Queen Victoria is instead King George V

What would be the ramifications of William IV's heir being male? So for arguments sake Alexandrine Victoria is instead Alexander Victor George and he ascends to the throne in 1837 as King George V and dies in 1901. I think that he would also be King of Hanover and there could well be a Monarch like swarm of butterflies over Germany (pun slightly intended!)especially if his heir is also male( either son or grandson (via a son)). I know that a lot of this timeline could be similar to the Alexander the Great thread but I'm especially interested in the effects on the development of Germany. If there has been a thread on this please point me in the right direction.
 
quick question why would he be George V if his name is Alexander? also I think George or Edward as a first name would be more likely any ways


Victoria (and Albert) changed the Monarchy into an apolitical institution, early in her reign she got into trouble by getting to much into politics, George IV and William IV also got into trouble that way but the public was more forgiving, by the 1840s though the time for the Crown openly playing in politics had passed, not to say a man can't or couldn't make the transition, but a man who is also the absolute monarch of Hanover? seems like a harder sell and if he manages in the UK the press will eat up all the miss steps he makes

the Parliament is unlikely to go to war to protect the Kings personal lands, and might in fact like the King being whipped and forced to spend all his time on UK issues, though the King is unlikely to take kindly to it
 
quick question why would he be George V if his name is Alexander? also I think George or Edward as a first name would be more likely any ways

Wy was she Queen Victoria when her name was Alexandrina? She chose it as her regnal name. The same concept applies ITTL.
 
Wy was she Queen Victoria when her name was Alexandrina? She chose it as her regnal name. The same concept applies ITTL.

well she picked Victoria because that was the name that was used day to day because it was the same name as her mother the idea of picking regnal names for political reasons i.e. George for continuity didn't come around till George VI, Victoria picked it for personal reasons I'm unsure why the male version would have those kind of issues
 
quick question why would he be George V if his name is Alexander? also I think George or Edward as a first name would be more likely any ways.

Why do we (and I'm not picking on you specifically BA) always go off on the name tangent when the subject of a male "Victoria" comes up? In OTL, Victoria's uncle, the future George IV insisted on Alexandrine and forbade the names Georgina or Charlotte; Victoria was allowed only at the last minute just prior to the baptismal ceremony. Also, no, "his" name wouldn't have been Victor, or even (probably not) Alexander. I agree w/BA, about the "boy names" here. He'd likely be named Edward George, thus later becoming King Edward VII (unless having a boy lengthens the Duke of Kent's life long enough and he becomes E-7).
 
Ok, I accept that a boy is going to be more likely called Edward George than Alexander Victor. Then it is a straight toss up between Edward VII (or VIII if Duke of Kent has survived) and George V. Remember that OTL Edward VIII had always been called David, and OTL Edward VII and George VI Bertie. Given our Prince of Wales' sense of humour he is more likely to be George VII than Charles III despite what the media say!(And other threads seem to agree).
 
Great, wonderful, he's Edward VII or whatever. How does German Unification play out if the UK is still in personal union with Hanover?

In particular, before we talk about Bismarck, I'm curious about the *1848 Revolutions (the exact year may be butterflied away, but the rise of nationalism and liberalism will not be). OTL the UK managed to duck most of the unrest on the continent (apart from some Chartists and Young Irelanders). I expect that Hannoverians are going to be more in-tune with the other Pan-German movements in 1848. How do they act, and how does the government in London act?
 
I am going to assume that this monarch is young and idealistic and wants to change the world! So he makes the system of bailwicks and high bailwicks function more like the ridings and counties of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. the Bailwicks become the equivalent of the East,North and West Ridings of Yorkshire, (also Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland in Lincolnshire) and the High Bailwicks are the equivalents of the counties. He then has established the equivalent of the House of Commons and House of Lords. His Uncle remains as his representative in Hanover but our young king splits his time roughly two thirds and one third between the UK and Hanover. He makes it clear to both parliaments that he wants Hanover to be as much a part of the United Kingdom as Ireland, Scotland and England. He is much more popular in Hanover than Britain!
 
I am going to assume that this monarch is young and idealistic and wants to change the world! So he makes the system of bailwicks and high bailwicks function more like the ridings and counties of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. the Bailwicks become the equivalent of the East,North and West Ridings of Yorkshire, (also Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland in Lincolnshire) and the High Bailwicks are the equivalents of the counties. He then has established the equivalent of the House of Commons and House of Lords. His Uncle remains as his representative in Hanover but our young king splits his time roughly two thirds and one third between the UK and Hanover. He makes it clear to both parliaments that he wants Hanover to be as much a part of the United Kingdom as Ireland, Scotland and England. He is much more popular in Hanover than Britain!

OK this is like completely ASB. Your WAY overestimating the power and influence of the Sovereign at this point. For one the Crown CAN'T arbitrarily change the governing structure of the UK, not can he expect Parliament to WILLINGLY support Hanover being considered part of the United Kingdom. And really WHY would he create a British style Parliament in Hanover? The British monarch was more or less an Absolute Sovereign in his German Kingdom, so weakening his own power makes no sense. Again like complete ASB.
 
I am going to assume that this monarch is young and idealistic and wants to change the world! So he makes the system of bailwicks and high bailwicks function more like the ridings and counties of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. the Bailwicks become the equivalent of the East,North and West Ridings of Yorkshire, (also Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland in Lincolnshire) and the High Bailwicks are the equivalents of the counties. He then has established the equivalent of the House of Commons and House of Lords. His Uncle remains as his representative in Hanover but our young king splits his time roughly two thirds and one third between the UK and Hanover. He makes it clear to both parliaments that he wants Hanover to be as much a part of the United Kingdom as Ireland, Scotland and England. He is much more popular in Hanover than Britain!

This assumption is erroneous.

He is then taught that his ideas have not been asked for.

He is again taught that his ideas have not been asked for and is this time also taught that his making such proposals is inappropriate.

He discovers that he should have paid attention and learned his earlier lessons earlier.

That's because Hanover is a near absolute monarchy and the political leaders take their role as subjects of the king veryv seriously, while in G.B., not so seriously.
 
OK this is like completely ASB. Your WAY overestimating the power and influence of the Sovereign at this point. For one the Crown CAN'T arbitrarily change the governing structure of the UK, not can he expect Parliament to WILLINGLY support Hanover being considered part of the United Kingdom. And really WHY would he create a British style Parliament in Hanover? The British monarch was more or less an Absolute Sovereign in his German Kingdom, so weakening his own power makes no sense. Again like complete ASB.

agreed, interestingly we might see a Parliament (in the UK that is) that is against to the Monarch (as we saw under George IV and early Victoria) and might greatly enjoy seeing the King (if he's like his Uncles, likely) getting whipped in Hanover and loosing his Absolute Kingdom and being sent crying to his room so to speak.
 
What would be the ramifications of William IV's heir being male? So for arguments sake Alexandrine Victoria is instead Alexander Victor George and he ascends to the throne in 1837 as King George V and dies in 1901. I think that he would also be King of Hanover and there could well be a Monarch like swarm of butterflies over Germany...

You mean "knock-ons". Butterflies would include the absence of OTL's Friedrich III (born 1831), Ludwig II of Bavaria (born 1845), Empress Eugenie (born 1826), Franz Josef (born 1830), Brahms (born 1833), Gambetta (born 1838)...

I'm especially interested in the effects on the development of Germany. If there has been a thread on this please point me in the right direction.

I'm sure it has been discussed. The union of crowns between Hanover and Britain annoyed British politicians, who disliked having Britain drawn into German internal affairs on behalf of the King's personal interest. Very possibly King George V might abdicate as King of Hanover in favor of his uncle or cousin.

If the union continued, it could obstruct the unification of Germany. Any forcible "blood and iron" program like Bismarck's would risk offending Britain; a more moderate "liberal" unification is probable.
 
Given how Victoria in OTL continually got her knuckles rapped during the early years of her reign I'm not sure that George at least trying to do this is completely ASB.
1.What happens if George gets fed up of the obstruction (as he sees it) of the British Parliament and decamps full time to Hanover, appoints a regent for the UK but does not abdicate the throne?
2.How could George have his cake and eat it? That is stay British monarch AND retain Hanover?
3.By offering modest reforms of the governance of Hanover does he get through 1848 without any more upset than happened in Britain? Perhaps because he does spend a third of his time in Hanover and doesn't just stay in Britain all the time and so is not seen as an "absentee landlord"?
4.Does he then offer a fourth alternative during German Unification to the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs and Hapsburgs?

I ask this because Hanover still being attached to Britain by its ruler ought to put a spanner at least temporarily in Bismark's plans especially if said ruler is popular. However Britain will not want to be joined at the hip to a unified Germany any more than such a Germany would want to be an adjunct to Britain! "Dominion" status for either party is a complete non starter!
 
I think a more interesting question would be what if Victoria was not born, since we can discuss what the Duke of Cumberland would have done, but it is hard to make such a discussion for a fictitious person.

All around I think the union of the crowns would be preserved, and in consequence Britain would remain closely associated with continental affairs.
 
the Parliament is unlikely to go to war to protect the Kings personal lands,


They will if it's an unprovoked attack - as it was in 1866 - especially as Bismarck's regime was much disliked by liberal opinion.

Anyway, if the King, in peacetime, decides to station some British troops in Hanover, what can Parliament do, short of voting down the entire Army budget, which is hardly likely over such a minor matter? If those troops come under Prussian attack, the mob will be screaming for war, whatever they think of Hanover[1]. Such an attack would be an unforgiveable slap in the face.

And even before 1866 there could be butterflies flitting around. Will George V support the Austrian Reform plan in 1863 (iirc Queen Victoria approved of it, though the OTL King of Hanover wasn't keen) and if so could he persuade the King of Prussia to go to Frankfurt? Also, a GB still united to Hanover might find it harder to stay out of the Danish War. Even if he does, he will more than likely support the Augustenburg claims in Schleswig-Holstein.

Even if things go as OTL until 1866, they could be different then. Will King Wilhelm consent to war with Austria (even OTL he took quite a lot of persuading) if he may face an Anglo-Hanoverian "Second Front" in the northwest? If he does, he will need much heavier forces in that quarter, so the invasion of Bohemia will be quite a bit weaker. This gets interesting.



[1] British public opinion was notoriously temperamental. In 1877, Gladstone was cheered to the echo as he denounced the Bulgarian Horrors and called for the Turks to be ejected bag and baggage. By the following year, the gallant defence of Plevna had turned emotions round, and the anger was directed at the Russian bully. Gladstone failed to catch the change of mood in time, and as a result all his windows were smashed by a patriotic mob.
 
They will if it's an unprovoked attack - as it was in 1866 - especially as Bismarck's regime was much disliked by liberal opinion.

Anyway, if the King, in peacetime, decides to station some British troops in Hanover, what can Parliament do, short of voting down the entire Army budget, which is hardly likely over such a minor matter? If those troops come under Prussian attack, the mob will be screaming for war, whatever they think of Hanover[1]. Such an attack would be an unforgiveable slap in the face.

And even before 1866 there could be butterflies flitting around. Will George V support the Austrian Reform plan in 1863 (iirc Queen Victoria approved of it, though the OTL King of Hanover wasn't keen) and if so could he persuade the King of Prussia to go to Frankfurt? Also, a GB still united to Hanover might find it harder to stay out of the Danish War. Even if he does, he will more than likely support the Augustenburg claims in Schleswig-Holstein.

Even if things go as OTL until 1866, they could be different then. Will King Wilhelm consent to war with Austria (even OTL he took quite a lot of persuading) if he may face an Anglo-Hanoverian "Second Front" in the northwest? If he does, he will need much heavier forces in that quarter, so the invasion of Bohemia will be quite a bit weaker. This gets interesting.



[1] British public opinion was notoriously temperamental. In 1877, Gladstone was cheered to the echo as he denounced the Bulgarian Horrors and called for the Turks to be ejected bag and baggage. By the following year, the gallant defence of Plevna had turned emotions round, and the anger was directed at the Russian bully. Gladstone failed to catch the change of mood in time, and as a result all his windows were smashed by a patriotic mob.

I think your overestimating the power of the Crown at this point. The monarch exercised his or her power on the advise of the ministers and army and navy officers. The Sovereign really couldn't station troops on his own accord. Only in a major war was British troops sent to defend Hanover. Sure British money might pay for an army of Observation, like during the Seven years war, but besides that not much. Really your overestimating public opinion. The British public never cared much for Hanover and I doubt they would be that pissed to lose it.

And I doubt Bismarck would be stupid enough to attack Hanover if its in union with the UK. No need to risk relations with the UK. But German unification will look A LOT different then OTL. Realistically I think we'll see the German Confederation reform bill adopted, and Prussia's King going to Frankfurt, if at the very least out of fear that George is trying to maneuver himself as a counter to Prussian influence in Germany. As to Denmark and everything else, its very naive to think that with a POD in 1819 that things are gonna stay the same in 1866. One of the main line Danish Kings could produce a son, keeping Denmark and the duchies unified, Bismarck could never rise to a position of influence, hell France could remain under the Bourbons or the Orleans rather then Napoleon III. Really a POD causes minor changes at first, like perhaps different birthdays and things like that, then goes outwards to change major events, like revolutions or government appointments. Thinking that everything will stay the same till say the 1870s doesn't really work well.
 
I think your overestimating the power of the Crown at this point. The monarch exercised his or her power on the advise of the ministers and army and navy officers. The Sovereign really couldn't station troops on his own accord.

He'd need the agreement of his Sec of State for War, but that might not be too hard if he offered to pay the troops at Hanover's expense. Brits always hated military spending in peacetime, and anything that reduced it would be welcome.


Only in a major war was British troops sent to defend Hanover. Sure British money might pay for an army of Observation, like during the Seven years war, but besides that not much. Really your overestimating public opinion. The British public never cared much for Hanover and I doubt they would be that pissed to lose it.
They'd be delighted to lose it peacefully. That is not at all the same thing as letting some [expletive deleted] foreigner take it by force - esp if British troops came under attack. No way would jingoistic 19C Brits tolerate that.


And I doubt Bismarck would be stupid enough to attack Hanover if its in union with the UK. No need to risk relations with the UK. But German unification will look A LOT different then OTL. Realistically I think we'll see the German Confederation reform bill adopted, and Prussia's King going to Frankfurt, if at the very least out of fear that George is trying to maneuver himself as a counter to Prussian influence in Germany. As to Denmark and everything else, its very naive to think that with a POD in 1819 that things are gonna stay the same in 1866. One of the main line Danish Kings could produce a son, keeping Denmark and the duchies unified, Bismarck could never rise to a position of influence, hell France could remain under the Bourbons or the Orleans rather then Napoleon III. Really a POD causes minor changes at first, like perhaps different birthdays and things like that, then goes outwards to change major events, like revolutions or government appointments. Thinking that everything will stay the same till say the 1870s doesn't really work well.
Re German unification, I'm inclined to agree, esp if George V himself went to Frankfurt. With the Emperor of Austria and the King of England/Hanover there, could Wilhelm bear to be left out, particularly if he feared (however mistakenly) an Anglo-Austrian deal at Prussia's expense?

I doubt if French history would be much changed by a different Monarch in Britain, and the Kings of Prussia (until 1888) were born before the PoD, as was Bismarck, but there's certainly room for change in Austria. Franz Josef was born in 1830, so he and his siblings could be different personalities from OTL. Fascinating if we get an FJ who thinks like OTL's Archduke Max.

Re the Danish succession, the easiest butterfly is for Louise of Hesse-Cassel (whose marriage to the future Christian IX gave him his claim to the Danish throne) were to marry an Augustenburg or a Hohenzollern instead. The first would eliminate the rival claim to the Duchies, while the second would stymie Bismarck completely, since Wilhelm would never attack a member of his own family.
 
Top