could instead serve as an inspiration for Prussia.

The integration and change in power politics is going to be interesting. Fundamentally, I have no idea how willing the new King in/of Prussia is to give up his absolute rule. Is potential stability more valuable than power?
 
Even if it means the end of a mighty house such as the Hohenzollern? The Hohenzollern Dynasty, has held Brandenburg since 1415. Who would be in succession, if the male like of Hohenzollern, died out?
Would the area return to the House of Wittelsbach?

There werenstill Hohenzollerns in Ansbach-Bayreuth and in Hohenzollern*

*= Those were catholics though.
 
There werenstill Hohenzollerns in Ansbach-Bayreuth and in Hohenzollern*

*= Those were catholics though.

Wouldn't necessarily matter.

Saxony was solidly Protestant, but its ruling family was Catholic after acquiring the Polish throne in 1697.
 
There werenstill Hohenzollerns in Ansbach-Bayreuth and in Hohenzollern*

*= Those were catholics though.
I believe the nobility of the state of Prussia, would prefer a female line of the Hohenzollern line over a catholic line, similar to when Anne of Great Britain died.

Unless Prussia acquires Hanover the way it acquired Silesia.
That almost happened during the first Silesian war. Frederick sent an army to camp on the border of Hanover to send a message about Hanover getting smart while Prussia was grabbing Silesia.
I doubt Frederick II will invade his wife's home land.

You're wrong on a couple points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margrave_Albert_Frederick_of_Brandenburg-Schwedt
did have many grandchildren, all of whom are born well after the POD. Most of them were female or illegitimate.
But female and illegitimate children, have no rights to the throne, so they are pointless.

Secondly, all his sons were only all dead because two of them died fighting for their cousin Frederick the Great. Presumably, that would be butterflied away TTL. I doubt the canon balls will hit exactly the same.
The would still fight for their cousin, as all nobility fought for their King. It may not be the exact same cannon ball, but with bullets and shrapnel flying every where in a battle field, it is more then likely that they would be wounded or killed.

Lastly, the only reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Frederick_Albert,_Margrave_of_Brandenburg-Schwedt didnt have more children is because his potential wife died before they were wed, well after the POD.
But in OTL, he only had one daughter with his mistress, Dorothea Regina Wuthner.

You have to have a huge butterfly net to kill off the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns.
I see it more as a challenge ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Alexander,_Margrave_of_Brandenburg-Ansbach

This guy is the last of the Brandenburg-Ansbachs and also the Brandenburg-Bayreuths, who then sold the Ansbach-Bayreuth inheritance back to the main line. So he would be King instead as of 1786, as well as Margrave of both inheritances. Of course, since it would have been obvious for decades that the Brandenburg-Ansbachs were in line for the throne of Prussia, I doubt the marriages would have been the same as OTL over the previous 70 years.

This applies doubly for the Brandenburg-Schwedts. That is a ton of butterflys to contain.
Charles Alexander, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach would not be born because his father Charles William Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, cant marry Princess Friederike Luise of Prussia, due to Freiderike, not being born in TTL, so he is butterflied away, unless you are also using nets :D.
 
I believe the nobility of the state of Prussia, would prefer a female line of the Hohenzollern line over a catholic line, similar to when Anne of Great Britain died.


I doubt Frederick II will invade his wife's home land.


But female and illegitimate children, have no rights to the throne, so they are pointless.


The would still fight for their cousin, as all nobility fought for their King. It may not be the exact same cannon ball, but with bullets and shrapnel flying every where in a battle field, it is more then likely that they would be wounded or killed.


But in OTL, he only had one daughter with his mistress, Dorothea Regina Wuthner.


I see it more as a challenge ;)

Charles Alexander, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach would not be born because his father Charles William Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, cant marry Princess Friederike Luise of Prussia, due to Freiderike, not being born in TTL, so he is butterflied away, unless you are also using nets :D.

Females do matter, as the line can pass through them to the next male, and is not the same as illegitimate. Plus the kicker that always wins no matter your position on the chart of next in line- when in doubt, the person backed by the bigger army inherits. Being illegitimate (or in the UK also ever being a Catholic for even a day) makes you "naturally dead" and unable to wear the crown or be skipped and allow your children to inherit, but ironically being actually dead doesn't stop the crown from looking down your line for a qualifying candidate before moving on. A woman is not naturally dead and is often treated the same as a dead male, unless there are no males and she becomes queen. *Salic law is not as old as claimed, and all countries differ but this is the most common way of dealing with women in the line.
 
If you want a Britain-Prussia-Hanover, do it the old fashion way and take it by force. It is much more plausible to have a BritainPrussia that conquers Hanover then trying to force a series of extremely unlikely events to somehow kill off all the heirs of Prussia and then somehow have the Prussia agree to a female inheritance. I could even see Hanover, now enlarged and unified, playing a Bavaria or Saxony type role in the 18th century, at times allied with France or Austria, as France/Austria/BritainPrussia/Russia etc all fight it out for 80 years.

You would get things like Austria and Britain-Prussia against France/Hanover/Bavaria in the War of Austrian Succession, except Prussia would want Silesia. So does Austria pay off Britain-Prussia? Because otherwise France/Bavaria/BritainPrussia crush Austria, and Charles VII become HRE. Or do the sides become France/BritainPrussia/Bavaria against Austria/Russia/Hanover?

Despite the grumpiness and bolding and rudeness, I was with you supporting this until these last two paragraphs. How are you figuring to get a BritainPrussia, when you just railed against a BritainHannover taking Prussia by marriage... A Britain without Hanover dynasty is less likely to take Prussia through marriage. Plus your sides on hypothetical wars are unlikely, those are the European theatres of the great colonial wars in India and America. There is simply no possible way at all, ever, no matter what PoD, without an ASB to get France and Britain (with or without a personal union with Prussia) to be on the same side in that time period without some how have a "PoD net" as you call it that also makes Britain and France not rivals in India and North America and the Caribbean and Africa and... everywhere the global oceans reach.

Also remember any of these "unions" are PERSONAL unions, based on the king of one country also being the king of the other, this does not mean they share any governmental structures or anything other than that ONE king. Succession laws may vary and result in the union ending with the next king (or queen). A dynastic union (Poland-Lithuania is an example) is where no matter what the heir to one nation is the heir to the other, the British Commonwealth is a modern day example, though I do believe there's at least one nation in the Commonwealth that actually has to approve the next king and it isn't automatic when Elizabeth dies. Then there's actual union, like the United Kingdom, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
 
This makes absolutely no sense. A British-Prussia union is significantly easier to achieve than a Britain-Hanover union that also in herits Prussia.

FTG, at the time of his birth, in 1712 is 6th in line for the throne of Britain in his own right.

George II
Crown Prince Frederick
Anne Princess Royal
Princess Amelia
Sophia Dorothea
FTG

It is a relatively small thing to kill George II and Frederick in say, 1712. If you marry Frederick to Ann, Prince Royal, you get a replay of William and Mary, where William was 3rd in Line for the Throne in his own right, and his Wife was 1st. Britain doesn't inherit Prussia, Prussia inherits Britain, while Hanover(being Salic) passes out of the union(as happened during the reign of Victoria historically)



You say are saying something is impossible that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Quadruple_Alliance

France and Britain and Austria/HRE against Spain. So tell me more about how that is impossible without some "PoD net"




That is something of the point I was making. The OP was suggesting that somehow marital ties would trump national interests and the laws of the individual countries. Prussia is still going to go after Silesia, and Britain is still going to back Austria out of fear of a French proxy as HRE.

Prussia is not going to let some British king inherit thru a daughter when there are (or should be) plenty of other Hohenzollerns around. Further, I'm not sure that Britain would allow William to inherit and remain king, given how many expensive wars Hanover dragged Britain into, I doubt parliament is going to be interested in an even bigger continental anchor.

A minor two year war in the middle of bigger WORLD WARS. You ignore the colonial wars (like Jenkin's Ear, Carnatic, and other French and Indian Wars) that would prevent France and Britain from being on the same side of a European war. ASB. ASB. ASB.
 
You can yell ASB all you want, but what you just said makes no sense. How do you explain the three Franco-Dutch Wars, where France and England aligned to take down the Netherlands?

If it is a European war concerning Britain's European interests, then Britain and France can very easily ally, as demonstrated historically multiple times. If it is a colonial war that deals only with colonial interests it is more likely they would be in conflict.

I would point out that two the three largest colonial wars of the period were a result of tensions in Europe that spill over into the colonies, not the other way around.

What would be very interesting would be a war where Britain and France's colonial interests were in conflict, but their European interests allied. I suspect Britain would come down on the side of her European interests.

As an example, a British-Hanover union facing a Prussian invasion of Hanover in a world were Prussia and Austria had allied( say because Maria Therea married Frederick II). France and Britain would have aligned interests in containing this Prussia-Austria superstate, but France and Britains colonial conflict would remain the same.

A simpler example would be an alliance between Spain and Austria during the War of Austrian succession, as a result of no House of Bourbon reconciliation after the War of the Quadruple Alliance. Spain and Britain are fighting the War of Jenkins Ear, the same time that Austria-Spain-Britain are fighting against France/Prussia/Bavaria?

How does that work?

Either help France by fighting Spain, or help Spain by fighting France.

If you're allowed to ignore any war that doesn't deal with colonial interests, I am allowed to ignore any war that does. But at the end of the day Britain's European interests always trumped her colonial ones. Preserving the Balance of Power in Europe was always Britain's primary national interest, and everything else was second to that. This was true during the ascendancy of the Hapsburgs. This was true during the ascendancy of the Bourbons.

As an example, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. It was more important for Britain that France not have the Austrian Netherlands, that Britain gave back to France Louisbourg.

This strategy was the same reasoning behind France's drives on Hanover in the Seven Years War. It was thought that Britain, because of her union with Hanover, would have to give up her gains elsewhere to get Hanover back, because Hanover was more important. This proved to be the case, given the lavish subsides Britain gave to Prussia so that Prussia could win back Hanover for her.

Imagine if Prussia and France had reached an accord instead. France abandons Austria and Prussia abandons Hanover, at the moment when both are triumphant in their respective theaters, and resume their old alliance?

The war you mention, the War of the Quadruple Alliance, is nothing more than mopping up problems from the War of Spanish Succession in which France and Britain were opposites (and included colonial theaters). The fact that they allied temporarily to enforce issues from the treaty ending the War of Spanish Succession is of no consequence as there was no colonial issues arising. You're just being ridiculous and I'm ending this before I have to listen to such abrupt rudeness. Thanks.
 
Top