The Second Coming of the House of Orange

So I was thinking, King George II of Great Britain had 8 children, of his 3 sons only Prince Fredrick gave him grand-kids, but what if Fredrick hadn't (for what ever reason) had children, leaving the crown in Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 60 to the line of Princess Anne, the Princess of Orange, making William V Prince of Orange King of Great Britain?
 
Hmmm

Given that he was 6 years of his majority and that the Jacobites were still around (Bonnie Prince Charlie didn't die until 1788) I am not sure that the British would have opted for William as King.

My feeling would be they would have passed an act of Parliment giving the crown to someone else. Either to the King of Prussia (as a direct line descendant from George I) or to one of the great Dukes of England.
 
Actually the succession would go first to Frederick's brother William Duke of Cumberland.
The longer Frederick is childless the more pressure would be on William to marry.
Let's say he does on Fredericks death in 1751. Who is available for William (now Prince of Wales)?

Anyways if William IV also fails to have children then the heirs of Great Britain and Ireland in 1765 are:

The children of Anne, Princess Royal. Therefore William V of Orange.
Princess Amelia.
Princess Mary, Landgravine of Hesse-Kassel, and her children.
The children of Louise Queen consort of Denmark. Therefore Crown Prince Christian (king in 66).


There's no reason to think that the 18yo William V of Orange might not be crowned King. In fact Parliament would probably prefer the swap of Duke of Hanover with the Netherlands Stadtholder.

It would interesting to see how William's rule pans out.
How does he deal with the American Colonies?
If AWI still breaks out is Dutch neutrality broken? or is he kicked out of the Stadtholdership?
The 4th Anglo-Dutch Wars seems inevitable in this scenario.
Would the Union with Ireland still occur? Would it be expanded to the Netherlands?

Who also gets Hannover since the Salic line seems extinct?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm

Given that he was 6 years of his majority and that the Jacobites were still around (Bonnie Prince Charlie didn't die until 1788) I am not sure that the British would have opted for William as King.

My feeling would be they would have passed an act of Parliment giving the crown to someone else. Either to the King of Prussia (as a direct line descendant from George I) or to one of the great Dukes of England.

They would have. The Jacobites were broken after 1745 and no one cared about them. Sure the French attempted to use them to their own gain, but by 1760 the 'Bonnie Prince' was an alcoholic. Even the Papacy had abandoned them and recognized the Hannoverians as legitimate Kings of Great Britain, IIRC.

There would be no Act of Parliament. Why would they choose the King of Prussia over the Prince of Orange? At least Holland is just a jump from England. Giving the crown to the King of Prussia over the other legitimate heirs makes no sense. The only way we'd see an Anglo-Prussian union would be George I having no male heirs, thus the crown falling to his daughter. It's been discussed plenty of times around here. In the scenario BA lines out, the Princess of Orange would be the rightful heir. After all, Britain allowed the eldest daughter to succeed in absence of a son, even if there were living uncles.
 
Willem V as the king of Great Britain? You must really hate Great Britain. I always thought that the Frisian line of stadholders and Dutch king were almost all extremely incompentent fules (the only one I have some respect for is king Willem I and he managed to lose Belgium). Willem V would be a completely incompetent king, which is probably good news for the British parliament as they would be running the show. I don't think the Dutch would mind havinf Willem V go to Britain and be king as that would mean a lot more autonomy for the Dutch. The patriot-Orangist struggle could be interesting with the stadholder away. Still if the patriots go too far, the English army will be in Holland in no time.
 
The Netherlands are still officially a Republic in the 1760s, even though the combined offices of Stadtholder and Prince of Orange strongly resemble a hereditary monarchy by this point. If Parliament perceives a conflict of interest between William's role as King of Great Britain and as Stadtholder of the Netherlands, they might try to pressure him to step down as Stadtholder. The Act of Settlement allows them to forbid him to leave the British Isles, and power of the purse is firmly in Parliament's hands, so they've got a strong hand if they decide to press the point.

On the other hand, I rather suspect that in this scenario the Fourth Anglo-Dutch war would be butterflied away. IOTL, it was driven by Dutch support for the American revolutionaries. With William V (*) in place of George III, I could see Britain taking a more conciliatory policy with the Americans and averting or at least significantly delaying outright rebellion.

(*) He's also be William V of Britain, conveniently enough, if William, Duke of Cumberland succeeds George II.
 
Last edited:
Hanover, being actually Braunschweig-Lüneberg, would go to the next Brunswick heir, the Duke of Brunswick (Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel), then Karl (technically, it was Braunschweig-Bevern by then).
Cheers. Couldn't work out when they'd split.

The Netherlands are still officially a Republic in the 1860s, even though the combined offices of Stadtholder and Prince of Orange strongly resemble a hereditary monarchy by this point. If Parliament perceives a conflict of interest between William's role as King of Great Britain and as Stadtholder of the Netherlands, they might try to pressure him to step down as Stadtholder. The Act of Settlement allows them to forbid him to leave the British Isles, and power of the purse is firmly in Parliament's hands, so they've got a strong hand if they decide to press the point.

On the other hand, I rather suspect that in this scenario the Fourth Anglo-Dutch war would be butterflied away. IOTL, it was driven by Dutch support for the American revolutionaries. With William V (*) in place of George III, I could see Britain taking a more conciliatory policy with the Americans and averting or at least significantly delaying outright rebellion.
Having the Netherlands as a "republic" under a Stadtholder who's a King may provide a reasonable model/example for the American Colonies.
That is the Continental Congress as an Estates-General for the United Provinces of British America with William as King; probably also with Lords/Privy Council as oversight.
(*) He's also be William V of Britain, conveniently enough, if William, Duke of Cumberland succeeds George II.

That depends on whether William Duke of Cumberland calls himself King William IV as William Duke of Clarence & St Andrews.
Cumberland may just call himself I of Great Britain and Ireland.
(or less likely - since the Kingdoms of E and S no longer exist - IV of England, III of Scotland, and I of Ireland)

In which case William of Orange may become II of Great Britain and Ireland, V of Orange; later also I of UPBA and possibly I of the Netherlands)
 
Last edited:
Top