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.
The first thing he did as King of Hannover was abolish the constitution. I can't see him being a shrinking violet.
By the way, @Alexander the Average? It's Ernest. No 'a'. Similarly, his elder brothers were George and William IV, not VI.
Maybe he could bring the people to their senses, and remind them why democracy hasn't always been a great idea.
Yeah, I through it out as a possible change, but I don't expect him to moderate too much.The first thing he did as King of Hannover was abolish the constitution. I can't see him being a shrinking violet.
Butcher the aristocracy and do what next? They'll do what's happened now. Become sheep for someone else.Parliament could always make a new law allowing it.
Could there be some sort of compromise, hashed out between the King and Wellesley, on Catholic Emancipation whereby Catholics get the vote but are prohibited from standing for office. It may be enough to convince Parliament that the King can be reasoned with. It may also serve to give Ernest the motivation to build up some sort of Parliamentary support base to prevent these sorts of compromises coming up again. At the very least he could appoint more like-minded people to the Lords and maybe make some concerted effort to get his supporters elected in Rotten Boroughs.
Damn dyslexia acting up again.
I think he'd be more likely to remind people that violent revolution butchering the aristocracy is still an option.
Given that he was quite keen on ensuring that the union between Britain and Hanover was maintained, would he attempt to change Hanover's succession laws to harmonise them with Britain's and avoid the potential splitting that could occur if Britain had a female heir, as happened IOTL?
I thought that emancipation expanded the franchise?"Could there be some sort of compromise, hashed out between the King and Wellesley, on Catholic Emancipation whereby Catholics get the vote but are prohibited from standing for office."
That was already the situation before Catholic Emancipation.
Declare the Duke of Cumberland to be naturally dead, and there you go.Line of Succession prior to the Birth of the Princess Royal in November 1840:
Descendants of George III
Ernst August Duke of Cumberland King of Hannover
Prince George of Cumberland (Crown Prince of Hannover)
Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (no legitimate issue) His liberal political views estranged him from his father and the court, and excluded him from lucrative employments similar to those enjoyed by the other royal dukes. He supported the progressive political policies of his time, including the abolition of the slave trade, Catholic emancipation, the removal of the civil disabilities of Jews and dissenters, the abolition of the corn laws, and parliamentary reform...The Times commented that ‘No death in the royal family short of the actual demise of a monarch could have occasioned a stronger feeling of deprivation’
Prince Adolphus Duke of Cambridge The administration of Hanoverian affairs by the duke of Cambridge was characterized by wisdom, mildness, and discretion, and by the introduction of timely and conciliatory reforms. He successively weathered the storms, both political and academic, of the revolutionary period of 1831, and his prudent management of affairs was said to have gone ‘a great way to preserve the Hanoverian crown for his family’.
Prince George of Cambridge
That's a difficult question to answer, but it's possible they'd import a Royal from somewhere else (or just go down the line of succession until they found someone who worked, with Augustus Frederick looking like a winner). Otherwise Republic seems likely - there seems to have been a general belief that it took being royal not noble to become the king or queen.
Bold is DnB:
Declare the Duke of Cumberland to be naturally dead, and there you go.
If he screwed up badly enough that a revolution occurs against him, I'm sure he'll be dead at the hands of angry revolutionaries anyway.Declare the Duke of Cumberland to be naturally dead, and there you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_BiographyWhat's DnB?
Naturally dead is different, if I remember correctly. It means his son can't inherit either (though his son was only born in 1819, so perhaps they'd consider an infant king acceptable).If he screwed up badly enough that a revolution occurs against him, I'm sure he'll be dead at the hands of angry revolutionaries anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography
Naturally dead is different, if I remember correctly. It means his son can't inherit either (though his son was only born in 1819, so perhaps they'd consider an infant king acceptable).
Well, he might have issue! He died in 1843 OTL, and if he married upon taking the throne he might well have a child before his death - if he had a child within a few years they'd be in their teens upon accession.If Augustus Frederick took the throne, who would succeed him after he died without issue?
Send him letters of condolences.So, what happens if Ernest Augustus flees to Hannover after the revolution which overthrows him? What do the monarchs of Europe do?
You need a subscription or academic credentials. I copied from Robcraufurd, who posted that in a previous thread on Ernest.Thanks. Is that online?