No Queen Victoria

Imagine that Edward Augustus, the Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the fourth son of King George III of the United Kingdom had no children. So Victoria has never been born. That would mean that Ernest Augustus would follow his older brothers George IV and William IV on the throne of the United Kingdom. That would also mean that personal union between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Hanover was not dissolved. And it would mean that one of his successors (most likely Ernest Augustus II) will inherit the Duchy of Brunswick after the Death of Duke William VIII in 1884.

The List of Kings of the United Kingdom:
Ernest Augustus 1837-1851
George V 1851-1878
Ernest Augustus II 1878-1923
Ernest Augustus III 1923-1953
Ernest Augustus IV 1953-1987
Ernest Augustus V since 1987

How will that affect history?
 
Having Ernst-Augustus as King is often a popular POD to cause a British Revolution. Especially when he becomes King in the early 1820s with an earlier death of William IV.
 
Ernest Augustus was seriously unpopular in the UK. He was suspected (wrongly) of everything up to and including incest.
 
If this is all the reason for a revolution, then the revolution would have happened years ago, because other monarchs were also not very popular. As king he hold no real political power in the United Kingdom, so he would not be able to prevent the Reform Act and the Catholic Emancipation. With him staying in England it is also possible that the 1833 constitution of the Kingdom of Hanover is not revoked.
 
If this is all the reason for a revolution, then the revolution would have happened years ago, because other monarchs were also not very popular. As king he hold no real political power in the United Kingdom, so he would not be able to prevent the Reform Act and the Catholic Emancipation. With him staying in England it is also possible that the 1833 constitution of the Kingdom of Hanover is not revoked.

Barbarossa Rotbart

At the time the monarchy still had a lot of power. Parliament was more powerful overall but only if united and at least some elements in it and the aristocracy may not have been opposed to a more powerful monarch. Especially given the reaction after the French wars, which started off as the revolutionary wars;), and if the alternative is reform.

Not to mention that just because Parliament is more powerful than the monarchy doesn't mean a particularly stubborn and pig headed monarch might prompt a rebellion. That's what DrakeRlugia is saying, not that a monarch would successfully overthrown Parliament but that he might prompt a revolt against his power.

As you say other monarchs have been very unpopular, Charles I and James II to name two.;)

Steve
 
instead of Victoria not being there we could see that one of the persons that were before Victoria in the line of succession survive and become king/queen.
Lets say Princess Charlotte does not die while giving birth and continues to become Queen Charlotte
 
Barbarossa Rotbart

At the time the monarchy still had a lot of power. Parliament was more powerful overall but only if united and at least some elements in it and the aristocracy may not have been opposed to a more powerful monarch. Especially given the reaction after the French wars, which started off as the revolutionary wars;), and if the alternative is reform.

Not to mention that just because Parliament is more powerful than the monarchy doesn't mean a particularly stubborn and pig headed monarch might prompt a rebellion. That's what DrakeRlugia is saying, not that a monarch would successfully overthrown Parliament but that he might prompt a revolt against his power.

As you say other monarchs have been very unpopular, Charles I and James II to name two.;)

Steve

HRH the Duke of Cumberland was a deeply unpopular figure amongst the general British populous, however that was hardly unique amongst his siblings.
Moreover what is often overlooked is that HM King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is generally considered to have been a good monarch for Hanover, who promoted industrial development. I do not see that he would have acted so terribly as King of Great Britain between 1837 and his death in 1851 that would seriously justify revolution of any kind in Great Britain as a direct result of him.
I’ve always had the impression that part of the problems that continued with his relationship with Britain after his succession to the Hanoverian throne were borne out of jealousy at losing the bigger prize, which obviously would have been negated had he become British king.
 
instead of Victoria not being there we could see that one of the persons that were before Victoria in the line of succession survive and become king/queen.
Lets say Princess Charlotte does not die while giving birth and continues to become Queen Charlotte

That's an interesting premise, I personally don't think there would have been a massive difference between how the British monarchy developed after Charlotte died and how it would have developed had Charlotte lived.

Remember Victoria and Albert were both heavily influenced by their mutual uncle Leopold, King of the Belgians who had originally been married to Charlotte.

Had Charlotte lived to become Queen, I believe Leopold would have heavily inspired her style of monarchy and instead of training his niece and nephew Victoria and Albert to rule Britain, he would have likely trained his own son/daughter to reign in that way instead.

Certain things would be different but the base training and outlook of monarchs would probably be very similar.
 
Barbarossa Rotbart said:
Imagine that Edward Augustus, the Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the fourth son of King George III of the United Kingdom had no children. So Victoria has never been born. That would mean that Ernest Augustus would follow his older brothers George IV and William IV on the throne of the United Kingdom. That would also mean that personal union between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Hanover was not dissolved. And it would mean that one of his successors (most likely Ernest Augustus II) will inherit the Duchy of Brunswick after the Death of Duke William VIII in 1884.

The List of Kings of the United Kingdom:
Ernest Augustus 1837-1851
George V 1851-1878
Ernest Augustus II 1878-1923
Ernest Augustus III 1923-1953
Ernest Augustus IV 1953-1987
Ernest Augustus V since 1987

As was stated Ernst Augustus war an unpopular figure. I don't know enough British History to know if he would be overthrown though I believe that's not so sure: there were always some discontent with House Hannover from what I understood and yet no monarch of that dynasty was overthrown. Even George IV, who was unpopular, stayed on the throne even if his reign only lasted 10 years: he had bit Prince Regent in the late years of his father George III though, meaning he was in charge of power longer than that.
It will probably depend on his attitude as King of both Hannover and Britain and on how he rules: unless he pisses off too many people, he has chance of staying on the throne. There were many monarchs who held on their throne despite their unpopularity be they British or not.

On a side note, the list of Kings of Great Britain & Hannover will probably be altered. First, there is the question of Ernest Augustus' regnal name: would he go for Ernest Augustus like OTL, chose simply Ernest I or Augustus I or even chose another regnal name because of his accession to the British throne?
Second, butterflies of No Victoria gets rid of her children and, as such, affects several European dynasties and not just Britain/Hannover: for example, there will be no OTL Wilhelm II of Prussia as Victoria was his grandmother. As a result, the British bloodline of Ernest Augustus will be affected: George V is probably kept and maybe even Ernest Augustus II (his parents married in 1843 and butterflies might not be strong enough to change its course) but after him that's a no. Why? Because being King of Great Britain is a lot more prestigious than King of Hannover: so you can eventually expect a better wedding for Ernest Augustus II. And even if George V loses Hannover like OTL, his dynasty will remain a regnant one: regnant royals had more presitigious marriage than non-regnant ones, so this will probably affect Ernest Augustus II's bride.
Third, we have to take into account "unexpected" event: an ATL WWI is still possible and if it pills Britain against Germany, it might have the effect of having the British monarchs giving up germanic names like Ernest sounds. Remember that, in OTL, the British Wettins became the Windsors because of WWI.

wietze said:
Lets say Princess Charlotte does not die while giving birth and continues to become Queen Charlotte

I once launched a "What If" thread with this POD. https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=194984

Having Charlotte rule instead of Victoria does interest me, although I don't know British History enough to answer the question.

On a side note: if Charlotte were to survive childbirth in 1817, then there are chances her baby would, be it a boy or a girl. So, dynasty is probably assured if said baby doesn't die young and/or Charlotte's ability to procreate isn't affected by her pregnancy (difficult pregnancies could rendered women sterile).
 
As was stated Ernst Augustus war an unpopular figure. I don't know enough British History to know if he would be overthrown though I believe that's not so sure: there were always some discontent with House Hannover from what I understood and yet no monarch of that dynasty was overthrown. Even George IV, who was unpopular, stayed on the throne even if his reign only lasted 10 years: he had bit Prince Regent in the late years of his father George III though, meaning he was in charge of power longer than that.
It will probably depend on his attitude as King of both Hannover and Britain and on how he rules: unless he pisses off too many people, he has chance of staying on the throne. There were many monarchs who held on their throne despite their unpopularity be they British or not.

On a side note, the list of Kings of Great Britain & Hannover will probably be altered. First, there is the question of Ernest Augustus' regnal name: would he go for Ernest Augustus like OTL, chose simply Ernest I or Augustus I or even chose another regnal name because of his accession to the British throne?
Second, butterflies of No Victoria gets rid of her children and, as such, affects several European dynasties and not just Britain/Hannover: for example, there will be no OTL Wilhelm II of Prussia as Victoria was his grandmother. As a result, the British bloodline of Ernest Augustus will be affected: George V is probably kept and maybe even Ernest Augustus II (his parents married in 1843 and butterflies might not be strong enough to change its course) but after him that's a no. Why? Because being King of Great Britain is a lot more prestigious than King of Hannover: so you can eventually expect a better wedding for Ernest Augustus II. And even if George V loses Hannover like OTL, his dynasty will remain a regnant one: regnant royals had more presitigious marriage than non-regnant ones, so this will probably affect Ernest Augustus II's bride.
Third, we have to take into account "unexpected" event: an ATL WWI is still possible and if it pills Britain against Germany, it might have the effect of having the British monarchs giving up germanic names like Ernest sounds. Remember that, in OTL, the British Wettins became the Windsors because of WWI.



I once launched a "What If" thread with this POD. https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=194984

Having Charlotte rule instead of Victoria does interest me, although I don't know British History enough to answer the question.

On a side note: if Charlotte were to survive childbirth in 1817, then there are chances her baby would, be it a boy or a girl. So, dynasty is probably assured if said baby doesn't die young and/or Charlotte's ability to procreate isn't affected by her pregnancy (difficult pregnancies could rendered women sterile).

Ernest August would have probably reigned just as that, George was a foreign name to England and the first Hanoverian King elected to use it, albeit there had been a Prince George as husband of Queen Anne previously. I don't think we should confuse concerns in 1917 with the Royal Family being too German with the 1830s, the Royal Family were quite open and celebrated their German origin and made no apoligies for it.

George V of Hanover married Marie of Saxe-Altenberg, there is no reason to think that marriage would not have taken place even if George were also heir to the British throne. It is true her father was the mere Duke of a minor German duchy but you would have to go back to Catherine of Braganza marrying Charles II in 1662 for the last time the daughter of a King married a British monarch or their heir. There has never been a tradition in Great Britain of Kings or heir apparents making hugely grandoise dynastic marriages, if you look at the spouses of George III's children, they were all from relatively obscure German royal houses, as was the husbands of Charlotte of Wales and Victoria.

Of Victoria's children, only 5 of her 9 children could be said to have made truly impressive dynastic marriages to heirs to foreign thrones (Victoria and Alice) or to princesses from Kingdoms/Empires (Denmark, Russia, Prussia) - of her other children Louise married a British Duke, Helena married a member of a deposed German dynasty, Leopold married a Princess from a very minor German principlaity and Beatrice married a morganaut.

Had the British monarch also been monarch of Hanover it changes everything in Germany in the 1860s and onwards, Prussia would not have annexed Hanover and deposed the British King. There is an argument that a major war between Prussia and Britain would have kicked off over controlling influence over Germany unless Prussia was prepared to focus its expansion eastwards and avoid conflict with Britain. It is highly probable that Prussia would have been seriously destroyed and the development of Central Europe would have changed entirely.
 
Remember that Hanover was on the side of those opposed to unification under Prussian rule. So with Hanover 'part' of the UK, Bismark would not risk a war with the United Kingdom and thus the German War of 1866 will not happen. And that means that there won't be a Reich in 1871.
 
Remember that Hanover was on the side of those opposed to unification under Prussian rule. So with Hanover 'part' of the UK, Bismark would not risk a war with the United Kingdom and thus the German War of 1866 will not happen. And that means that there won't be a Reich in 1871.

I've always been scepticle when people bring this up. The German Empire was a federal state. The Kings of Saxony and Bavaria weren't desposed, nor where any of the other petty princes. A lot posit Hannover remaining aloof to German developments, but I see no reason why Hannover cannot join. The King of Great Britain would legally be king but represented by a Viceroy, as he was before 1837. I don't see why surviving Hannoverians would impede unification, unless they actually fight it. The English Hannoverians in this scenario may simply choose neutrality, instead of the pro-Austrian stance that the Hannoverians took IOTL. Britain loathed to get dragged into Hannovers foreign problems, so would probably see some accommodation with Hannover joining the North German Confederation or whatever it would be called in TTL, with the King of Great Britain keeping his Hannoverian throne. This poses an issue should Germany go to war with England. But considering the empire had a federal system, the King of Hannover would be able to keep his throne, and I don't think surviving Hannoverians in England would kill German unification. Hell, one of Victoria's grandsons later ended up Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha when the main line failed. Hannover would be part of Germany, de facto. It's taxes to go to Germany. It's defenses would be handled by Germany, and it's foreign affairs would be too. It's simply share a King of with Great Britain who would have a Viceroy there.
 
Guys

Just to clarify. If Ernest Augustus became king of Britain I'm not saying he would be deposed. Rather that, given what's said of his views and behaviour, it's not impossible with the pressure for reform growing in the country. He was able to remove the existing constitution in Hanover because that state was far more used to autocratic rule but he couldn't try restoring of royal power in Britain [increasing influence a bit possibly] without real sparks flying.

Steve

HRH the Duke of Cumberland was a deeply unpopular figure amongst the general British populous, however that was hardly unique amongst his siblings.
Moreover what is often overlooked is that HM King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is generally considered to have been a good monarch for Hanover, who promoted industrial development. I do not see that he would have acted so terribly as King of Great Britain between 1837 and his death in 1851 that would seriously justify revolution of any kind in Great Britain as a direct result of him.
I’ve always had the impression that part of the problems that continued with his relationship with Britain after his succession to the Hanoverian throne were borne out of jealousy at losing the bigger prize, which obviously would have been negated had he become British king.

As was stated Ernst Augustus war an unpopular figure. I don't know enough British History to know if he would be overthrown though I believe that's not so sure: there were always some discontent with House Hannover from what I understood and yet no monarch of that dynasty was overthrown. Even George IV, who was unpopular, stayed on the throne even if his reign only lasted 10 years: he had bit Prince Regent in the late years of his father George III though, meaning he was in charge of power longer than that.
It will probably depend on his attitude as King of both Hannover and Britain and on how he rules: unless he pisses off too many people, he has chance of staying on the throne. There were many monarchs who held on their throne despite their unpopularity be they British or not.

On a side note, the list of Kings of Great Britain & Hannover will probably be altered. First, there is the question of Ernest Augustus' regnal name: would he go for Ernest Augustus like OTL, chose simply Ernest I or Augustus I or even chose another regnal name because of his accession to the British throne?
Second, butterflies of No Victoria gets rid of her children and, as such, affects several European dynasties and not just Britain/Hannover: for example, there will be no OTL Wilhelm II of Prussia as Victoria was his grandmother. As a result, the British bloodline of Ernest Augustus will be affected: George V is probably kept and maybe even Ernest Augustus II (his parents married in 1843 and butterflies might not be strong enough to change its course) but after him that's a no. Why? Because being King of Great Britain is a lot more prestigious than King of Hannover: so you can eventually expect a better wedding for Ernest Augustus II. And even if George V loses Hannover like OTL, his dynasty will remain a regnant one: regnant royals had more presitigious marriage than non-regnant ones, so this will probably affect Ernest Augustus II's bride.
Third, we have to take into account "unexpected" event: an ATL WWI is still possible and if it pills Britain against Germany, it might have the effect of having the British monarchs giving up germanic names like Ernest sounds. Remember that, in OTL, the British Wettins became the Windsors because of WWI.



I once launched a "What If" thread with this POD. https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=194984

Having Charlotte rule instead of Victoria does interest me, although I don't know British History enough to answer the question.

On a side note: if Charlotte were to survive childbirth in 1817, then there are chances her baby would, be it a boy or a girl. So, dynasty is probably assured if said baby doesn't die young and/or Charlotte's ability to procreate isn't affected by her pregnancy (difficult pregnancies could rendered women sterile).
 
I've always been scepticle when people bring this up. The German Empire was a federal state. The Kings of Saxony and Bavaria weren't desposed, nor where any of the other petty princes. A lot posit Hannover remaining aloof to German developments, but I see no reason why Hannover cannot join. The King of Great Britain would legally be king but represented by a Viceroy, as he was before 1837. I don't see why surviving Hannoverians would impede unification, unless they actually fight it. The English Hannoverians in this scenario may simply choose neutrality, instead of the pro-Austrian stance that the Hannoverians took IOTL. Britain loathed to get dragged into Hannovers foreign problems, so would probably see some accommodation with Hannover joining the North German Confederation or whatever it would be called in TTL, with the King of Great Britain keeping his Hannoverian throne. This poses an issue should Germany go to war with England. But considering the empire had a federal system, the King of Hannover would be able to keep his throne, and I don't think surviving Hannoverians in England would kill German unification. Hell, one of Victoria's grandsons later ended up Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha when the main line failed. Hannover would be part of Germany, de facto. It's taxes to go to Germany. It's defenses would be handled by Germany, and it's foreign affairs would be too. It's simply share a King of with Great Britain who would have a Viceroy there.

Take good look at the allies of Prussia:
Kingdom of Italy, Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, Duchy of Anhalt, Duchy of Brunswick, Duchy of Saxe-Altenburg, Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duchy of Saxe-Lauenburg, Principality of Lippe-Detmold, Principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Principality of Waldeck-Pymont, City of Bremen, City of Hamburg, City of Lübeck.
And a look at the Allies of Austria:
Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of Hanover, Kingdom of Saxony, Kingdom of Württemberg, Grand Duchy of Baden, Grand Duchy of Hesse(-Darmstadt), Duchy of Nassau, Electorate of Hesse(-Kassel), Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen, Principality of Reuss(-Greiz) (Older Line), Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe, Free City of Frankfurt.
You see that only the smaller states supported Prussia. The other Kingdoms were against Prussia.
If Hanover stayed with Austria and the rest of the German Confederation, I really doubt that Prussia will start this war. If Hanover stayed neutral, it would not join the Northern German Confederation. Thus the Reich would be smaller.
 
Top