Ireland sits on GBs access to the Atlantic and beyond, and is a perfect springboard to attack GB, as demonstrated by the raids Irish groups made on the island. There is no way England/GB ignores the island of Ireland and 1801 is so far beyond too late for that.
WI: Britain made its "United Kingdom" with Hanover instead of Ireland and left us alone
- Thread starter Charles III Stuart
- Start date
Britain did something similar with the Boers in the Treaty of Vereeniging (minus the representation ofc), where Britain annexed the Boer Republics, but essentially allowed them to run themselves with a High Commissioner to St. James and a governor sent out every few years
Its one Italian character (a Genovesi) in a book I read, calls Britain "for a country that prides itself on being rational, their government is the most irrational. When they win this war against the French [Revolutionary War], they'll dance la carmagnole in the streets with the French and tell them how naughty they were. Probably sing Ça Ira at Sampaolo [St. Paul's] too."
to give support to Kellan, I would like to say that Hanover alone had one of the first 5th armies of the empire at its disposal, without the need for English support, and could quickly and easily summon at least 40 thousand soldiers, as well as considerable influence that allowed it to recruit troops even from its neighboring states , which considering the Hessian Otl troops that England used in the 13 colonies, would be approximately another 10 thousand men
furthermore the Guelph family is among the richest in the empire, just think that Bismarck paid a lot of very large bribes with a part of the Hanoverian treasury, and that George V himself, even when deposed, financed in France, Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, at least 11 newspapers with the aim of carrying out an anti-Prussian campaign
Last edited:
I thought that ending the independent existence of Ireland as an entity was punishment for the failed 1798 freedom struggle...
No, the Famine happened because the British took other food out of Ireland to sell and get rich.
I prefer a native royal house to an imported one.
Bonnie Prince Charlie was 4 times as British as George III (who was the Hanoverian king when Bonnie Prince Charlie was the Jacobite king), seeing as BPC was the great-great-grandson of James VI & I, but George III was the great-great-great-great-grandson of James VI & II.
The first two Hanoverian kings didn't represent any British nationality at all in terms of their upbringing or culture. They didn't even speak English well. George III was actually one of the better Hanoverian kings, and wasn't a tyrant (Jefferson framed him that way to increase support for the Revolution).
But the fact remains that it was nothing but religious bigotry that kept the Stuarts off of their rightful throne.
Imagine if James II could have kept Ireland while William and Mary got Britain...
Do you think William of Orange getting killed in 1690 by Jacobites in Ireland would help Ireland?
Yet Germany's invasion of Belgium is pretty universally viewed as wrong today in a way that Britain's actions in Ireland aren't. At least we Irish never cut off the hands of the Congolese...
Sad that millions of my ancestors suffered and died because the English elites believed in paranoid nonsense completely removed from history.
He nearly got a haircut by a cannonball at the Boyne IIRC, so it wouldn't be impossible.
again, as half-Irish myself, I feel like that's a poor equivalency. For instance, the IRA killing two children in the Warrington Bombings in 1993, Birmingham Pub in the 70's killing over 20, to name but two. The IRA collaborated with known terrorists, targetted civilians as well as soldiers or politicians, targetting children, beheading people who didn't agree with them... not exactly as though the Irish needed the Congolese when they had each other
Think about it, Ireland was never independent even before 1798. Which was why people were rebelling in the first place. At the time of the union, the Irish themselves were campaigning to be integrated, with them seeing it as a better way than existing in a limbo where they got all the worst aspects of British rule but none of it’s better parts like seats in the Parliament.
that’s an interesting bit of whitewashing tbh, plenty of Irish took part in the creation and running of the British Empire (and other Empires if you look at South America) with plenty of abuse and suppression of local populations. You only have to look at the apology President Higgins gave during his Australia tour years ago for example.
As to the British fears of Ireland being used as threat, it’s not paranoia, do you think the French didn’t have that in mind when they sent troops to support the Rebellion, or do you think it was out of the goodness of their hearts with no ulterior motive?
The POD would probably need to be earlier. Whilst that change would mean that events happened differently, British and English interference was already set in stone by that point. I actually think that perhaps the latest you can find a POD to protect Ireland from the worst of English and British colonialism is the Glyndwr Rising in the early 15th century. That could have lead to an independent Wales and an England that was split in 2. If that had happened then and the Irish were able to somehow permanently unify, you can probably keep Ireland free from English domination. You would probably butterfly a united Britain with a POD this early too which would further protect Ireland from domination
Most people treat Britain's actions in Ireland as wrong today, even in Britain itself just as most people treat Germany's invasion of Belgium as wrong
That can be said of much historical and current suffering worldwide
last noteworthy detail, as already mentioned during the Napoleonic campaigns, there were many British attempts to recover Hanover, more or less all of which failed miserably, the most important and noteworthy being that of the Hanover expedition or also known as the Weser expedition of 1806 (but already planned from the last months of 1804), composed of at least 25 thousand men, its objective was to unite together with Sweden, Russia and Austria against Napoleon ( at the same time, because one failure is never enough, a another in Naples which ultimately saw a dispersion of the English force, and the definitive fall of the Neapolitan Bourbons, it was always tried at the same time as well as a small attack on the Batavian republic ) coordination with the allies was truly painful, certainly it was a very useful testing ground for future amphibious expeditions, demonstrating that they were feasible, but in terms of concrete results ( nothing ) except for the formation of the KGL
now the question is what would have changed if the London government had moved more quickly and effectively concentrated on a single main action, instead of dispersing itself on multiple fronts, most likely not much from a military point of view, getting to Austerlitz in time would have been almost impossible, but keeping some French and allied regiments away from attacking the Austro-Russian troops was more than possible, as well as trying to occupy the territory for longer, so as to represent a small thorn in the side of the French plans for the confederation of the Rhine ( in addition to demonstrating to the allies the consistency of the British troops, which was rightly doubted until then, it is that it will be so at least until 1808 )
oh yes, I forgot, among the precedents that rightly poisoned the relations between the two states, there was also the Prussian occupation of Hannover in 1801, in which the English did not lift a finger
Last edited:
1801 wasseveral centuries too late for England/Great Britain/UK to "leave Ireland alone". Henry
Last edited:
One way to have an independent Ireland would be for the Spanish invasion to succeed.
Didnt the Tudors kill the name with Henry VIII and edward as well besides the one Saxe Coburg who abdicated?I think you might mean Henry VIII
Edward VI was the last Edward until Victoria's son took the throne although I'm not sure why. Edward VI isn't really remembered for a lot unless you have some idea of history. But yeah, Henry is a different matter. There hasn't been a Henry since VIII and I doubt there will be again. Although I would have said that about Charles a few years back
with Charles it was Beheaded after trying to raise taxes without parliamentary approval Charles ii deposed due to Catholicism and Bonny Prince Charles and the other Jacobite pretenders who never succeeded.
VIII think you might mean Henry VIII
XIII
All the same, bunch of letters pretending to be numbers!
😁
Kick
Just a few points. Ireland - like Scotland - was not just minding its own business when the nasty English came up and started picking on them. In the context of this history of the British Isles, the Scots and Irish are the villains of the piece, and all the attempts to whitewash their crimes with cries of 'propaganda' can't change the facts. The large-scale massacres of Protestants in the 1590's, in 1641, and in 1798, are the tip of the iceberg - just as the Scots were usually the aggressors in the Anglo-Scottish wars.
The funny thing is that while seriously understating the number of Protestants murdered, the Irish ridiculously exaggerate the number of people who died in the Potato Famine, from the 20,000 who actually died, to a million, and now apparently two million - achieved basically by simply assuming that everyone who died in the 1840's was a famine victim, even people who died of cancer or heart-attacks two years before the famine began.
Similarly, instead of understanding that Irish people - both Catholic and Protestant - chose to sell food abroad, they make the false claim that the British 'took food' out of Ireland. Also, why did they have six or eight children when they could only support two?The Catholic Church was pressuring people to have all these kids, so why didn't the Papacy take responsibility for the results? The Pope was perfectly willing to send weapons to Ireland in the 17th century to kill Protestants but couldn't send food? Also, Catholic priests during the famine ordered their congregations to refuse food from Protestant organisations, so why is this Britain's fault?
The funny thing is that while seriously understating the number of Protestants murdered, the Irish ridiculously exaggerate the number of people who died in the Potato Famine, from the 20,000 who actually died, to a million, and now apparently two million - achieved basically by simply assuming that everyone who died in the 1840's was a famine victim, even people who died of cancer or heart-attacks two years before the famine began.
Similarly, instead of understanding that Irish people - both Catholic and Protestant - chose to sell food abroad, they make the false claim that the British 'took food' out of Ireland. Also, why did they have six or eight children when they could only support two?The Catholic Church was pressuring people to have all these kids, so why didn't the Papacy take responsibility for the results? The Pope was perfectly willing to send weapons to Ireland in the 17th century to kill Protestants but couldn't send food? Also, Catholic priests during the famine ordered their congregations to refuse food from Protestant organisations, so why is this Britain's fault?
Fortunately for you the Great Famine has never been declared a genocide by the British Government, if it had been you would be in Coventry.
That said, this level of counter factual revisionism, provided, not as a WI or a T/L, but as a response, in all seriousness, on a historical events dating back 500 years to whitewash a brutal, even by the standards of the time, colonization/occupation and a long established much studied historical event is WAY over the line.
Kicked for a week. Be grateful that's as far a I went.