What if Great Britain and Hanover never created a personal union?

[Moctezuma1466]

Let's say that maybe Queen Anne had children or her catholic relatives converted to protestantism or we have another PoD so that Ernst August son never became King of England. Let's be honest, the personal union had no real advantages for Britain, at the contrary they were pulled into european conflicts and had to defend a german state to which they barely had any real connections. Also Hanover was part of a personal union and was an electorate without an elector for decades and a kingdom without a king for 22 years.

So how would both countries have developed if they never created their personal union? Would GB stayed out of the Napoleonic wars for a longer time? What about the Seven years war?

How would Hannover have developed? I assume they would have joined the seven years war on austrias side because they were rather pro austrian and sweared to only ever vote for a habsburg as emperor to obtain the ninth electoral vote. Would they have been annexed by Prussia if they would have joined the losing side of the seven years war? Or maybe they would have joined Prussia because the wife of Friedrich II, his mother and his nephew were Welfen so there were family connections.

What about the Napoleonic Wars? Tbh I strongly assume that Hannover would have joined Napoleon because except Austria and Prussia, every major german state joined him (Württemberg, Saxony, Bavaria, Hessen-Darmstadt and Hessen-Kassel, even minor states like Baden) and he greatly enlarged their territories and upgraded their titles so he turned them to granddukes, electors or even kings. So if Hannover would have joined Napoleon and switched sides early enough (assuming the Napoleonic Wars would also exist and be the same ITTL) Hannover probably would have become a kingdom already in 1806 like Bavaria and probably would have annexed Schaumburg Lippe, Hildesheim, maybe Braunschweig, maybe Bremen and Hamburg, maybe East Frisia and Oldenburg and other minor territories.

 

[AsukaEMP]

Let's be honest, the personal union had no real advantages for Britain, at the contrary they were pulled into european conflicts and had to defend a german state to which they barely had any real connections.

This is a myth and basically the opposite of what was actually happening. England had gotten itself involved in conflicts on the European mainland throughout the 17th century already, they were no stranger to campaigning in Germany or the Low Countries, because the simple reality was that ignoring European conflicts (and especially France) was never an option for them.

Not a single war Britain fought under the Hanoverians kings was fought to expand the king's continental possessions or to defend its interests. Just look at the example you provided, the 7YW:​

1. Britain and France had already been fighting a colonial war for a couple of years before the 7YW broke out in Europe.​
2. Hanover didn't drag Britain into the continental war, that was Britain's newly established alliance with Prussia. This alliance wasn't the fault of Hanover either, it was Britain's only option after they had alienated themselves from Austria by pressuring them to give up a number of crucial territories at the Peace of Aachen (amongst other things).​
3. Hanover wasn't a liability, it was a crucial buffer on Prussia's western border that saved it from a French invasion and provided a large share of the allied army in Westfalen later in the war.​

​

I assume they would have joined the seven years war on austrias side because they were rather pro austrian and sweared to only ever vote for a habsburg as emperor to obtain the ninth electoral vote. Would they have been annexed by Prussia if they would have joined the losing side of the seven years war? Or maybe they would have joined Prussia because the wife of Friedrich II, his mother and his nephew were Welfen so there were family connections.

Assuming something like the 7YW happens there is no chance that Hanover would actually ally with Prussia, they don't have a death wish. The best hope Prussia would have is that Hanover stays neutral... If Hanover decides to join the French-Austrian alliance then Prussia is done for, they were already on the verge of defeat throughout most of the war without French armies rampaging through their western territories.
Edit: also Hanover would probably be promised Altmark along with some other Prussian territories like East Frisia and their share of Lingen.

 

[Moctezuma1466]

This is a myth and basically the opposite of what was actually happening. England had gotten itself involved in conflicts on the European mainland throughout the 17th century already, they were no stranger to campaigning in Germany or the Low Countries, because the simple reality was that ignoring European conflicts (and especially France) was never an option for them.​

I am actually from Hannover and I didnt know that. thanks for telling that this is actually just a myth.

Assuming something like the 7YW happens there is no chance that Hanover would actually ally with Prussia, they don't have a death wish. The best hope Prussia would have is that Hanover stays neutral... If Hanover decides to join the French-Austrian alliance then Prussia is done for, they were already on the verge of defeat throughout most of the war without French armies rampaging through their western territories.
Edit: also Hanover would probably be promised Altmark along with some other Prussian territories like East Frisia and their share of Lingen.

ok that makes sense.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

In the case that Hanover doesn’t form a union with Britain, regardless of what the British do, the Hanoverians are gonna be a lot more pushy when it comes to replacing saxony as the leading Protestant prince of the empire- it at least will make it impossible for Prussia to spin itself as the protector of Protestant liberties in the empire, and so might help the Habsburgs in managing the allegiances of the empire as a whole.

 

[Georg von Frundsberg]

...Let's be honest, the personal union had no real advantages for Britain, at the contrary they were pulled into european conflicts and had to defend a german state to which they barely had any real connections...

Many held the belief that Hanover had somehow dragged Great Britain into continental wars due to a literal interpretation of the Act of Settlement 1701, which states "...this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament". There were concerns before the Protestant Succession in 1714 but they were unfounded when we read the history of 18th century Britain. Britain had never been "drawn into" a war because of an attack on Hanover, and the only time Hanover was invaded by an army was in 1757 when it was occupied by the French. Hanover was attacked because of its association with Britain, rather than being an attractive target for conquest. The French strategy in the 18th century was to occupy Hanover, or a general military success in Europe, in exchange for British concessions in North America and Asia.

In fact, the political interests of the Electors of Hanover, who were also the Kings of Great Britain, often aligned with the British parliamentarians (Basil Williams, "The Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760"). Indeed, the security of Hanover was a major factor influencing Britain's foreign policy at the time (Jeremy Black, "Hanover and British Foreign Policy 1714-60"), but the interests of Hanover and Britain often overlapped so the personal union was not a source of political conflict between the crown and the parliament. Take the Great Northern War as an example since it was the only instance when the Electorate expanded its territory in the 18th century. George I desired to seize Bremen-Verden from Sweden and created an alliance with Russia in 1710, before he was crowned King of Great Britain. Britain also fought alongside Hanover, not because the King wanted land for himself, but the fact that Karl XII of Sweden was plotting a Jacobite uprising in 1717.

 

[Moctezuma1466]

Many held the belief that Hanover had somehow dragged Great Britain into continental wars due to a literal interpretation of the Act of Settlement 1701, which states "...this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament". There were concerns before the Protestant Succession in 1714 but they were unfounded when we read the history of 18th century Britain. Britain had never been "drawn into" a war because of an attack on Hanover, and the only time Hanover was invaded by an army was in 1757 when it was occupied by the French. Hanover was attacked because of its association with Britain, rather than being an attractive target for conquest. The French strategy in the 18th century was to occupy Hanover, or a general military success in Europe, in exchange for British concessions in North America and Asia.

In fact, the political interests of the Electors of Hanover, who were also the Kings of Great Britain, often aligned with the British parliamentarians (Basil Williams, "The Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760"). Indeed, the security of Hanover was a major factor influencing Britain's foreign policy at the time (Jeremy Black, "Hanover and British Foreign Policy 1714-60"), but the interests of Hanover and Britain often overlapped so the personal union was not a source of political conflict between the crown and the parliament. Take the Great Northern War as an example since it was the only instance when the Electorate expanded its territory in the 18th century. George I desired to seize Bremen-Verden from Sweden and created an alliance with Russia in 1710, before he was crowned King of Great Britain. Britain also fought alongside Hanover, not because the King wanted land for himself, but the fact that Karl XII of Sweden was plotting a Jacobite uprising in 1717.

Very insteresting. Thank you. So actually the PU had more advantages than disadvantages? Or at least it wasnt as bad as people say?

 

[Georg von Frundsberg]

Very insteresting. Thank you. So actually the PU had more advantages than disadvantages? Or at least it wasnt as bad as people say?

I wouldn't say that the personal union was advantageous to British interests since Hanover had little to offer, but most of the time Hanover and Britain shared the same adversaries.

Personally, I think the criticism of the personal union was made by people who despised the idea of a foreign-born monarch on the British throne. Most people except Jacobites accepted George I and George II, but they were never popular.

The Wikipedia article on the Whig Split, which was a political conflict when Walpole and Townshend left the cabinet and created a rival faction to the Stanhope ministry, was a curious one. It claimed that Townshend was protesting against George I's Swedish policy and saw that a conflict with Sweden was merely the king's selfish venture to expand the Electorate (That paragraph did not reference any sources). In reality, quoting Basil Williams, Townshend was dismissed because he delayed the negotiations for the Anglo-French alliance in 1716. Britain fought against Sweden in the Great Northern War not because George I wanted war and the country followed him blindly, but because, again, Sweden was supporting Jacobite rebels and harassing British merchants in the Baltic. The Walpole ministry's foreign policy is influenced by an aversion to continental conflicts, hence he refused to assist Austria in the War of the Polish Succession, but Walpole never said that he would abandon Hanover.

 

[OxSpace]

Britain had never been "drawn into" a war because of an attack on Hanover, and the only time Hanover was invaded by an army was in 1757 when it was occupied by the French. Hanover was attacked because of its association with Britain, rather than being an attractive target for conquest.

This is only a half truth. I don't think it's all that fair to frame the entirety of the Hanoverian situation as "the enemy was already at war with Britain, so Hanover got the short end of the stick". Because the powers that had taken interest in Hanover had always viewed Hanover as a British continental holding. So whilst Britain may not have been drawn into a war solely from an attack on Hanover, an attack on Hanover had been seen as a way to harm Britain. This is evident by the 1801 invasion by Prussia whose aim was to close the Elbe & Weser to British merchants. It was also influenced by Tsar Paul's suggestion of giving Hanover to Prussia, who did view Hanover an an attractive target for conquest. Again in 1803, the French invaded Hanover as a mean to harm Britain but also as a bargaining chip to use against Prussia. Britain was drawn into a condition to attempt a liberation it in 1805. At the end of the day Hanover became a liability for Britain and on the flip side, British geopolitics forced Hanover to regularly become a target.

 

[Georg von Frundsberg]

This is only a half truth. I don't think it's all that fair to frame the entirety of the Hanoverian situation as "the enemy was already at war with Britain, so Hanover got the short end of the stick". Because the powers that had taken interest in Hanover had always viewed Hanover as a British continental holding. So whilst Britain may not have been drawn into a war solely from an attack on Hanover, an attack on Hanover had been seen as a way to harm Britain. This is evident by the 1801 invasion by Prussia whose aim was to close the Elbe & Weser to British merchants. It was also influenced by Tsar Paul's suggestion of giving Hanover to Prussia, who did view Hanover an an attractive target for conquest. Again in 1803, the French invaded Hanover as a mean to harm Britain but also as a bargaining chip to use against Prussia. Britain was drawn into a condition to attempt a liberation it in 1805. At the end of the day Hanover became a liability for Britain and on the flip side, British geopolitics forced Hanover to regularly become a target.

However, Britain never declared war on Prussia because of the invasion of Hanover. London has more important priorities and security worries to deal with, namely the war with France in the meantime. I think @Moctezuma1466 was simply asking whether Britain had ever been forced to fight "Hanover's war" against the wishes of the parliament which the answer is no.

In theory, an occupation of Hanover could be leverage to force Britain to agree to a less favourable peace, but the idea never worked out in reality. French occupation of Hanover had not forced Britain to the negotiating table in the Seven Years' War so overall Britain and the King were hardly harmed by military threats.

 

[OxSpace]

However, Britain never declared war on Prussia because of the invasion of Hanover. London has more important priorities and security worries to deal with, namely the war with France in the meantime. I think @Moctezuma1466 was simply asking whether Britain had ever been forced to fight "Hanover's war" against the wishes of the parliament which the answer is no.

In theory, an occupation of Hanover could be leverage to force Britain to agree to a less favourable peace, but the idea never worked out in reality. French occupation of Hanover had not forced Britain to the negotiating table in the Seven Years' War so overall Britain and the King were hardly harmed by military threats.

This is arguing schematics. A formal declaration isn't needed to defacto be at war; otherwise, most modern wars would not be wars. Britain was indeed more concentrated with the French, even so, that did not avert British intervention in the Neutraly League's other member: Denmark, as seen by the Battle of Copenhagen -- which was only a stepping stone against the inevitable war against Russia, til Paul's sudden death. I don't disagree that Britain was never forced to fight Hanover's war, and despite the cabinet's indifference to the Prussian invasion, this was merely kicking the can down the road. Ultimately the Hanoverian situation would have to be resolved because even the ambassador in Berlin insisted that "...His Prussian Majesty's conduct is in the least degree equivocal respecting Hanover." Lucky for Britain, the geopolitics changed: peace with France, the collapse of the League of Neutrality, and Frederick Wilhelm's innate pacificism all contributed to a return to the status quo. It's clear that Britain was inevitably influenced by the situation in Hanover, regardless of their former apathy. And although Britain was neither forced into war nor dragged into a negotiation because of it, the baggage of Hanover still weighed on British policy.

So while the reality of the Hanoverian bargaining chip never came to fruition, it had more to do with luck than the politics of the occupation. I think it'd also be good to comment that it's difficult to answer in good faith to address any tethers Britain had with Hanover regarding ""Hanover's War"". The precedents are too little and any war Hanover involved itself in after the establishment of the PU already involved the British. After all, Britain was very clearly the senior partner in the union. If you want to discuss Hanover, you went to London. The relationship between Britain and Hanover should be better viewed through whether Hanover influenced British foreign strategies, both during peace and at war. You bring up the Seven Years War: the repudiation of Kloster Zeven (because George found it humiliating) and subsequent British intervention on the continent (even linking up with the Hanoverians despite initial British opposition in Wilhelmsthal) frame Hanover's role in British policy. Britain was now fully invested in the war on the continent. Prior to that, their commitment to Prussia & the theatre in Europe was rather half-hearted.