There was an actual attempt in 1840 on the lives of the newlyweds then expecting their first child. Assuming the child is lost too, the king of Hanover was next in line for the throne at that moment. One supposes an earlier George V means no Prussian conquest of Hanover, which completely blows apart the course of European politics thereafter. What other consequences might there be?
WI: Victoria and Albert assassinated 1840?
- Thread starter Wendell
- Start date
Considering the actual state of the British Army in that era, I think the Prussian/German state would still feel comfortable enough to go after Hannover without much consequence.
First of all the heir at the time would have been Ernest Augustus, he didn't die until 1841. So a brief rule of Ernest Augustus I of Great Britain and Ireland followed by his son George V. Both men were conservative autocrats, it was Ernest Augustus who ripped up the liberal constitution created for Hanover by his brother the Duke of Cambridge during his stint as Viceroy.
Now Great Britain as a nation is a much bigger prize than Hannover, and George V wouldn't accept Hanover just being outright invaded by a rising Prussia, however the monarchy of Britain had largely lost it's overt political power and the British Parliament was never happy at having to deal with Hanover. Having seemingly got out from underneath Hanover with Victoria and now having to deal with it again under a new string of Kings would be VERY annoying for them.
However just letting Prussia walk in and take it without challenge would look bad for Britain, especially since it has a sprawling colonial empire held together by fear of British force, any sign of weakness could see a domino effect of colonial rebellions all around the globe as news spreads.
At the time however Britain's actual army was bad shape, the later Crimean War would expose just how outdated, poorly equipped, and trained the actual British army is. Less developed societies in Africa and Asia are something they can handle, their fellow Europeans... Not so much.
The Crimean War was fought from 1853 to 1856 and the aftermath saw Great Britain slowly begin reforming it's military (though it wouldn't be straightforward). The Austro-Prussian War that saw (among other things) Hanover become part of the emerging German Empire was in 1866.
I could see Britain begrudgingly joining in the conflict, but it's performance would be messy and further expose that the British military is still in need of reform and in need of Professionalism. Hanover would still wind up annexed and Britain and it's Hanover King humiliated.
VVD0D95
Banned
My bad, though one presumes the struggles of ruling in Britain probably take a toll on his health
When Ernst August took the throne of Hanover, he set forth the modernisation of the city of Hanover, including a modern sanitation system and replacing areas of poor slum housing with modern style houses. If he rules London, we may see an earlier modernisation of the City and a much earlier demolition of the massive Slums of London.
And secondly, in 1843, during his only royal visit to London, he tripped and broke some ribs and injured himself quite badly. It’s not too far a leap to consider that this incident could have weakened him and led to his death eight years later.
If he doesn’t have this incident, he could live a couple years longer at least.
If he doesn’t have this incident, he could live a couple years longer at least.
He’s less german than Albert. At least he was born in Britain, is a royal British Duke, and served in the British Army.
Possibly, but I imagine that a true alliance marriage would be in order, such as to the Oldenburgs or Hohenzollern.
Grey Wolf
Donor
On the other hand, he probably murdered his valet, quite possibly had a child with his sister, and was big in the Orange Order, trying to get them into mainland England. He was not a parliamentarian, and parliament, whatever the eventual outcome, would always have a problem with him
Ironically, 1848 showed he had somewhat mellowed by then. But if he is King of Great Britain from 1840, that seems rather more unlikely
Marc
Donor
Why would you think that Prussia is willing to risk war with the British Empire? There would be a number of people still alive who remember how well that went for Napoleon. If anything, the prospect of a British led alliance that could take apart Prussia would be rather intimidating (to say the least). And keep in mind that Prussia did keep their hands off Hanover until it had a sufficient excuse, and that state having no attachment to the British, until 1848.
The first is possibly only a rumour spread by his political opponents, the second has very circumstantial evidence, and he was a Parliamentarian, he was a member of the House of Lords attached to the conservatives.
I believe that with parliament obstructing the extremities of his rule, it wouldn’t be that bad.
What alliance would that be? By the time of the Austro-Prussian War the British military problems would have already been public knowledge, and in RL the only real ally that Austria had outside of the German states was France who was late to the party. Opposing Prussia was Austria and a collection of mini-German states, and Austria's allies played an ineffective defensive role, while Austria was technologically behind Prussia. Prussia in this era was easily the greatest military power of Europe in terms of skill, equipment, and technology.
The British military wasn’t that stunted as people think. After the Napoleonic Wars, it is correct that Britain fell to the wayside militarily, but by 1840, moves had been made to rectify the mistakes of the past twenty years. Sure, those moves would take until the Crimean war to be fully noticed, but with a military King on the throne, then the modernisation and sharpening of the British Blade may take place a lot earlier