WI George III abdicates in 1781?

Sorry if it was already done, but I couldn't find a discussion about it.

When the news of Cornwallis' surrender in Yorktown reached London George III drafted an abdication notice (that of course was never delivered). His intention was to leave the British throne to the Prince of Wales and go to Hanover. So, WI he had delivered the notice? Would Parliament had accepted it? And if they had, how an earlier reign of George IV would look like?
 

Thande

Donor
The relationship with America would be interesting. The American rebels always maintained that their objection was only specifically to George III, and the Prince of Wales was aligned with radical interests in British politics who sympathised with the rebels (though the Prince himself was a reactionary only doing it out of realpolitick). But by Yorktown the rebels probably wouldn't be willing to compromise anymore.

However, this could lead to a more amicable divorce between Britain and the colonies, and perhaps a compromise like the one mooted in OTL, where the Duke of York is sent to America to become King of the United States. Basically more like Portugal/Brazil ended up in OTL.

George III in retirement might become a full-time environmental writer, depending on if and when his madness still affects him.

Britain meanwhile at least in the short term will get a radical government thanks to George IV's patronage. Perhaps even Charles James Fox as Prime Minister. Electoral reform on the horizon, etc., maybe even in collusion with the colonial thinkers who would be considering a new constitution for the Colonies to replace the Articles of Confederation.
 
Britain meanwhile at least in the short term will get a radical government thanks to George IV's patronage. Perhaps even Charles James Fox as Prime Minister. Electoral reform on the horizon, etc., maybe even in collusion with the colonial thinkers who would be considering a new constitution for the Colonies to replace the Articles of Confederation.

But was George IV already involved with Fox so early? I always thought that his relation with the radicals came from his desire to have the powers of the regency around 1788. But now he would be the king already in 1781/1782. Would he need the radicals ITTL?

Also, it's interesting to notice that George's abdication would be only from the British throne. He would remain the ruler to Hanover (where he intended to go after leaving London). Would it mean the end of the personal union? And how would be the effects of it?
 
George III in retirement might become a full-time environmental writer, depending on if and when his madness still affects him.

His madness was likely caused by a genetic disease (porphyria), so that's unlikely to be butterflied. By Yorktown he'd already suffered a couple of brief episodes, so he seemed to be going that way.

As king, George IV will be allowed to marry who he pleases (within reason, as Parliament will be pulling some strings). Maria Fitzherbert won't be allowed, but someone other than Caroline of Brunswick is probable. With a happier marriage he might produce a male heir (he had no trouble producing illegitimate children).
 

Valdemar II

Banned
But was George IV already involved with Fox so early? I always thought that his relation with the radicals came from his desire to have the powers of the regency around 1788. But now he would be the king already in 1781/1782 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting**************1781/1782******end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Would he need the radicals ITTL?

Also, it's interesting to notice that George's abdication would be only from the British throne. He would remain the ruler to Hanover (where he intended to go after leaving London). Would it mean the end of the personal union? And how would be the effects of it?

The questions about Hanover are interesting, while the Hanoveran nobles are likely pissed that they aren't left in peace anymore, having a monarch in Hanover will likely result in a more activistic policies, so we will likely see reforms, but also more agressive foreign policies. While Hanover wasn't any major power, it was still a medium size player. Of course the problem are that the first three conflicts which will come along are the revolutions in Netherlands, France and the Austrian Netherlands. While he likely can mess in Netherlands without it turning to a disaster doing so in France are going to turn out rather bad. Through it will give Hanover a excuse to take a large bite of the HRE cake in the German Mediatisation.
 

Thande

Donor
I'm surprised George III intended to rule in Hanover. Everything I've read seemed to imply that he didn't like the place. He was the first Hanoverian monarch to be born in Britain, speak English as his first language and consider himself British.
 
I'm surprised George III intended to rule in Hanover. Everything I've read seemed to imply that he didn't like the place. He was the first Hanoverian monarch to be born in Britain, speak English as his first language and consider himself British.

I think that it was seen by him more as an exile than anything. He wanted to abdicated because he thought he failed as king due to the British defeat in the war, and so he couldn't reign and live in Britain. It would make sense to him go to Hanover though, as it would allow him to live without having to ask money from his son or a pension granted by Parliament.
 
I'm surprised George III intended to rule in Hanover. Everything I've read seemed to imply that he didn't like the place. He was the first Hanoverian monarch to be born in Britain, speak English as his first language and consider himself British.
Well I suppose it allows him to do the honourable thing by abdicating for Great Britain losing the war whilst still being able to retain the status of being Prince-Elector of Hanover. Plus as Gonzaga says it allows him to raise his own money without having to go cap in hand to Parliament. If it's a choice between sitting around brooding over being ex-King in Great Britain or decamping to Hanover and being a near absolute monarch then even if he didn't like the place all that much it still seems preferable.
 
Here's an interesting source about George's plans regarding going to Hanover: http://www.historyhome.co.uk/people/george3.htm

"In February 1780 the king, who was watching the debates on Burke's economic reform bills with painful intensity, was annoyed at the smallness of the ministerial majority on the proposal to regulate the pension list, and, as usual, recommended ‘firmness’ to North. Dunning carried his famous resolution concerning the influence of the crown in April 1780; George attributed the rising discontent of the commons to ‘factious leaders and ruined men, who wish to overturn the constitution’. He allowed North to make some overtures to the Rockingham party in June, but objected to receive Fox or the Duke of Richmond on account of some personal displeasure. The overtures were abortive. It seems that the king felt keenly the humiliation which was gradually coming upon him; for it is said that he seriously contemplated retiring to Hanover, and that liveries were ordered and other preparations made for his departure....

...He wished to put Rockingham at the head of an administration partly formed by himself . On the 20th North persuaded him to acknowledge that his administration could not stand any longer, and Thurlow renewed the negotiation with Rockingham. But the king would not consent to a reform of the household, and sent for Shelburne on the 21st, after North's resignation had been announced. Shelburne was bound to Rockingham, and on the 22nd George sent for Lord Gower, who refused his offer. He was then advised by Shelburne to accept Rockingham, and was forced to again bow his head to the yoke. Nevertheless, he refused to see Rockingham personally until after the administration was formed, and by employing Shelburne as an intermediary sowed the seeds of discord among his new ministers. He delivered the seals to Rockingham on 27 March 1782. When North's resignation was imminent, and during the crisis which followed, he again entertained the idea of retiring to Hanover. His humiliation was notorious, and the triumph of the whigs was caricatured in the ‘Captive Prince.’"
 
I live for thread drift.:eek: What if GIII goes nuts prior to the Invasion of NYC? GIV is only 13/14. Whose the regent? I can't see it being North! Would the Regent put on the brakes to the ARW?

EDIT: I didn't think it was right to make this a separate thread.
 
Would the Americans even go for the Duke of York as the new American monarch? Isn't Pennsylvania, frex, pretty radical about this time?

But if they did, the butterflies are extremely interesting.
 
The questions about Hanover are interesting, while the Hanoveran nobles are likely pissed that they aren't left in peace anymore, having a monarch in Hanover will likely result in a more activistic policies, so we will likely see reforms, but also more agressive foreign policies. While Hanover wasn't any major power, it was still a medium size player. Of course the problem are that the first three conflicts which will come along are the revolutions in Netherlands, France and the Austrian Netherlands. While he likely can mess in Netherlands without it turning to a disaster doing so in France are going to turn out rather bad. Through it will give Hanover a excuse to take a large bite of the HRE cake in the German Mediatisation.

Also, it would interesting to see how the relation between Britain and Hanover will develop when George III starts to show his mental problems. Would George IV claim the regency for himself? Or would he send one of his brothers there to rule in name of his father? In this case, probably the personal union would not be restablished after the death of George III, with his regent claiming the territory.
 
In this case, probably the personal union would not be reestablished after the death of George III, with his regent claiming the territory.
Uh why? The whole point of a regent is that he's a stand in for George III, once George III dies George IV inherits. If whoever was sent over as regent tries to seize the throne he'll be seen as an illegitimate pretender. I don't think even the Hanoverian elite would support him as it would mean an in place monarch as opposed to arms length one with George IV ruling from London allowing them to mostly run themselves.
 
Uh why? The whole point of a regent is that he's a stand in for George III, once George III dies George IV inherits. If whoever was sent over as regent tries to seize the throne he'll be seen as an illegitimate pretender. I don't think even the Hanoverian elite would support him as it would mean an in place monarch as opposed to arms length one with George IV ruling from London allowing them to mostly run themselves.

But after decades of a different government, would George IV want it? And more than it, would Parliament want the union again? I imagine that Parliament would try to press the king to make his brother (who was already acting as the ruler o Hanover anyway) the successor of George III there.
 
It doesn't shed TOO much light since it's an OTL thing but post-divergence: Lord Shelburne wanted America to have a constitution entirely like Ireland's 1782 one (IE roughly like a commonwealth realm today) where they're entirely independent countries beyond sharing the same guy as king. Franklin rejected it.

Do we know anything on Americans' attitudes to George IV? Would that be enough to swing a Grattan-style solution to America in the treaty negotiations?
 
It doesn't shed TOO much light since it's an OTL thing but post-divergence: Lord Shelburne wanted America to have a constitution entirely like Ireland's 1782 one (IE roughly like a commonwealth realm today) where they're entirely independent countries beyond sharing the same guy as king. Franklin rejected it.

Do we know anything on Americans' attitudes to George IV? Would that be enough to swing a Grattan-style solution to America in the treaty negotiations?

I think that by the time that George III would have abdicated the Americans were already too much anti British to accept George IV. He would be the "son of the tyrant", and it probably wouldn't change things too much.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Also, it would interesting to see how the relation between Britain and Hanover will develop when George III starts to show his mental problems. Would George IV claim the regency for himself? Or would he send one of his brothers there to rule in name of his father? In this case, probably the personal union would not be restablished after the death of George III, with his regent claiming the territory.

Uh why? The whole point of a regent is that he's a stand in for George III, once George III dies George IV inherits. If whoever was sent over as regent tries to seize the throne he'll be seen as an illegitimate pretender. I don't think even the Hanoverian elite would support him as it would mean an in place monarch as opposed to arms length one with George IV ruling from London allowing them to mostly run themselves.

But after decades of a different government, would George IV want it? And more than it, would Parliament want the union again? I imagine that Parliament would try to press the king to make his brother (who was already acting as the ruler o Hanover anyway) the successor of George III there.

I think Simon are right, there are also the aspect that having Hanover as his personal property would strengthen his position against the parlament, especially a Hanover, which have been more active in the German Mediatisation.
 
Top