WI: Britain made its "United Kingdom" with Hanover instead of Ireland and left us alone

[Charles III Stuart]

In 1801, despite the fact that we had made if abundantly clear that we wanted nothing to do with Britain, the Irish were forced into a political union with Great Britain. We had previously been merely in a personal union with them.

However, the British also had another kingdom they were in personal union with: Hanover, which would have been a much better target for a "United Kingdom".

• Britain and Hanover were both Protestant
• Britain and Hanover both spoke Germanic dialects (Ireland mostly spoke Irish, a Celtic language, until the Great Famine)
• The Brits respected the Hanoverian people, albeit as less important, whereas they viewed us as barely human if that
• The Royal family at the time was mostly German by ethnicity with essentially no Irish blood

Yes, Hanover isn't contiguous with Britain, but neither is Ireland.

What would have happened if the British had left us alone and used Hanover to fulfill their dreams of a United Kingdom instead?

 

[Avrorrange]

Hanover and Britain doesn’t like each other either. From Hanoverian -erspective, British great power politics keeps getting them invaded, while from the British perspective, Hanover is a liability in war. No union at all.

What’s gonna happen is that Ireland probably suffers worse than otl given Britain does not have to give a damn about Irish representatives. There’s no ‘dream‘ of a United Kingdom without Ireland.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

Hanover and Britain doesn’t like each other either. From Hanoverian -erspective, British great power politics keeps getting them invaded, while from the British perspective, Hanover is a liability in war. No union at all.

At least the British didn't pass laws discriminating against Hanoverians in Hanover or sit idly by while 2 million Hanoverians starved.

What’s gonna happen is that Ireland probably suffers worse than otl given Britain does not have to give a damn about Irish representatives. There’s no ‘dream‘ of a United Kingdom without Ireland.

See above. It's not really possible for Ireland to suffer worse than we did in the 19th century.

 

[Avrorrange]

At least the British didn't pass laws discriminating against Hanoverians in Hanover or sit idly by while 2 million Hanoverians starved.

The British had no real control over the day to day administration of Hanover.It was run almost entirely by native Hanoverians. That’s the difference.

See above. It's not really possible for Ireland to suffer worse than we did in the 19th century.

Under British laws at the time, the British Parliament could pass whatever laws it wanted for Ireland, even before the formation of the UK. Difference in this scenario is that the Irish wouldn’t even have any representatives in this parliament and the British could completely cut them off from the political process.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

The British had no real control over the day to day administration of Hanover.It was run almost entirely by native Hanoverians. That’s the difference.

Imagine if they had chosen an Irish king in 1714 instead of a wee bit German lairdie from Hanover...

Under British laws at the time, the British Parliament could pass whatever laws it wanted for Ireland, even before the formation of the UK. Difference in this scenario is that the Irish wouldn’t even have any representatives in this parliament and the British could completely cut them off from the political process.

So you're saying the creation of the UK actually improved Ireland's prospects?

 

[Avrorrange]

Imagine if they had chosen an Irish king in 1714 instead of a wee bit German lairdie from Hanover...

Never gonna happen if Ireland doesn‘t have strong military force.

So you're saying the creation of the UK actually improved Ireland's prospects?

YES. It turned from a colony with no say in it’s policy to a colony that has some say in how it’s ruled(albeit not much) as well as the rest of the empire.So all in all, while it’s not much, it’s still an improvement.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

Never gonna happen if Ireland doesn‘t have strong military force.

And Hanover did?

YES. It turned from a colony with no say in it’s policy to a colony that has some say in how it’s ruled(albeit not much) as well as the rest of the empire.So all in all, while it’s not much, it’s still an improvement.

Then why did the worst event in Irish history happy in the 1840s? Keep in mind that the UK was punishment for Ireland's freedom struggle in 1798.

 

[Neala]

The problem is that Hanover is a strategic liability for Britain if they are linked together politically whilst Ireland is a strategic liability if they aren't. That's the driving force that you would need to overcome. The rest is just window dressing

What I mean by the above is by being linked together politically, Britain is forced to defend Hanover when it is threatened and therefore they risk being dragged into wars that they don't want involvement in. Meanwhile, Ireland represents a potential invasion route into Britain and therefore needs to be under British control to ensure that Britain herself is protected. This is a stronger version of the drive that has had the British and English before them striving to ensure that the power(s) on the opposite side of the Channel have been friendly and/or weak (preferably both) for several hundred years

 

[Charles III Stuart]

The problem is that Hanover is a strategic liability for Britain if they are linked together politically whilst Ireland is a strategic liability if they aren't. That's the driving force that you would need to overcome. The rest is just window dressing

But Hanover and Britain uniting would have been better for the Irish than Britain and Ireland uniting, and it would have probably been better for the Hanoverians, too, since they wouldn't have been as neglected. The lives of the people in Britain wouldn't have changed much, either way...

What I mean by the above is by being linked together politically, Britain is forced to defend Hanover when it is threatened and therefore they risk being dragged into wars that they don't want involvement in. Meanwhile, Ireland represents a potential invasion route into Britain and therefore needs to be under British control to ensure that Britain herself is protected. This is a stronger version of the drive that has had the British and English before them striving to ensure that the power(s) on the opposite side of the Channel have been friendly and/or weak (preferably both) for several hundred years

Isn't that like saying "Belgium represents a potential invasion route into Germany and therefore needs to be under German control to ensure that Germany herself is protected"?

And you still need to sail from Ireland to Britain in order to conquer Britain from Ireland...it's worth noticing that of the major invasions of Britain (William the Conqueror, William of Orange, Bonnie Prince Charlie [although that was more of a liberation attempt than an invasion], and of course Germany's failed attempt), none of them went through Ireland.

 

[Avrorrange]

And Hanover did?

Hanover is seen as German soil by the rest of the HRE/German Confederation etc. Official integration will likely see really hostile response from other German states.

Then why did the worst event in Irish history happy in the 1840s?

It could be worse without actual membership in the UK. Like literally no aid AT all from the British government. The famine wasn‘t caused by Ireland joining UK. It was caused by the British ruling Ireland. Not joining the UK in a real union isn’t going to change the fact that Ireland will still be ruled by the British.

Keep in mind that the UK was punishment for Ireland's freedom struggle in 1798.

It was not. What kind of punishment is giving a colony representatives in it’s parliament? At the time, it was seen as a bribe to keep the Irish quiet.

 

[King of Danes]

Then why did the worst event in Irish history happy in the 1840s? Keep in mind that the UK was punishment for Ireland's freedom struggle in 1798.

Because the potato blight doesn’t give a damn if Ireland is part of the UK or not. It would have struck the Irish just as hard, if it had hit Ireland half a century earlier, and the British, in general, would likely have cared just as little. Heck, they might even have cared less, if it had happened earlier, since it could have happened during the American or French revolution where Britain would have been more busy elsewhere. Saying that the Irish catastrophes in the 1840s are dependent on the Act of Union is very much a reach. Furthermore, to your original question, Ireland and Britain have a much longer history together (even if much of it might be shitty) and are geographically located next to another. It made sense to unite these realms. It might also have made government more streamlined and smooth, which I would imagine is what they really cared about. Hanover, on the other hand, is something most of the British elite didn’t care for and most people’s reaction when Vicky took over and they lost it was “good riddance” and in Hanover, the feeling was mostly the same. Why should anyone want to unite these realms?

The Royal family at the time was mostly German by ethnicity with essentially no Irish blood

It’s always the blood stuff with you, isn’t it? Firstly, I don’t think that many gave a damn that the royal house is/was mostly of German descent. Most people just accepted that they were the kings and the people who didn’t mostly cared because of religious reasons. Bonnie Prince Charlie was not a bit more of English blood than the Hanoverian kings you so seemingly despise. Hell, outside Germany, very few royal houses were actually “of national ethnicity” and guess what? It doesn’t matter. It still doesn’t, since they, through their role and upbringing, represent it in a different way. And honestly this whole blood nationality thing is veering uncomfortably close to the one-drop myth and other racial theories

In short:

Yes, Hanover isn't contiguous with Britain, but neither is Ireland.

It might not be contiguous by land, but by sea it’s literally right there so geographically it makes sense. Also, for good or bad (mostly bad) Ireland and England have a shared history of millenia unlike what England had with Hanover.

What would have happened if the British had left us alone and used Hanover to fulfill their dreams of a United Kingdom instead?

And finally, as shitty as it is, they didn’t give much of a damn about what the Irish thought. That doesn’t make it right, but it makes it history. It’s not about what makes it just in our modern eyes, but what was logical for the people in charge of the time.

I have seen you make a lot of posts like these lately, where you have made your views on the Hannoverians, the Stuarts and English rule over Ireland and Scotland very clear. While I don’t disagree that much of what the English did was shitty, and while I personally also prefer the Stuarts to the Hanoverians, you cannot simply analyze history with our present views of rights and justice. Those were not the prevalent views of the time and it is very narrowminded to think that much could be done better/differently simply because we think they should. Because, sadly, most people in charge simply did not care

 

[Neala]

But Hanover and Britain uniting would have been better for the Irish than Britain and Ireland uniting, and it would have probably been better for the Hanoverians, too, since they wouldn't have been as neglected. The lives of the people in Britain wouldn't have changed much, either way...

I don't disagree with you. It just wasn't at all relevant to the people making the decisions at the time. To make your original suggestion occur, you need to change their calculations

Isn't that like saying "Belgium represents a potential invasion route into Germany and therefore needs to be under German control to ensure that Germany herself is protected"?

Yep. Hence one of the reasons that that area has been a central theatre of war for so many centuries

And you still need to sail from Ireland to Britain in order to conquer Britain from Ireland...it's worth noticing that of the major invasions of Britain (William the Conqueror, William of Orange, Bonnie Prince Charlie [although that was more of a liberation attempt than an invasion], and of course Germany's failed attempt), none of them went through Ireland.

True. But Ireland's location has always been present in the minds of the English and British elites as a potential back door invasion route into Britain regardless of it's actual usage as such. It's one of the main reasons that England and then Britain expended so many resources trying to control it over the centuries

 

[mandead]

In 1801, despite the fact that we had made if abundantly clear that we wanted nothing to do with Britain, the Irish were forced into a political union with Great Britain.

A wonderfully partisan and subjective way to start your thread.

 

[jacob ningen]

I don't disagree with you. It just wasn't at all relevant to the people making the decisions at the time. To make your original suggestion occur, you need to change their calculations

Theres also the issue that Hanover still followed Salic succession so if Victoria doesnt have an older brother the two countries will split when she ascends. See the Gottingen Seven and the Hollstein-Schwlesig problem.

Yep. Hence one of the reasons that that area has been a central theatre of war for so many centuries



True. But Ireland's location has always been present in the minds of the English and British elites as a potential back door invasion route into Britain regardless of it's actual usage as such. It's one of the main reasons that England and then Britain expended so many resources trying to control it over the centuries

see Californias oversized millitary budget a la Alcatraz, Chrissy Fields Battery Point the Presidio none of which ever fired a shot.

 

[HeavyMetal]

Easy. The English had the capacity to control Ireland. They didn't have the capacity to control Hannover.

 

[jacob ningen]

Easy. The English had the capacity to control Ireland. They didn't have the capacity to control Hannover.

This. Plus anti-Irish policy goes back to John Lackland. Ive seen Irish Crusade cheerleaders on a Mortimer wins the Cousins War TL.

 

[jennynin]

This. Plus anti-Irish policy goes back to John Lackland. Ive seen Irish Crusade cheerleaders on a Mortimer wins the Cousins War TL.

It went earlier than even John Lackland.
There was talk of an Irish invasion after the Normans won the Battle of Hastings in 1066. William the Conqueror supposedly said that had he lived longer, he definitely would have taken Ireland, and William Rufus II also threatened it.

 

[Nova_Philomena]

That's quite the prospect dare I say, why would England leave Ireland alone? How would it happen?

They can try to cause a rebellion, but historically Ireland is incredibly weak compared to England, and if we're focusing on the Hanoverian era with George I, they controlled Wales, Scotland parts of the Americas, and now the Electorate of Hanover. Maybe they can stage a grand rebellion while George is dealing with Jacobites and recruit plenty of bold Scots like the Jacobites did, but what indicates they'd win? Even if they somehow managed to win, what would stop Great Britain from just colonizing it again?

If we're focusing on Queen Anne during the Stuart era, I cant imagine it being any better for Ireland.

 

[Rhymehouse]

There are geopolitical reasons for the UK to unite/control Ireland. Those same geopolitical reasons make uniting/subduing Hanover a bad idea.

If you want a timeline with a stronger Ireland, I recommend a very different and much earlier point of divergence.

 

[dualmonarchy]

I agree with most of the above. A United Kingdom including Ireland makes sense. One with Hanover does not. That is why it was never attempted. An attempt to unite Britain and Hanover may have been illegal until 1806 too, due to the HRR but I am not sure.