Queen Victoria dies in 1835

[fluttersky]

Wikipedia casually mentions in passing, at Ramsgate in October 1835, Victoria contracted a severe fever, which Conroy initially dismissed as a childish pretence

Let us say that her illness is a little worse and she passes away from it. This would have dramatic consequences. William IV, the third son of George III, is still the king at this point in time, but would pass away within two years in 1837. The line of succession to the throne after Victoria's early death would be:

1) George III's fifth son Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (OTL lifespan 1771–1851)
2) The Duke of Cumberland's son Prince George of Cumberland (OTL lifespan 1819–1878)
3) George III's sixth son Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (OTL lifespan 1773–1843)
4) George III's seventh son Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge (OTL lifespan 1774–1850)
5–7) The Duke of Cambridge's three children George (1819–1904), Augusta (1822–1916), and Mary Adelaide (1833–1897)

The issue is that the Duke of Cumberland was a controversial figure– an extremely conservative member of the Lords. He would become King of Hanover in OTL in 1837 thanks to different succession laws there not letting Victoria ascend to the throne; in this timeline he would also become King of the UK barring any attempt to stop him.

I'm wondering if there would be any serious attempt to stop his accession to the throne. And if not– how does the UK fare with him as king and the personal union with Hanover retained?

 

[monroe]

I imagine any serious attempts to bock the Duke of Cumberland - a violent incestuous rapist and ultra-conservative - from becoming the King of GB, it'd be through legitimising George FitzClarence. Granted, this probably still leads to Hanover breaking off, given that by 1838 they were on that track and a bastard King would be a good excuse to break with Britain, but George V is probably how you're going to avoid King Augustus.

 

[Alexander Rooksmoor]

Prince George of Cumberland was entirely blind by 1838. It would be interesting the impact on disabled people in the UK and Hanover if those countries had a blind King from 1851.

 

[LSCatilina]

I imagine any serious attempts to bock the Duke of Cumberland - a violent incestuous rapist and ultra-conservative - from becoming the King of GB, it'd be through legitimising George FitzClarence. Granted, this probably still leads to Hanover breaking off, given that by 1838 they were on that track and a bastard King would be a good excuse to break with Britain, but George V is probably how you're going to avoid King Augustus.

Wouldn't the Earl of Munster's mental state be as much an obstacle to his legitimization as Cumberland's general person be, disregarding the most egregious accusations as essentially rumours in spite of Ernest-August being a walking political problem?

 

[Indicus]

Moderate Whigs like Macaulay wrote about a second glorious revolution being necessary if Ernest Augustus ever came to the throne. There would very much be attempts to exclude him from the succession pushed by the contemporary Whig government, with general widespread support. And if those failed - well, suffice to say, his ultra-conservatism would wreak havoc on the British political system. I suspect you'd get a Whig revolution, though even that might be overstating it. I would imagine you'd have Parliament, desperate to avoid the spectre of a more radical revolution, just tell him to leave, then he'd panic and run to Hanover, and they would offer the crown immediately to someone else (possibly his son). A bizarre low-key coda to the seventeenth century struggles between parliament and crown.

 

[fluttersky]

I suppose one option would be to pass a law excluding monarchs of other countries and their issue from the line of succession, thereby invalidating Ernest Augustus thanks to his position as King of Hanover, and ensuring the Duke of Sussex becomes King. That may be easier to justify than retroactively legitimizing George FitzClarence.

 

[LSCatilina]

Moderate Whigs like Macaulay wrote about a second glorious revolution being necessary if Ernest Augustus ever came to the throne. There would very much be attempts to exclude him from the succession pushed by the contemporary Whig government, with general widespread support. And if those failed - well, suffice to say, his ultra-conservatism would wreak havoc on the British political system. I suspect you'd get a Whig revolution, though even that might be overstating it. I would imagine you'd have Parliament, desperate to avoid the spectre of a more radical revolution, just tell him to leave, then he'd panic and run to Hanover, and they would offer the crown immediately to someone else (possibly his son). A bizarre low-key coda to the seventeenth century struggles between parliament and crown.

How much of a Conservative opposition might be expectable and how much Ernest-August could drum support against what could be seen as a Whig overreach of the Parliament capacities?

 

[Indicus]

How much of a Conservative opposition might be expectable and how much Ernest-August could drum support against what could be seen as a Whig overreach of the Parliament capacities?

He was Grand Master of the Irish section of the Orange Order from 1817 to 1836, when it was forced to disband (temporarily) after Whigs and Radicals accused him of using it in a plot to overthrow the government and make himself king. So it’s possible he would be able to leverage the Orange Order against parliament (and that specific accusation wouldn’t exist here). It should be noted the Order was not the influential imperial network it later became, and Ernest would hardly help its popularity - but it could well cause a lot of strife, especially in the second glorious revolution situation.

The leadership of the Conservative Party was not a fan of him - as Grand Master he had tried to stop Catholic emancipation - and I don’t imagine he’d be able to get the Conservative frontbench on side by being ultra-reactionary in the era of the Tamworth Manifesto. That’s not to say they’d vote to exclude him, that might be too far for them - but they would not be sad it happened. The Conservatives had massive internal divides that erupted over the 1840s (one of the issues of this divide was over Peel's endorsement of the Maynooth Grant, with the anti-Peel side following the sort of "Church In Danger" sentiments he revelled in), so it’s possible Ernest erupts them early and gets the anti-Peel element on side. A support of "enough" Conservatives would be important in stopping an exclusion bill in the Lords, in any case (and considering this is only a few years off from the Reform Act crisis kicked off by the Lords being ultra-reactionary, he'd succeed unless there's a mass ennoblement or they get cowed by the threat of it). If he does become king well he'd promote anti-Peel conservatives into administration as much as possible - but he and they would be exceedingly unpopular and Parliament would reflect that.

 

[Alexander Rooksmoor]

The interesting thing for me has always been if King George V (or indeed any of the male candidates) whether the British reaction to Bismarck before and in 1866 would have been different. Han ( n )over was entirely assimilated into Prussia after the 1866 war. Maybe King George would have yielded much as happened in our world, but even being defensive, let alone going on the offensive against the scraps of Prussia on the North Sea may have shifted things. This may have delayed Bismarck's expansion of Prussia and by implication the founding of the German Empire. Certainly if Hanover had been kept outside the empire (perhaps even if simply it had not been absorbed by Prussia - Braunschweig/Brunswick was not assimilated and indeed was de jure ruled by George and his son Ernest Augustus until 1884), European history would have been greatly altered. King Ernest Augustus II would live until 1923. His son Georg(e) Wilhelm/William lived until 2006, so Britain would still have had its longest reigning monarch by the 21st Century. Given his heir Prince Welf Ernest died in 1981. His daughter Princess Tania would have succeeded in 2006. If the Salic Law still applied and Hanover had remained separate of Germany, it might have gone to her cousin. Anyway, a very different royal family to what Britain saw.

 

[Wendell]

The interesting thing for me has always been if King George V (or indeed any of the male candidates) whether the British reaction to Bismarck before and in 1866 would have been different. Han ( n )over was entirely assimilated into Prussia after the 1866 war. Maybe King George would have yielded much as happened in our world, but even being defensive, let alone going on the offensive against the scraps of Prussia on the North Sea may have shifted things. This may have delayed Bismarck's expansion of Prussia and by implication the founding of the German Empire. Certainly if Hanover had been kept outside the empire (perhaps even if simply it had not been absorbed by Prussia - Braunschweig/Brunswick was not assimilated and indeed was de jure ruled by George and his son Ernest Augustus until 1884), European history would have been greatly altered. King Ernest Augustus II would live until 1923. His son Georg(e) Wilhelm/William lived until 2006, so Britain would still have had its longest reigning monarch by the 21st Century. Given his heir Prince Welf Ernest died in 1981. His daughter Princess Tania would have succeeded in 2006. If the Salic Law still applied and Hanover had remained separate of Germany, it might have gone to her cousin. Anyway, a very different royal family to what Britain saw.

1866 would not be the first changes insofar as German affairs were concerned. The first Schleswig war might be different, for one.

 

[raharris1973]

The interesting thing for me has always been if King George V (or indeed any of the male candidates) whether the British reaction to Bismarck before and in 1866 would have been different. Han ( n )over was entirely assimilated into Prussia after the 1866 war. Maybe King George would have yielded much as happened in our world, but even being defensive, let alone going on the offensive against the scraps of Prussia on the North Sea may have shifted things. This may have delayed Bismarck's expansion of Prussia and by implication the founding of the German Empire. Certainly if Hanover had been kept outside the empire (perhaps even if simply it had not been absorbed by Prussia - Braunschweig/Brunswick was not assimilated and indeed was de jure ruled by George and his son Ernest Augustus until 1884), European history would have been greatly altered. King Ernest Augustus II would live until 1923. His son Georg(e) Wilhelm/William lived until 2006, so Britain would still have had its longest reigning monarch by the 21st Century. Given his heir Prince Welf Ernest died in 1981. His daughter Princess Tania would have succeeded in 2006. If the Salic Law still applied and Hanover had remained separate of Germany, it might have gone to her cousin. Anyway, a very different royal family to what Britain saw.

1866 would not be the first changes insofar as German affairs were concerned. The first Schleswig war might be different, for one.

Yes, Germany can be affected by royal ties, and Bismarck (and Wilhelm) would have another factor to consider before simply liquidating Hanover out of existence in 1866.

However, public support for an effective German unity, of some sort, was growing everywhere in Germany, including Hanover. That includes among Hanoverians who were proud Hanoverians who might lament abolition of Hanover as a state and its swallowing into Russia, but who still considered themselves proud Germans too, by language and culture, and retained an interest in a more perfect German union.

So, while Bismarck and Wilhelm may be more cautious in their methods of dealing with Hanover's defiance of Prussia's bid to lead Germany, up to and including Hanover aligning with Austria, I think Wilhelm and Bismarck are not going to treat Hanover as an "off-limits" DMZ if Hanover is participating in military alliances against Prussia in intra-German wars, even if Hanover's King is Britain's King.

Parliament in the UK will get tetchy about raising and deploying British funded and recruited armies just to defend a probably unpopular King's Hanoverian distraction. The Hanoverian citizenry, including middle classes and elites exclusive of the Ministries and the inner court circles, will not want to be see themselves as the ones who brought British intervention in to impede the process of German unification. The Hanoverian public, if they perceive their monarch trying to use British resources to prolong German Division or civil strife, will probably defect to the winning Prussian side, overthrow their reigning dually-loyal Hanoverian monarch, and nominate a replacement willing to work within the North German Confederal framework. They'd try to find a legitimate relative or illegitimate male relative of the ruling house to take over from Ernest, but if none from the family are available, they will look wider afield for a new state monarch.

 

[Simon]

Granted, this probably still leads to Hanover breaking off, given that by 1838 they were on that track and a bastard King would be a good excuse to break with Britain…

I was under the impression that the administering of the Hanoverian government was mainly in the hands of local leaders. From their point of view wouldn't a continuing absentee monarch be preferable to one that was in residence?