WI: the Hanoverians married British consorts?

[Charles III Stuart]

The failed attempt to marry Frederick, Prince of Wales (son of George II), to Lady Diana Spencer (a distant relative of the famous one) was an unfortunate lost opportunity for the Hanoverians to become British. Instead, because Walpole objected, Frederick married some other German Princess.

Based on Royal genealogies, approximate percentages of British (English, Scottish, Welsh) ancestry in monarchs

James VI & I - 48%
Charles I - 24%
Charles II, James VII & II - 12%
Mary II, Anne - 56% (their mother was the last ethnically British spouse of a British monarch until the Queen Mother almost 3 centuries later)
William III, George I, the Old Pretender (James VIII & III) - 6%
George II, Bonnie Prince Charlie (Charles III) Cardinal Henry, Duke of York (Henry IX) - 3%
Frederick, Prince of Wales (1.5%)
George III through George VI, all less than 1%
Elizabeth II - 46%
Charles III - 23%
Prince William (William V) - 53%
Prince George (George VII) - 77%

So the last primarily British monarch died in 1714, for 192 years (1760-1952), the monarch was less than 1% British, and the current heir to the throne, while over half British, he’s still less British than Queen Anne.


Prince William, Duke of Gloucester was 28% British. (son of Queen Anne and Prince George of Denmark, who, incidentally, is part of the same patrilineage as the current King Charles III - the House of Oldenburg)
Had William and Mary had children, they would have been 31% British.
Had Bonnie Prince Charlie had children with his wife (who had one British great-grandparent), they would have been 8% British.

Lady Diana (b. 1710) was fully British. Her heir with Frederick would have been 51% British. Do you think this would increase the acceptance of the Hanoverians among normal Britons and weaken the Jacobite cause?

Since if you look at how the dates line up, the Jacobite kings would have been more British than their Hanoverian contemporary from 1727-1807. It’s sad that religious bigotry led to the importation of a foreign dynasty and court. It’s said in Scotland that when they went to bring George I to Britain, he was digging in his garden, planting kale and leeks without any hose or breeches on. Hardly behavior I would consider Royal.

Would Frederick marrying Diana likely lead to a precedent of marrying British nobility instead of foreign royalty? Or would we just watch the British percentage of the monarch cut in half every generation again?

 

[King of Danes]

The problem is that, due to their German territories, domestic marriages are more difficult. Marriages like those would often be considered morganatic in their German lands, so it would take a lot of convincing each time a British royal marries into the British nobility. When a Hannoverian Prince did it otl, he was excluded from the German royal house of Hanover and was only a British prince from the house of Hanover. They then made the royal marriages rule to try and end ensure that such a weird thing did not happen again

 

[Charles III Stuart]

The problem is that, due to their German territories, domestic marriages are more difficult. Marriages like those would often be considered morganatic in their German lands, so it would take a lot of convincing each time a British royal marries into the British nobility. When a Hannoverian Prince did it otl, he was excluded from the German royal house of Hanover and was only a British prince from the house of Hanover. They then made the royal marriages rule to try and end ensure that such a weird thing did not happen again

Just another reason the Hanoverian succession was bad - I have no doubt restoring the Old Pretender in 1714 would have been better than the Hanoverians.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

ould take a lot of convincing each time a British royal

technically the emperor can declare the marriage equal every time, but it would take money in bribes in order for him to do it. In George III's case, he had to bribe the emperor not to declare his brother's marriage to Maria Walpole equal- Gloucester was apparently trying to get her made a "Reichsfürstin" so that the marriage would be unequal rather than morganatic*

*It's a little more complicated than that. English often uses the term morganatic and unequal interchangeably, but this isn't actually appropriate.

There are actually three types of "unequal" marriage:

Unequal: this is the most common type. It's not even necessarily a marriage across classes, but can be extended to any marriage contracted without the approval or the head of house (such as the marriages of all the current grand duke of Luxembourg's sons, none of which have approval from the duke of Parma, the head of the house of Borbon AFAIK) or in violation of house laws. This doesn't make the marriage invalid or morganatic, even if it might contain clauses to limit inheritance (like with Prince Louis of Luxembourg's sons by Tessy Antony)

Mesalliance: this is the most common type, examples include a marriage between hochadel (Prince William/Harry) and non-hochadel (Kate/Meghan), but a marriage between hochadel (Frederick, Prince of Wales/George III) and niederadel (Diana Spencer, Hannah Lennox) unless explicitly prohibited by the head of the house, is not. If the head of the house does not consent to these marriages, then some house laws make such marriages null and void, in which case they are not marriages at all; others accept that they are canonically and/or civilly valid, but deprive them of legal effects with respect to succession rights and family inheritance.

A mismarriage also results when applicable laws (public laws, house laws, or family customs) make an unequal marriage legally different from an equal marriage. If, for a given unequal marriage, the applicable laws (say, the house laws of the husband's family) state that such marriages do not have full effect, then it is so, whether or not or or both spouses agree or say that they agree.

(emphasis mine below)
Morganatic: typically, spouse and children are denied their higher-ranking parent's rank, and children have no claims on that parent's patrimony. Thus, the legal effects (or lack thereof) are often the same. But the reason why that marriage lacks such effects is quite different. In a morganatic marriage, the reason is the marriage contract itself, voluntarily entered into (in particular, with the consent of both spouses, in principle, since it is a contract)*.

Just another reason the Hanoverian succession was bad - I have no doubt restoring the Old Pretender in 1714 would have been better than the Hanoverians.

the Welfs' marriage laws were actually pretty "banal". When you start diving into the requirements of Württembergs, Wittelsbachs, Habsburgs or the Hohenzollerns, you start getting all sorts of anal. In one of them (ICR which, think its the Wettins although it could be the Hesse's) it actually gives a list of "suitable" professions for the wife's father to have engaged in (by which the marriage is ruled a mesalliance rather than unequal), which basically boil down to white collar professions. Any tradesman's daughter (including doctors) is unsuitable, and the wife herself may never have engaged in any trade. If she did, she needs to affirm - in the marriage agreement - that she only ever engaged in it for "pleasure" (i.e. as a hobby, not because she had to earn an income).
And that's before we get to the differences betwen the "alt-graflich" (houses ennobled before Karl V) and "neugraflich" (or whatever the actual term is). Because according to the Württemberg laws, altgraflich marriages to Wied, Hohenlohe, Leiningen etc were acceptable. Marriages to the Thurn und Taxis or Liechtenstein (neugraflich) were to be deemed morganatic. It's made furthermore richly ironic by the fact that the entire house of Württemberg descends from a marriage to a Thurn und Taxis

 

[piratedude]

Just another reason the Hanoverian succession was bad - I have no doubt restoring the Old Pretender in 1714 would have been better than the Hanoverians.

The hanoverians are bad...because by your narrow genetic definition of being british, the percentage point is too low?

 

[Byzantion]

What if Victoria was married to a Welf Prince and a male heir of theirs became King of Hannover due to circumstances or of both Great Britain and Hannover and reestablish Salic Law ?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

What if Victoria was married to a Welf Prince and a male heir of theirs became King of Hannover due to circumstances or of both Great Britain and Hannover and reestablish Salic Law ?

Salic Law never covered England nor was ever abolished in Hannover. So how would it be re-established?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

The hanoverians are bad...because by your narrow genetic definition of being british, the percentage point is too low?

To be fair, Charlotte of Mecklenburgs's dowry was so small it made Karoline of Ansbach and Auguste of Gotha's look positively princely. So in that regard, the Hannoverians did screw the pooch as well (when compared with the stupendous dowries brought by Catherine of Braganza or even what the Duchess of Marlborough put up for Diana Spencer). But I agree, locally-brewed queens NEVER had it easy (see Liz Wydeville, four of Henry VIII's wives, Anne Hyde), usually because there were family rivalries that got dragged into the royal sphere (Neville vs Wydeville for instance) and made the situation awkward. Not to mention that by consistently marrying local girls, the king of England's daughters aren't going to be deemed "good enough" to marry abroad (see the problems that Elizabeth, Mary II and Anne all had*).

*where's this problem going to be biggest? In Germany (anywhere where there's morganatic standards about marriages, really). Where are the major Protestant dynasties? In Germany. Which means that you're either going to have generation on generation of English kings marrying their daughters at home (or sitting with a Louis XV type situation where most end up as spinster) or they're going to have to marry the girls to where there AREN'T marriage limits (Catholic France, Italy, Spain and Portugal). Which in itself will limit the amount of people available in the succession due to the whole Catholics need not apply clause of the Act of Settlement.

 

[Nuraghe]

To be fair, Charlotte of Mecklenburgs's dowry was so small it made Karoline of Ansbach and Auguste of Gotha's look positively princely. So in that regard, the Hannoverians did screw the pooch as well (when compared with the stupendous dowries brought by Catherine of Braganza or even what the Duchess of Marlborough put up for Diana Spencer). But I agree, locally-brewed queens NEVER had it easy (see Liz Wydeville, four of Henry VIII's wives, Anne Hyde), usually because there were family rivalries that got dragged into the royal sphere (Neville vs Wydeville for instance) and made the situation awkward. Not to mention that by consistently marrying local girls, the king of England's daughters aren't going to be deemed "good enough" to marry abroad (see the problems that Elizabeth, Mary II and Anne all had*).

*where's this problem going to be biggest? In Germany (anywhere where there's morganatic standards about marriages, really). Where are the major Protestant dynasties? In Germany. Which means that you're either going to have generation on generation of English kings marrying their daughters at home (or sitting with a Louis XV type situation where most end up as spinster) or they're going to have to marry the girls to where there AREN'T marriage limits (Catholic France, Italy, Spain and Portugal). Which in itself will limit the amount of people available in the succession due to the whole Catholics need not apply clause of the Act of Settlement.

all correct, I would just like to add that if we follow your reasoning Kellan, we come to a serious problem that the British royals will run into, if we consider that Otl the first officially completed marriage of an English princess with a papist was only in the late 19th century, and also with this it was seen very badly by the population, think what would have happened if it had been done before..... (practically after the glorious revolution, the English royals were limited in terms of brides)

 

[Charles III Stuart]

The hanoverians are bad...because by your narrow genetic definition of being british, the percentage point is too low?

They were bad because they were usurpers, they were like 54th in line, but the actual heirs were passed over because of religious bigotry.

I’m Irish. It’s unquestionable that a Jacobite restoration would have faired far better for my ancestors than the continued rule of, as the Scots say, the “wee bit German lairdie” was.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

To be fair, Charlotte of Mecklenburgs's dowry was so small it made Karoline of Ansbach and Auguste of Gotha's look positively princely. So in that regard, the Hannoverians did screw the pooch as well (when compared with the stupendous dowries brought by Catherine of Braganza or even what the Duchess of Marlborough put up for Diana Spencer). But I agree, locally-brewed queens NEVER had it easy (see Liz Wydeville, four of Henry VIII's wives, Anne Hyde), usually because there were family rivalries that got dragged into the royal sphere (Neville vs Wydeville for instance) and made the situation awkward. Not to mention that by consistently marrying local girls, the king of England's daughters aren't going to be deemed "good enough" to marry abroad (see the problems that Elizabeth, Mary II and Anne all had*).

*where's this problem going to be biggest? In Germany (anywhere where there's morganatic standards about marriages, really). Where are the major Protestant dynasties? In Germany. Which means that you're either going to have generation on generation of English kings marrying their daughters at home (or sitting with a Louis XV type situation where most end up as spinster) or they're going to have to marry the girls to where there AREN'T marriage limits (Catholic France, Italy, Spain and Portugal). Which in itself will limit the amount of people available in the succession due to the whole Catholics need not apply clause of the Act of Settlement.

If marrying locals led to trouble finding a royal marriage, why didn’t James VI & I being the son of Lord Darnley make it hard for him to find a wife?
Lord Darnley and Lady Diana were both the children of peers who didn’t hold any titles in their own right. (Lord Darnley was a courtesy title for the heir apparent to the Earldom of Lennox)

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If marrying locals led to trouble finding a royal marriage, why didn’t James VI & I being the son of Lord Darnley make it hard for him to find a wife?

Because James was a frigging king in his own right. And what's more, a king that stood to become a lot more powerful once Elizabeth died, since pretty much everyone agreed on James as her successor. Even if there were several persons, as different as Felipe II and Henri IV, who suspected his father was David Rizzio and not Darnley. Henri IV even referred to him as "Monsieur David's son".

Had James' twin siblings by Lord Bothwell not been stillborn or had Darnley fathered more than one child, they'd likely have encountered a similar problem being married off abroad as what Arabella Stewart did.

But you seem to be confusing the marriage of a king with the marriage of his sisters. As pointed out, Mary II and Anne both had a rough time of finding suitable husband's OTL because of their mom. Emperor Leopold refused a match with Mary due to the "baseness of the mother". Willem III was no kinder, but he was ambitious enough that it didn't matter to him. The common repeated myth is that George I scorned the future Queen Anne on the same grounds. And let's not even get to the petty snobbery the Mountbatten were subject to OTL when they were spoken of as "geblüt" and when Lady Louise Mountbatten married the king of Sweden, Stockholm, (with the Bernadottes who were nobodies dynastically speaking) further insulted them by requesting a "list of the order of precedence at St. James" to ensure their prince was not marrying beneath him. Ena of Batten berg had to put up with similar shit in Spain. Her own cousin, the Duchess of Galliera (not even her Habsburg mother-in-law) refused to agree to a pairing between her daughter and Ena's son because of the "filthy" Battenberg blood. When they were out looking for a husband for Queen Juliana, Queen Wilhelmine scrapped several candidates off the list for the same "not geblüt enough" argument. It was only when the candidates started narrowing (eligible princes joining the Nazis) she became willing to entertain the notion of a "lower" match.

Lord Darnley and Lady Diana were both the children of peers who didn’t hold any titles in their own right. (Lord Darnley was a courtesy title for the heir apparent to the Earldom of Lennox)

As mentioned, Lady Di came as heiress to her grandmother's entire fortune. An amount that made Princess Augusta of Gotha's dowry look pitiful. That sum of Di's inheritance was why Walpole blocked the marriage-in addition to his hatred of Sarah Churchill-because that amount of cash would've meant that Frederick wouldn't be as beholden to Parliament as what parliament liked. Walpole spun it to George II that he would use the money to further oppose his father and George II squashed the idea.

You would have an even more isolationist Britain than OTL. Her queen be Miss Smith, daughter of Baronet Smith of Smithfield, but what use is the former Miss Smith's daughter to the emperor of Germany or Russia? It would come back to her needing a huge dowry to make her competitive with an archduchess or a French princess. And then you wind up in an Edward IV situation where he plans grand matches for his daughters with Spain, France and Burgundy, but behaves as though their husband's should be satisfied with their looks as their only dowry.

 

[TrickyApe]

*where's this problem going to be biggest? In Germany (anywhere where there's morganatic standards about marriages, really). Where are the major Protestant dynasties? In Germany. Which means that you're either going to have generation on generation of English kings marrying their daughters at home (or sitting with a Louis XV type situation where most end up as spinster) or they're going to have to marry the girls to where there AREN'T marriage limits (Catholic France, Italy, Spain and Portugal). Which in itself will limit the amount of people available in the succession due to the whole Catholics need not apply clause of the Act of Settlement.

I think this overestimates the importance of the standards and the difficulty of marriage for royals who might not meet them. Mary I and Anne encountered problems with snobbery and the like, but they did find princely husbands. Catherine I of Russia was an absolute nobody by background, but her daughters both arranged marriages to German princes (Elizabeth's spouse died before marriage but the betrothal happened). One generation later nobody complained about "tainted"bloodlines for Russian royalty, AFAIK at least.

With the royal houses of countries as important as Britain or Russia, the standards are not going to be the same as for a princeling of a postage stamp estate somewhere in Germany. Higher foreign royals might still turn up their noses, but in these cases political concerns (we need an alliance with Britain, e.g.) can still trump the rules.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

One generation later nobody complained about "tainted"bloodlines for Russian royalty, AFAIK at least.

Oh those skeletons came out, make no mistake. The royals snubbed Alexander I for it, referred to Catherine the Great as" Madame Potemkin", three of the projected matches Alexander I attempted for his sisters foundered for that very reason, and Ludwig I of Bavaria's ass was practically on fire to break off his engagement with Ekaterina Pavlovna after her dad was murdered. The Bourbons were far from the worst snobs regarding the Romanovs (much of that came out at the Congress of Vienna where, unless his wife-who most people in Vienna adored-was present, they would ignore Alexander and let him go sit at the kids table). Part of this had to do with the fact that nobody liked him (he had clammy hands, spoke with his mouth full or spat when he spoke) and his pawing at the ladies (both Princess Auersperg and Countess Zichy complained of his "barbarous" behavior). But the fact that people as low down the totem pole as Auersperg and Zichy felt free to make such comments about him is indicative of the contempt that he was regarded with. At the Habsburg court, who you were descended from was everything (see Sisi, royal Bavarian on her mother's side but de la Marck and Arenberg (both new nobility)tainting the Wittelsbach on her father's).

As to Elizabeth Petrova, it's saying something that once her dad was dead, her mother couldn't even get a royal bastard (Comte de Saxe) to marry her.

 

[Byzantion]

Salic Law never covered England nor was ever abolished in Hannover. So how would it be re-established?

I meant in the sene that Victoria marries the heir of Hannover after the end of Personal Union (Victoria female therefore ruled out as successor Queen of Hannover because of Salic Law). So Victoria being Queen of the British Empire and Queen consort of Hannover simultaneously . Than a male crownprince might restore the Personal Union between Britain and Hannover.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

With the royal houses of countries as important as Britain or Russia, the standards are not going to be the same as for a princeling of a postage stamp estate somewhere in Germany

Britain underwent a period of "diplomatic isolationism" between the Treaty of Paris in 1763 and the Storming of the Bastille. Nobody "needed" Britain, the continent got along just fine without it*. In fact, had the French Revolution not happened, in the next war, Britain would've found all her traditional allies on the French side.

*the Austrians caused not one but TWO economic crises in Britain in the 18th century. The first was with the Ostend Company cutting in on London's tea monopoly. The second was the Trieste Company and the ivory trade. In both instances, the prices of ivory and tea (not to mention other goods from the Indies) plummeted so on the British market that they were forced to make dissolution of the Ostend Company condition of acceptance of the Pragmatic Sanction and to beg Portugal to do something about the Austrians and the ivory trade.

Now if Austria with her tiny little navy could do that to Britain, imagine what would happen if the rest of Europe took it into its head to dogpile

 

[Nuraghe]

I meant in the sene that Victoria marries the heir of Hannover after the end of Personal Union (Victoria female therefore ruled out as successor Queen of Hannover because of Salic Law). So Victoria being Queen of the British Empire and Queen consort of Hannover simultaneously . Than a male crownprince might restore the Personal Union between Britain and Hannover.

but because, from the union between Hanover and Great Britain, which lasted 123 years, the one who lost the most, and the first, who found himself a battlefield in wars which sincerely brought nothing concrete to the electorate, in addition to having to send his soldiers to the colonies to defend his majesty's possessions, but woe betide them if they dared to ask London "er parliamentariz could you kindly send us some English soldiers here to help us, seeing as we are dying to defend YOUR interests?" do you want to know the response of the latter..... not received, so it is logical that after almost 60 years of monarchs who more or less didn't care about Hanover ( most of the time forced by parliament ) , when it was Victoria's turn to ascend the throne, in Germany they celebrated for their liberation

 

[TrickyApe]

The royals snubbed Alexander I for it, referred to Catherine the Great as" Madame Potemkin",

I'm pretty sure that part was because of her relationship with Monsieur Potemkin, not because of anything in her background. She wasn't a Romanov by descent anyway.

three of the projected matches Alexander I attempted for his sisters foundered for that very reason, and Ludwig I of Bavaria's ass was practically on fire to break off his engagement with Ekaterina Pavlovna after her dad was murdered. The Bourbons were far from the worst snobs regarding the Romanovs (much of that came out at the Congress of Vienna where, unless his wife-who most people in Vienna adored-was present, they would ignore Alexander and let him go sit at the kids table). Part of this had to do with the fact that nobody liked him (he had clammy hands, spoke with his mouth full or spat when he spoke) and his pawing at the ladies (both Princess Auersperg and Countess Zichy complained of his "barbarous" behavior).

Most of this was, as you say, because people didn't like Alexander, or because they didn't like the politics associated with Russia, or in the case of the Bourbons because of the ignominy of their on-again-off-again exile in Russia. It wasn't because there was a chambermaid in their family tree four generations back. In any event, his sisters all made matches of princely rank, including two kings and a Habsburg Archduke.

But the fact that people as low down the totem pole as Auersperg and Zichy felt free to make such comments about him is indicative of the contempt that he was regarded with. At the Habsburg court, who you were descended from was everything (see Sisi, royal Bavarian on her mother's side but de la Marck and Arenberg (both new nobility)tainting the Wittelsbach on her father's).

As to Elizabeth Petrova, it's saying something that once her dad was dead, her mother couldn't even get a royal bastard (Comte de Saxe) to marry her.

I don't disagree that there will always be issues of snobbery and particular matches may be rejected because of it, but the Royal houses of major states always could and would find someone of princely rank willing to marry their children. That was my starting point.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

It wasn't because there was a chambermaid in their family tree four generations back.

It was. It was the official reason that Louis XVIII, Franz II, Fernando VII and George IV ALL refused potential Romanov matches. Even if the actual reason was either politics or religion, or in Georgie Porgie's case, he simply didn't like her.

Royal houses of major states always could and would find someone of princely rank willing to marry their children. Th

I agree. It's just a pity that the likeliest candidates who would accept are the Catholic houses.

 

[TrickyApe]

Britain underwent a period of "diplomatic isolationism" between the Treaty of Paris in 1763 and the Storming of the Bastille. Nobody "needed" Britain, the continent got along just fine without it*. In fact, had the French Revolution not happened, in the next war, Britain would've found all her traditional allies on the French side.

The isolation was more a matter of Britain's choice at the time, a bad choice but nonetheless its own. It pushed Prussia away by the end of the Seven Years War by reneging on its obligations, and it botched an offered alliance from Russia by refusing to include assistance against the Ottomans in its terms. It's true that the Dutch dropped away on their own, with the realization that joining wars on any side was a mistake. They weren't very useful anymore anyway. The lack of friends would cost Britain in the War of the American Revolution but that didn't mean Prussia and other German states weren't happy to work with the British in the Fürstenbund and the situation in the Netherlands in the 1780's. There was more unity here than in the Franco - Austrian alliance at the time. And of course after the Revolution but while Louis XVI was still on the throne, France stiffed its Spanish allies over Nootka.

*the Austrians caused not one but TWO economic crises in Britain in the 18th century. The first was with the Ostend Company cutting in on London's tea monopoly.

Whether the impact of the Ostend Company was on the British economy or just on influential British merchants (there was no international monopoly with the French, Dutch, Danes, and Swedes all trading tea), when push came to shove it was the British who were stronger here and forced the Emperor to shut down his own profitable company.