Princess Victoria dies an infant then during the reform riots things get worse with King William assassinated causing Ernest to gain the throne and his unpopularity spuring on the British Revolution
Last edited:
EIC In A British Revolution
- Thread starter Aetherling
- Start date
The empire was not a royal whimsy, it was an institution with full public support for the most part, and the EIC was a corporation whose only interest was in prestige and profits. A new government, even a republican one (as unlikely as I believe that is in Britain) is nothing to a business like the EIC. As long as the new government doesn't try and forcibly nationalise them and allows them to continue their pattern of expansion and exploitation in India, the EIC won't really care who rules in London.
The EIC was long an issue on the political stage - see Fox's East India Bill and the impeachment of Warren Hastings - as it was scandalous for its atrocities in its own time, and opposition to it was strongest among the political opposition to the Crown and administration. I broadly expect that you'd see many EIC shareholders muck off to Hanover (where Ernest would rule as King and flee in his exile), and the new government would soon try to take control of its lands. I suspect there'd be some sort of political crisis in India - the EIC cannot be independent, but some Brits at the top might try to realign in favor with Hanover - but considering the degree to which it was dependent on British support and arms (and had to buy Commons seats to keep it) it would have to remain British even with the new regime. I suspect afterwards the new British government - be it republican, or led by a newly enthroned king - would nationalize India but perhaps keep the EIC as a commercial enterprise. So my answer is "accept the new government", and then "die". With the end result being a British Raj under the direct control of the revolutionary government and as oppressive as ever - as only a few people at the very extreme fringes of British society advocated Indian independence, or for that matter autonomy or self-government of any sort, at this time.
Last edited:
It might try (and putting aside plausibility that would be a fun scenario) but the EIC's control was dependent on British soldiers on the ground, and while a section of the officers might try to stay loyal to Ernest I can't really see the rank-and-file (which generally came from poorer - even Irish Catholic - backgrounds) stay loyal to him. Ernest being an Orangeman is hardly going to help his popularity among Irish Catholic soldiers in particular. I think if the EIC were to stay loyal to Ernest for anything longer than a few months, it would face the threat of army mutinies and an expedition from London. Combined with the near-constant fear it had of race war which this weakness would amplify, I doubt the EIC would take such a risk.
That said, the sort of colonial endeavors Hanover would do in such a scenario is a really interesting idea.
why would Ernst's unpopularity cause him to be deposed? He was conservative- to be sure- but it was hardly like either George or William IV were shining beacons of liberalism. Victoria dying in infancy means that the Coburgs never get a foothold in England, in fact, with no Victoria, it's doubtful that the duchess of Kent and Leopold of Coburg stay past 1828 (when he considered leaving England for France or Austria, it was only at his sister's request he stayed) when they have nothing to tie them to London. Without them in London providing the "liberal opposition" to the throne (even Wellington noted that Leopold behaved as if he were going to his coronation), and with a king who a) has lived through (and fought in) the French Revolution and b) knows what he can/can't do, to pretend like Ernst becoming king will be the absolute worst thing or that he would be deposed is absolutely ridiculous. C) England has endured far less popular kings before (see George I) and the crown has far less power by 1830 than it did in 1714; and d) England's last experiment with republicanism was a dictatorship. France's experiment with republicanism ended with a dictator declaring himself emperor. How is that in any way, shape or form, preferable to a king who happens to be of a conservative mindset?
It's worth noting that- despite Ernst's conservatism- Hannover was one of the few major German states not to experience upheaval in the 1848
It's worth noting that- despite Ernst's conservatism- Hannover was one of the few major German states not to experience upheaval in the 1848
I kind of don't want to spoil my timeline but Ernest himself just generally became a scapegoat it was Prime Minister Robert Peel and parliments reaction to the Chartist Agitators that caused this.(the Tories Obviously do much better in this timeline to allow them to actually rule)
Ernest was not just unpopular, he was widely regarded as a murderer. There was an attempt to exclude him from the throne in OTL even after Victoria was sworn in, and Whigs such as Macaulay mused about a second glorious revolution being necessary if he ever took power. And he was not just a person with a conservative mindset, but an extreme ultra-reactionary and he was literally the leader of the Orange Order for a while (in fact, the Orange Order got temporarily banned because Parliament believed he was plotting to use them in a military coup - that is the degree to which he was despised). You cannot really bring up Hanover in this scenario, as it had a vastly different domestic situation and a much, much stronger monarchy. Also, George I was so unpopular the Jacobites nearly overthrew him. There would almost certainly be a big crisis if Ernest ever came to power, and the monarch was not powerless in this era; there was a lot of trouble he could do with his powers of influence.
On your other point, "England's last experiment with republicanism" was also something which many left-of-center Victorians admired, they toasted to the cause of the Roundheads regularly against monarchical dictatorship, and they regarded Cromwell as a hero who fought for the religious liberty of nonconformist protestants - there's a reason he has a statue outside Britain's Parliament building. I hate Cromwell as a quasi-monarchical imperialist despot, but the Victorians did not view him that way at all. The French Revolution was also something which the Whigs generally admired, and the great hero 19th century Whigs admired was Charles James Fox who, famously, opposed Britain's war with the French Republic and Napoleon. Furthermore, there is the example of the United States as a republic, which is something which saw broad admiration as a model and an example of a free country among Brits (slavery, they chose to ignore).
I do suspect the most likely result of Ernest becoming King is a tussle of power with Parliament which he loses badly due to his immense lack of support and unpopularity. Parliament would be really intent on ending this crisis quickly and making this a second glorious revolution installing a different Hanoverian (the Duke of Sussex, maybe) to the throne, especially to avoid radicals out-of-doors from using this opportunity to their own ends. But there is a non-zero possibility of a more radical revolution, depending on how things play out.
Last edited:
It would be definitely plausible to get a republic if you manage to get EA to the throne *before* Catholic Emancipation (which IOTL led to a split within the Tories and made the passing of The Great Reform Act possible). The Days of May event IOTL caused real scare within the British political establishment - ITTL we should expect something much bigger than that.
A British Revolution in the late 1820s would have had a stronger chance of success than France 1848 due to the nature of British demography. Unlike France, Britain was already an industrializing state and thus had like 40% of its population living in urban areas. And yes, urban population leaned left IOTL, so aggressive gerrymandering against rural constituencies would have ensured a Republican majority being elected to the Republic’s Parliament.
To put it bluntly, De Cavaignac would have won if France had a similar demography in 1848.
Some thoughts on the when Victoria will need to die:
Queen Adelaide's last pregnancy was in 1822, so it will need to be after the stillborn twin sons that Adelaide delivered.
Adelaide's stillbirth made George IV suggest to the duke of York that he should remarry (George IV disliked his son-in-law so this isn't that strange), York, as we know, refused.
Then, after his brother, York, died, George IV himself contemplated remarriage with Feodore of Leiningen (Victoria's half-sister), like Henry VIII, he refused to trust ambassadorial reports about his new wife. Leopold of Coburg got the duchess of Kent so horrified at this that she and the future Queen Adelaide paired Feodore off with her OTL husband*
In short, Victoria can't die before February 1828 without "derailing" the set up of Ernie succeeds.
*I suspect that it wasn't simply to spite Leopold, given that the duke of Brunswick was also paying court to Feodore around this time OTL. As head of house, George had control over Brunswick's marriage, but Brunswick marrying meant George IV's "regency" over Brunswick ended.
The UK was also far more unequal in its land distribution than France due to primogeniture and all - especially in Ireland, and to a somewhat lesser extent in Scotland and Wales, but also in England - so a republic could pretty easily win a lot of rural support by land reform. There were quite a few radicals who wanted that in OTL, and that would tie a lot of farmers to the republic and make them fear a restoration would reduce them to tenants again.
I wonder what would happen with 1832 and all that if EA was heir presumptive but not actually on the throne at the time.
What was wrong with Feodora?
More they were afraid that George would leave an heir by her and thus block Victoria's line to the throne. Given Feodora's personality and her dislike for both her mom, uncle and Conroy and her attachment to her sister, it was a pretty grounded fear that, as queen consort, she could persuade George IV to dismiss Leopold, Conroy and have herself declared as Victoria's guardian, thereby breaking the carefully contrived Kensington system