WI: King Earnest of Britain in the 1820s

Earnest Augustus was an unlikely candidate to become King of Britain, being the fifth son of George III, yet he did come close. Following the death of William IV he inherited the Kingdom of Hanover, due to Hanover having Salic inheritance which prohibited succession to and through women, whilst the Kingdom of Britain and Ireland passed to his niece Victoria, ending the union between the two Kingdoms. Had Victoria died before producing an heir he would have been the likely candidate to inherit the throne. There were even rumours that there was a plot to kill Victoria in order to put him on the throne, although that was probably unlikely.

Now Earnest was an interesting character. Unlike his father, who had never even visited Hanover, Earnest had been sent there in his adolescence for his education and military training. By 1837 he was the only one of George III's children willing and able to continue the connection with Hanover. He was also quite active in British politics, as a member of the House of Lords, where he developed a strong reputation for being an arch-reactionary. In particular he was militantly opposed to Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. He was also quite unpopular. In short, had he been King of Britain things could have gotten interesting.

Now getting on the throne by offing young Victoria is one way to go about it, but it would mean that he comes to power after most of the crucial reforms of the day have been passed. Consider instead this scenario:

In 1813 Prince William, who would become William VI IOTL, visited British troops fighting in the Low Countries. Watching the bombardment of Antwerp from a Church Steeple he came under fire but, fortunately for him, a bullet hit his coat and he was unharmed. Instead, ITTL, he gets hit by a bullet which kills him or, alternatively, seriously wounds him so that he dies some time before inheriting the throne. A few years later baby Victoria dies in infancy, a fate shared with her cousin OTL. Finally, George VI's unhealthy lifestyle causes him to kick the bucket a few years earlier.

As a result of all this Earnest ascends to the throne before Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform.

What impact is this likely to have on British politics, both foreign and domestic? Whilst Britain was a fairly established constitutional monarchy at this point it wasn't without some actual power. IOTL William VI was the last king to appoint a Prime Minister against the will of Parliament and Victoria attempted to subtly influence policy. Earnest, who was both a white-hot reactionary and tended to favour a more Germanic approach to monarchy, would inevitably try to use such powers to intervene.

In addition, on the foreign policy front, the succession of Earnest to the British throne means that the union with Hanover will be maintained and, through his son George, guaranteed for at least another generation. Given all the excitement that Europe goes through, particularly after 1848, how might Britain get wrapped up in it?

On the other hand, given how unpopular Earnest was in Britain and his staunch opposition to reforms that Britain really needed to have, what are the chances of him being forced to abdicate and when?
 
I'm no expert on this but if Hanover remains in union with the British crown through the middle of the 1800s, or even later, this will be a huge obstacle to the unification of Germany under Prussia. Imagine by 1850-60 there is a common currency, customs union, and perhaps English being a common second language in Hanover and German relatively common in certain segments of English society (not just the upper crust but merchants etc). Some of the very small principalities adjacent to Hanover might easily become absorbed by Hanover and part of the United Kingdom. In 1866 I very much doubt Bismarck would try an absorb Hanover like OTL, although if Hanover is part of the UK it won't be part of the North German Confederation.
 
My understanding from our British posters is he would be forced to leave by Parliament with no major changes for British history when they overthrow a king in 1830.
 
My understanding from our British posters is he would be forced to leave by Parliament with no major changes for British history when they overthrow a king in 1830.
Well, the first Question is: Why?
The last time a british King was forced to abdicate was 1688, and even then that caused a Centuries worth of Rebellions in the form of the Jacobites. If Ernest Augustus is forced to renounce his birthright a lot of Brits would also be up in arms at home and the colonies. If he ia forced to retire to Hanover, who is to stop him claiming the Title 'King of Great Britain'? causing the Ernestine Rebbellions?

Secondly; who will replace him? He has a legitimate son; George, at this point, so would George be allowed to rule in place of his father or would he too be tossed aside due to Parliaments fickleness? Or would it go to another brother Augustus of Cambridge maybe, or perhaps Sussex? Both interesting options, but after Cambridge's son, the line ends, as it does with Sussex entirely.
 
Well, the first Question is: Why?
The last time a british King was forced to abdicate was 1688, and even then that caused a Centuries worth of Rebellions in the form of the Jacobites. If Ernest Augustus is forced to renounce his birthright a lot of Brits would also be up in arms at home and the colonies. If he ia forced to retire to Hanover, who is to stop him claiming the Title 'King of Great Britain'? causing the Ernestine Rebbellions?

Secondly; who will replace him? He has a legitimate son; George, at this point, so would George be allowed to rule in place of his father or would he too be tossed aside due to Parliaments fickleness? Or would it go to another brother Augustus of Cambridge maybe, or perhaps Sussex? Both interesting options, but after Cambridge's son, the line ends, as it does with Sussex entirely.

It's not parliamentary fickleness. He was an arch-conservative who was wholly opposed to the progressive liberal direction Britain was trending in. He was utterly against democratic reform, which was way overdue at this point, and, if delayed much longer, would have likely led to revolution. He was widely hated among the general public for similar reasons, to the point it was a popular conspiracy theory that he was trying to have Victoria killed. I can't imagine anything similar to the Jacobite rebellions, as he's not linked with a clear camp in a sectarian divide, and if you believed in legitimism you'd still support the Stuarts.

As for who would replace him, I'm not good with genealogical lines, but it would be likely the first one in the line of succession they could trust not to have reactionary views. Even if it's not a Hannoverian.

Of course, I don't agree this would have no change to British history. The monarchy takes a hit to its prestige, and there would likely be more political volatility over the medium term.
 
I'm no expert on this but if Hanover remains in union with the British crown through the middle of the 1800s, or even later, this will be a huge obstacle to the unification of Germany under Prussia. Imagine by 1850-60 there is a common currency, customs union, and perhaps English being a common second language in Hanover and German relatively common in certain segments of English society (not just the upper crust but merchants etc). Some of the very small principalities adjacent to Hanover might easily become absorbed by Hanover and part of the United Kingdom. In 1866 I very much doubt Bismarck would try an absorb Hanover like OTL, although if Hanover is part of the UK it won't be part of the North German Confederation.

I believe that IOTL Hanover remained separate from the Zollverein Customs Union until the 1850s. With closer ties to Britain they could remain out of it indefinitely, along with the neighbouring minor states.

He was incredibly unpopular. Parliament might just choose someone else.

It's not parliamentary fickleness. He was an arch-conservative who was wholly opposed to the progressive liberal direction Britain was trending in. He was utterly against democratic reform, which was way overdue at this point, and, if delayed much longer, would have likely led to revolution. He was widely hated among the general public for similar reasons, to the point it was a popular conspiracy theory that he was trying to have Victoria killed. I can't imagine anything similar to the Jacobite rebellions, as he's not linked with a clear camp in a sectarian divide, and if you believed in legitimism you'd still support the Stuarts.

As for who would replace him, I'm not good with genealogical lines, but it would be likely the first one in the line of succession they could trust not to have reactionary views. Even if it's not a Hannoverian.

Of course, I don't agree this would have no change to British history. The monarchy takes a hit to its prestige, and there would likely be more political volatility over the medium term.

Whilst he was unpopular was he as hated as he was in the 20s as he was in the 30s? If he comes to power in the mid-to-late 20s before the introduction of the Catholic Relief Act, whilst he would still be known as a conservative, he wouldn't have had time to make quite as many enemies or gain a reputation for being completely unmoveable. It would have also been before his son lost his sight in his good eye, an event that could be butterflied away, which would give him a stronger claim to inherit the throne and ensure a smooth succession. If it's early enough Parliament might be convinced that the responsibility of Kingship might force him to moderate, even if such hopes turn out to be false.
 
First, a minor point. While Catholic emancipation was in fact enacted during the reign of George IV, the big parliamentary Reform Act was not. In fact, William IV agreeing to appoint enough Whig peers to get it through the House of Lords was key to its passage. So you don't have to bump George IV off early to get Ernst August in place during a kay period in the passage of the Reform Act.

Now, a major point. Replacing the Hanoverians with a republic or another dynasty was not unthinkable at all, the dynasty was hugely unpopular until William IV, and later Victoria, rehabilitated the monarch's image, and (somewhat inadvertently) created the modern monarchy as a non-political servant of the state. France in fact got rid of a very Ernst August like King in 1830 and put in place a new dynasty, with the support of the French elites. And the Duke of Wellington supported Catholic emancipation. If you lose the Duke of Wellington, you are probably not going to get or stay on the throne.

Constitutionally, once the Hanoverians were put in place in the first place, the United Kingdom became a sort of "crowned republic" where the succession, though not elected, was regulated by ordinary legislation passed through Parliament. They just changed the rules again IOTL quite recently. There would be no constitutional barrier to amending the Act of Succession to exclude a potential monarchy if needed. If a sitting monarchy viewed as unsuitable refuses to do what Edward VIII did and abdicate, he could be abdicated like James II was or Parliament could declare him insane and appoint a regency like they had just done for George III (who, granted, really was not of sound mind).

They could also discover that being King of another country really was a barrier after all. Note that it was the Treaty of Vienna that made Hanover a sovereign Kingdom, instead of legally a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire, so you could hold that the situation had changed. The Kingdom of Ireland had been merged into the United Kingdom under George III, so at that point Hanover was the only other realm where the King of Britain would be King in his own right.

Under this scenario, with the deaths of the Duke of Clarence and his infant daughter, it would be known that Ernst August was next in line for the throne since the mid 1810s. Either he changes his opinions, or some excuse would be found to remove him from the line of succession. I don't see George IV standing in the way of substituting another one of his siblings.
 
Now, once the King of Hanover is removed from succession, there are three main alternative candidates:

George, the son of Ernst Auguat. There are two problems here. The first is that if the Hanover connection is the excuse to remove George's father, that would disqualify George as well. The second is that George was born in 1819, so an alteration of the laws of succession before that date would simply exclude Ernst August's descendants as well. So this is very unlikely.

Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex. The next in the male line of the throne. The Wikipedia article on him says he was the head of the British freemasons, which of course raises the question of why he didn't become King IOTL. I could not find much more information about him. As with William IV, he died without surviving issue, in 1843.

A royal princess. Parliament could simply change the Act of Succession to no longer discriminate between male and female children in determining the line of succession, as it did IOTL in the 21st century, and Ernst August has three older sisters who survived past infancy, Charlotte, who died in 1828, and Augusta Sophia and Elizabeth, both of who died in 1840. None of them had surviving children. I don't see this happening but its a possibility.

Assuming Augusts Frederick succeeds George IV, on his death in 1843. According to the Wikipedia article on him, he had a not very distinguished military career, and was viceroy of George IV and William IV in Hanover, its interesting they selected him and not his brother who was next in line for the throne of Hanover. He died in 1850 IOTL and did have issue.

Then it gets complicated. The son of Augustus Frederic, Duke of Cambridge, was George, Duke of Cambridge, who had an even more undistinguished military career than his father. George, Duke of Cambridge married in contravention of the Royal Marriage Act in 1847 and had three children who were declared illegitimate IOTL, he had no other children. With George as King, this whole event is butterflied away with unpredictable effects on the line of succession.

What the death of Victoria in infancy does do, however, is to get rid of the reign of Victoria, and the alternatives do not look very impressive.
 
With regards to a possible revolution, is it possible that, if Ernest gets forced from power in the early 30s due to his opposition to reform, could Britain end up with an analogue to the French Legitimist-Orleanist split with reformists and moderate liberals rallying around August Frederick (possibly calling themselves Sussexists) and conservative reactionaries rallying around Earnest?
 
With regards to a possible revolution, is it possible that, if Ernest gets forced from power in the early 30s due to his opposition to reform, could Britain end up with an analogue to the French Legitimist-Orleanist split with reformists and moderate liberals rallying around August Frederick (possibly calling themselves Sussexists) and conservative reactionaries rallying around Earnest?
Légitimistes weren't just defined by their reactionnary, traditionalist views (that could be shared by a significant part of conservative Orleanists, or rather mild supportters of Orleanists that weren't Legitimists) : it was as well their counter-revolutionary stance, and the will to turn back the clock of History as much as possible (or rather, returning to a fantasmed view on history that ended IOTL up to a quasi-corporatism for some royalists).

While French Revolution provoked an huge polarization of French politics, with political groups at least partially definited by their position on it, British politics would be less divisive on the right-wing parlementarians : even the Ultra-Tories were less divided from Tories on ideological bases, than political. They even joined Wighs on several issues.

Even with a division between Hanoverians and Sussex supporters, you won't have enough ground to end up with two big ideological, mostly opposed, ensemble in first-half of XIXth Britain.
Would Ernst attempt to pull a Chambord on Ultra-Tories, I doubt he would be really listened.
 
The King of Hanover's removal from the line of succession would likely be done by one of the Tory governments in the 1810s or 20s, and done pretty quietly, so no political controversy. Things are different if he actually becomes King and for some reason does not modify his views and insists on acting on them.
 
Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex. The next in the male line of the throne. The Wikipedia article on him says he was the head of the British freemasons, which of course raises the question of why he didn't become King IOTL. I could not find much more information about him. As with William IV, he died without surviving issue, in 1843.

Would his iffy marriage (subsequently annulled) in contravention of the Royal Marriage Act in the 1790s do anything to effect people's willingness to put him on the throne?
 
Britain did come quite close to revolution, with the severe Days of May riots after the Great Reform Act was temporarily blocked. Assuming no Catholic Emancipation, and therefore no Great Reform Act, revolution is more than plausible.

But I'm unsure that you'd necessarily have Catholic emancipation blocked.
 
Would his iffy marriage (subsequently annulled) in contravention of the Royal Marriage Act in the 1790s do anything to effect people's willingness to put him on the throne?

The Royal Marriage Act was only a couple decades old and made by George III trying to be controlling. I doubt the public has much attachment to it.
 
There is a question as to whether Ernest Augustus would have been quite so headstrong when he was king, but if he maintained his "infamous" position, then there is every chance that would have lost his throne. Whether that results in a republic, a "regency", or some sort of middle ground (abdication in favour of an heir, either of his body or a Sussex) would depend on the exact circumstances.

By the way, @Alexander the Average? It's Ernest. No 'a'. Similarly, his elder brothers were George and William IV, not VI.
 
The Royal Marriage Act was only a couple decades old and made by George III trying to be controlling. I doubt the public has much attachment to it.
It could be used as an excuse by parliament if they were looking for a reason, but you're correct, it's not going to cause public outcry.
 
There is a question as to whether Ernest Augustus would have been quite so headstrong when he was king, but if he maintained his "infamous" position, then there is every chance that would have lost his throne. Whether that results in a republic, a "regency", or some sort of middle ground (abdication in favour of an heir, either of his body or a Sussex) would depend on the exact circumstances.

By the way, @Alexander the Average? It's Ernest. No 'a'. Similarly, his elder brothers were George and William IV, not VI.

The first thing he did as King of Hannover was abolish the constitution. I can't see him being a shrinking violet.
 
Top