WI Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, King of Hannover dies in the Revolutionary wars

[Geordie]

For those that need a quick reminder, Ernest Augustus was the fifth son of George III of the UK and Hannover, but succeeded to the latter throne thanks to his elder brothers being unable to spawn legitimate male offspring.

He was an arch conservative, both in Westminster and Hannover. He was heartily against the cause of Catholic emancipation, being one of the leading voices opposing it in the Lords. Even for a Tory in the time period, he was one of the forces of reaction.

He also had numerous scandals - both political and personal - to his name. Then again, he was a son of George III, the latter is almost taken as read.

However, he had two close calls in the War of the First Coalition. As a cavalry officer, he was part of a Hannoverian force that went to the Netherlands to help big brother Freddie, the (Grand Old) Duke of York to fight the revolutionary French. In 1793, he suffered a gnarly facial wound after being struck with a sabre near Tournai. The next year, a cannonball injured his left arm at Turcoing.

If he cops it from either of these injuries, there's big changes to Hannover and the United Kingdom coming. That's before we consider the ramifications of a son of George dying in service. If the butterfly net holds, Augustus Frederick (otl Duke of Sussex) is next in line for Hannover. He's a whig: in favour of rights for Catholics, Jews and Dissenters; an abolitionist. Altogether a different Duke and potential king to his brother. Does removing the arch-reactionary change things like Catholic emancipation? I imagine King Augustus Frederick wouldn't throw out the Liberal constitution of Hannover, nor dismiss the professors such as the Grimms from Gottingen.

Any thoughts?

 

[Wendell]

The medium to long term consequences of this are potentially noteworthy as well given that in OTL Hanover was due to have inherited Brunswick.

 

[OwenM]

Definitely an interesting possibility - but is Augustus Frederick more likely to have children TTL?

 

[Geordie]

Definitely an interesting possibility - but is Augustus Frederick more likely to have children TTL?

My thinking is that he knows he's more likely to end up with Hannover in TTL, given his three eldest brothers' predilection for actresses and other unsuitable ladies. But one could argue Sailor Bill knew what the eldest two were like, and didn't bother.

I mean, there's also the chance that somebody above Sussex gets their act together, but Fred and Bill knew the score in OTL, and didn't manage it.

Even if Augustus Frederick doesn't have issue, he's got until 1843 to cause a stir. A secondary PoD knocking off Lady Murray (first wife, and mother of his children) might be needed for him to have legitimate issue.

Edit: the marriage doesn't happen until December 1793. Killing Cumberland off with the sabre cut could see him brought home without the good lady in tow.

 

[zaffre]

My thinking is that he knows he's more likely to end up with Hannover in TTL, given his three eldest brothers' predilection for actresses and other unsuitable ladies. But one could argue Sailor Bill knew what the eldest two were like, and didn't bother.

I mean, there's also the chance that somebody above Sussex gets their act together, but Fred and Bill knew the score in OTL, and didn't manage it.

Even if Augustus Frederick doesn't have issue, he's got until 1843 to cause a stir. A secondary PoD knocking off Lady Murray (first wife, and mother of his children) might be needed for him to have legitimate issue.

Edit: the marriage doesn't happen until December 1793. Killing Cumberland off with the sabre cut could see him brought home without the good lady in tow.

I like this POD, but I just don’t think we can make a tenable case for twenty-year-old Sussex thinking “hang on, one of my five older brothers has died, I should really keep an eye on the Hanoverian succession”. No Lady Murray and a marriage in his forties, maybe.

I’ve noodled on some stuff in this time period, and the recurring issue is that Victoria’s succession was (a) extremely unlikely, but (b) rooted in this bizarre collective action problem where each of the dukes could assume that another brother would bite the bullet & have a functional royal marriage for them. The more charitable interpretation is that Princess Charlotte was a thing & the younger dukes lacked the allowances and/or prospects to justify going full crusader kings. Either way, it produces this odd situation where Victoria shouldn’t exist but neither should any alternative.

That said, with a rigid butterfly net the very fun consequence of all of this is that Victoria’s accession itself is perceived completely differently. Rather than being the only life between the throne and arch-reactionary Cumberland, suddenly she’s this random (questionably legitimate) girl who is standing in the way of Sussex’s popular reforms and might just be John Conroy’s puppet anyway.

I don’t think Sussex would knowingly undercut his niece, but young Victoria was so politically insecure (with good reason, her mom basically spent 18 years trying to brainwash her) that I think the (ironic) final result is that instead of Melbourne-stanning she would initially gravitate far towards the Tories.

And that has loads & loads of consequences.

 

[Roger II]

I don’t think Sussex would knowingly undercut his niece, but young Victoria was so politically insecure (with good reason, her mom basically spent 18 years trying to brainwash her) that I think the (ironic) final result is that instead of Melbourne-stanning she would initially gravitate far towards the Tories.

And that has loads & loads of consequences.

If we're trying to puncture but not rend asunder the butterfly net, do we argue that Cumberland kicking can lead to the entire Kensington System being avoided and Victoria having a much more normal childhood? Possibly even with some contact from and influence from Sussex?

 

[Geordie]

I like this POD, but I just don’t think we can make a tenable case for twenty-year-old Sussex thinking “hang on, one of my five older brothers has died, I should really keep an eye on the Hanoverian succession”. No Lady Murray and a marriage in his forties, maybe.

Maybe not. In OTL, he considered himself married to Lady Murray, and therefore didn't marry again until she died. Without that marriage, he may have dalliances with women considered less than suitable; he may find one Lady to fall in love with who doesn't pass muster, as OTL, or he may find a suitable bride. But I don't think he'd stay unwed as long as he did in OTL, where he was more "unwed".

That said, with a rigid butterfly net the very fun consequence of all of this is that Victoria’s accession itself is perceived completely differently. Rather than being the only life between the throne and arch-reactionary Cumberland, suddenly she’s this random (questionably legitimate) girl who is standing in the way of Sussex’s popular reforms and might just be John Conroy’s puppet anyway.

I don’t think Sussex would knowingly undercut his niece, but young Victoria was so politically insecure (with good reason, her mom basically spent 18 years trying to brainwash her) that I think the (ironic) final result is that instead of Melbourne-stanning she would initially gravitate far towards the Tories.

And that has loads & loads of consequences.

This, however, is a fascinating wrinkle. A Victoria more in hock to the reactionary elements is an interesting one to consider. There is the chance, as @Roger II suggests, that Sussex might be able to limit the Kensington system (assuming that Kent still catches his fatal dose of pneumonia in ttl), but Conroy had his claws in deep. Sussex being the next in line probably means the Duchess of Kent is terrified of him.

If, as some historians suggest, Clarence was the source of many of the rumours about Victoria's legitimacy, then there might be less animus between the Duchess and Sussex, mind.

 

[Roger II]

I think the question for a more reactionary Victoria is how much residual power the monarch had by c. 1810 or so at least informally and what exertion of that power means for English radicalism or an alt-1848 getting more steam in the UK.

 

[zaffre]

I think the question for a more reactionary Victoria is how much residual power the monarch had by c. 1810 or so at least informally and what exertion of that power means for English radicalism or an alt-1848 getting more steam in the UK.

Queen Victoria took strong but not particularly lasting political stands - I could easily see her keeping Peel in office and kicking Melbourne out, rather than vice versa, but sustaining an ultra Tory government committed to the Corn Laws (which I not very informedly think is what you’d need for alt-1848 to get bad) is not remotely in her personal wheelhouse.

Peel himself was excellent at co-opting any push for reform (as were 1800s Conservatives in general) and after 1832 it’s just hard to see alt-Victoria finding a real fulcrum to break things, or the staying power to do so.

 

[TR1996]

Depending on when Sussex 'bites the bullet' and contracts a suitable marriage, is it possible Kent never bothers and Victoria is never born (e.g. if Sussex has found a suitable bride and procreated a legitimate son prior to Princess Charlotte's death)?

That obviously has separate implications re: continuing union with Hanover.

 

[Wendell]

Is this a route to achieving a small Hanoverian colonial empire?

 

[OwenM]

Alternatively, is there any chance of Augustus getting his marriage to Murray recognised? He apparently tried quite hard OTL and she does seem like the one of his sons' preferred partners George III is least unlikely to give in on.