Marriage of Queen Victoria and George V?

[Z_J]

So then, a hope of Ernest Augustus was that his son, George, marry his cousin Victoria in order to keep the union of Hanover and Britain. Nothing ever came of this. But, what if Victoria and George did marry, and the crowns of Hanover and Britain did stay together, what are some of the potential political ramifications and potential for conflict with Prussia, and what would occur? How long do you believe the union could further go on?

Also, new here. Hey there!

 

[TheBrunswickian]

Well, Ernest would have had to out manoevor the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas to get that. The Duchess of Kent, the King of Belgium and the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to get there.

If it didn't happen, then the chances of any kind of Britain-Prussia alliance would be wildly damaged. Victoria wanted to ensure that Prussian-led Germany would be friendly to Britian and would allow her to rival Russia (Kaiser Wilhelm II screwed this up).

 

[Z_J]

Well, Ernest would have had to out manoevor the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas to get that. The Duchess of Kent, the King of Belgium and the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to get there.

If it didn't happen, then the chances of any kind of Britain-Prussia alliance would be wildly damaged. Victoria wanted to ensure that Prussian-led Germany would be friendly to Britian and would allow her to rival Russia (Kaiser Wilhelm II screwed this up).

Cool, thanks for the reply. This was just sort of a random thought, I didn't really put much hard thinking into it.

 

[Jonathan]

Other issues with George V:

- He lost the sight in one eye following a childhood accident and illness in 1828. He lost the sight in the other eye in 1833.
- There were doubts over his ability to rule blind.
- He had frequent disputes with the Hanoverian parliament, so how would he deal with the British Parliament?

Would Victoria still want to have nine children? What will the heir be like?

 

[jlk7e]

Other issues with George V:

- He lost the sight in one eye following a childhood accident and illness in 1828. He lost the sight in the other eye in 1833.
- There were doubts over his ability to rule blind.
- He had frequent disputes with the Hanoverian parliament, so how would he deal with the British Parliament?

Would Victoria still want to have nine children? What will the heir be like?

I'd assume that the British ministers' position (and Victoria's, mostly likely - it took a while before she started letting Albert in on political stuff) would be that the King of Hanover would have no business dealing with the British Parliament at all. Or with the English government at all, for that matter.

 

[Jonathan]

I'd assume that the British ministers' position (and Victoria's, mostly likely - it took a while before she started letting Albert in on political stuff) would be that the King of Hanover would have no business dealing with the British Parliament at all. Or with the English government at all, for that matter.

So in other words they are two monarchs who rule their lands separately? Why would they marry? Sounds ad if it would be a bit one sided.
George won't want to stay in Britain while he could run his own nation and Victoria won't leave Britain to go and visit Hanover.

 

[zert]

Well from what I have read Ernest Augustus was despised by many Britons, so I do not think Parliament would allow a marriage with the Queen with his son. I also do not think that they would want to have a possible entanglement on mainland Europe again.

 

[Westphalian]

Well from what I have read Ernest Augustus was despised by many Britons, so I do not think Parliament would allow a marriage with the Queen with his son. I also do not think that they would want to have a possible entanglement on mainland Europe again.

Is Parliament in 1837+ really in a position to forbid a marriage if the groom is not only no catholic and of royal birth, but actually holds the second place in the British line of succession after his father?
I always had thought that Parliamaent could rule on the general fitness of a propsed match, but refusing George looks very much like party politics, ie it drags the crown into day-today affairs it is supposed to remain above.

 

[zert]

Is Parliament in 1837+ really in a position to forbid a marriage if the groom is not only no catholic and of royal birth, but actually holds the second place in the British line of succession after his father?
I always had thought that Parliamaent could rule on the general fitness of a propsed match, but refusing George looks very much like party politics, ie it drags the crown into day-today affairs it is supposed to remain above.

It may be that Parliament may not the de facto power, but I do not think they would want the reconnection with Hannover.

I guess we will see if others have opinions

 

[mcdnab]

The reality is the Royal Marriages Act doesn't apply to the sovereign (after their accession) the Act of Settlement etc only applies in the event of a marriage with a Roman Catholic.

Victoria was stubborn enough to tell her Prime Minister that the marriage was her decision and at this period it is unlikely that it would provoke the same reaction politically that her great grandson's desire to marry Wallis Simpson did in the 1930s. George was of course second in line to the throne and at the time of the marriage was only the heir to Hannover and he won't inherit until 1851.

I suspect Parliament would want guarantees that the crown's would not be reunited - so a similar pact to that made by Victoria and Albert over Saxe Coburg Gotha (when it became apparent that Albert's brother would not have children) - a younger son would inherit Hannover with the eldest succeeding his mother in Britain.

Certainly it means Albert's views of using his children to tie Britain (and her values) to Germany with the aim of curbing and influencing the rising militaristic Prussia are gone.

 

[Jonathan]

Certainly it means Albert's views of using his children to tie Britain (and her values) to Germany with the aim of curbing and influencing the rising militaristic Prussia are gone.

Will their first daughter still marry Frederick, Crown Prince of Germany and Prussia?
So in this aspect, Prince George Edward, Prince of Wales, will become King Edward VII, while the second son, Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, becomes King Alfred I of Hanover? Will this work in the 1900 politics?

 

[RPW@Cy]

Is Parliament in 1837+ really in a position to forbid a marriage if the groom is not only no catholic and of royal birth, but actually holds the second place in the British line of succession after his father?
I always had thought that Parliamaent could rule on the general fitness of a propsed match, but refusing George looks very much like party politics, ie it drags the crown into day-today affairs it is supposed to remain above.

The big problem with this proposal isn't getting Parliament to want it, it's getting Victoria to want it. OTL she disliked George - IIRC she once described him as the ugliest man she'd ever met - and hated his father (but then everybody did, Cumberland was a monster). The British establishment was delighted to have Cumberland out of the country, they're not going to invite him or his progeny back in this easily.

 

[jlk7e]

The big problem with this proposal isn't getting Parliament to want it, it's getting Victoria to want it. OTL she disliked George - IIRC she once described him as the ugliest man she'd ever met - and hated his father (but then everybody did, Cumberland was a monster). The British establishment was delighted to have Cumberland out of the country, they're not going to invite him or his progeny back in this easily.

Was William IV in favor of the match, or was he trying to push Victoria on George of Cambridge instead? The fact that Victoria had two first cousins, both named George, and both the same age as her, is very confusing.

 

[jlk7e]

So in other words they are two monarchs who rule their lands separately? Why would they marry? Sounds ad if it would be a bit one sided.
George won't want to stay in Britain while he could run his own nation and Victoria won't leave Britain to go and visit Hanover.

Victoria visited Germany a lot, both with Albert and after his death. I don't see why she'd be unwilling to visit Hanover. And George doesn't become king of Hanover until 1851, so he could easily live in England (where he grew up) until then. Since they don't really like each other, and since they'd likely already have sufficient children by 1851, there's no reason they can't live mostly separate lives after that point.

 

[jlk7e]

I suspect Parliament would want guarantees that the crown's would not be reunited - so a similar pact to that made by Victoria and Albert over Saxe Coburg Gotha (when it became apparent that Albert's brother would not have children) - a younger son would inherit Hannover with the eldest succeeding his mother in Britain.

Certainly it means Albert's views of using his children to tie Britain (and her values) to Germany with the aim of curbing and influencing the rising militaristic Prussia are gone.

But the whole reason for the marriage would be to eventually reunite the crowns, surely? Given that George and Victoria don't like each other, it's hard to see why they'd get married on condition that the one reason for them to get married is prevented from happening.