Queen Victoria retains Electorate of Hanover?

All,

Was there ever a chance that the Electorate might set aside Salic Law to allow for a woman to inherit the throne?


No. By the 1800s, both Hanover and Britain found the union of crowns annoying. Hanover resented having its King living elsewhere. Britain resented having its money and influence dragged into the affairs of German petty states.

Thus Hanover never considered setting aside the Salic Law, and Britain would have opposed it.

The separation of the crowns in 1837 was welcomed on both sides of the North Sea.
 
Impressed? These were soldiers of the various german states who remained as such (of course German recruitment methods varied from good pay to outright impressment and most shades in between) and came under British command as bodies of troops of foreign armies in British Pay. It is not as if the British army wandered around Germany impressing passing peasants by force.

Poor choice of words. The correct term would be "Hired". The German states, including Hanover, routinely impressed criminals, the homeless, foreign travellers, anyone they could without harming the economy into their regiments.

Hesse in particular was notorious for this (hence the "Hessians" of the American revolution).

They german states then "Hired" or "Leased" or "Loaned" these Regiments to the highest bidder during European wars. This was an age old custom and a great source of capital to impoverished tiny German princes. The soldiers themselves weren't mercenaries as they never sold their own services.

Hanover "Loaned" soldiers to Britain on a regular basis, often forming a substancial portion of the British forces. They were able to recruit/draft/impress cheap soldiers on short notice without the burdens of British political opposition.

In 1776, a great reinforcement of 25,000 soldiers hit America. 3/5's were German. None were from Hanover but Hanover's men were utilized in European British areas (Channel Islands, Minorca, Gibraltar, Ireland) and freed up soldiers.

Without the Germans as a whole and Hanover in particular, Britain's effectiveness in wars from 1700 to 1815 would be nearly negligable.
 
Personaly I believe that if Hanover had remained in personal union with Britain, Prussia would simply ignore it in the unification wars. I doubt Hanover would get involved and remain neutral (since Britain wouldn't want to get involved). Prussia would not attack it, since it would fear it would bring Britain into the war. Even if Britain wouldn't, it would not be owrth the risk. So Hanover would remain outside of Germany. Think for example of Luxemburg. Same situation, but with the Netherlands instead of Britain.

I'm not sure if the war could be avoided or not.

Prussia attacked, Poland, Austria, Bavaria and France in a ten to fifteen year timeframe.

What I am asking is if Britain's "Political" heft may make the difference. If Britain could glue together even the threat of an alliance between France, Austria, Britain and Hanover along with the Netherlands or any other small German states, that might stymy Prussia.

Britain's direct military might may have proven negligable. But politically, Prussia may have found itself picking one to many fights.
 
Thanks again for all your ideas.

I'm still not convinced that Monarchs (be they George III, George IV, the unknown reign of Queen Charlotte, or Victoria) give up thrones without a fight whether they care or not (though obvously Victory did, though she was young and inexperienced).
 
Top