Britain retroceded occupied Guadalupe back to France in OTL's Treaty of Paris, in conformity with British 18th-19th century custom of "splitting the difference" and "taking some, leaving some" when it quite frequently occupied other countries' colonies for wartime reasons.
What if Britain was determined that whatever else happened, Guadalupe and its revenues should *not* go back to France at the end of the war.
Now Britain still has a problem keeping it though, the powerful sugar growers lobby representing the planters of Britain's existing West Indies possessions didn't want to add another competitor to Imperial sphere.
What if Britain splits the difference by granting the island to Prussia? Mainly to keep it out of France and Britain's hands but also to help replenish Prussia's strength in Europe and revenue, including the ability of Prussia to repay wartime loans to Britain (if any)?
Would this hurt any economic interest in Britain, more than giving it back to France did?
Would Prussia accept the gift (or indeed payment for wartime services rendered)?
I could see Prussia on the one hand hesitating because it would be expensive to defend and could motivate a French war on Prussia later. Or I could see the Prussians taking it just for the purposes of immediately reselling it back to someone else (probably France). Or I could see the Prussians keeping it.
In that last case, Prussia keeping the territory, how does this affect the development of Prussia, and later Anglo-Prussian relations? Does Prussia feel less screwed by Britain than in OTL. In OTL, they were embittered by British treatment and acted as "malevolently neutral" towards Britain during the American revolutionary war. However, they were able to get over it enough to join a Triple Alliance with the UK and Netherlands by 1788.
Thoughts on this?
...and here is a second alternative for Guadalupe:
Britain deeds to island to the Electorate of Hanover, the King's other property.
If Hanover was administered as an economic unit in total free trade with Britain (and I do *not* know if that was the case in the 18th century) then it runs into the same problems as Britain keeping Guadalupe.
But could this solution work, with the odd result of Hanover having at least one colony it can call its own?
If it does not directly harm the British West Indian sugar lobby, I don't see why parliament would object. On the other hand, parliament might object to the principle of the thing, feeling that allowing this solution would let the monarch get into a bad habit of helping out Hanover with the United Kingdom's resources.
Thoughts?