Based on papers delivered at a Peterhouse colloquium in 2004, these essays sound the constant refrain that political histories of Hanoverian Britain neglect the Personal Union with Hanover. As Brendan Simms observes in the introduction, the contributors intimate the need for a re-evaluation of Britain's national identity, statehood, and relation to Continental Europe. More striking to this reviewer is their demonstration of how the world of diplomacy and international relations offers a perspective radically different from studies of domestic and electoral politics, socio-political trends, and ideologies. In the first essay, Jeremy Black points out the methodological difficulties in determining cause and effect when one considers the Hanoverian accession in the larger contexts of the Revolution Settlement and of the rise of Russia, Austria, and Prussia: investigations of short periods often conflict with long-term analyses. This is equally applicable to the assessments of continuity and change that these essays set out to perform, which leave few models standing firm. Five essays form a chronological survey of the Personal Union's impact on British politics while the other seven amplify specific cultural, religious, scientific, dynastic, strategic, geopolitical, and ideological issues.
Anti-Hanover representations and arguments in print culture often served as a convenient vehicle for promoting other agendas, Bob Harris demonstrates. By bringing to light the private correspondences amongst monarchs, ministers, and diplomats, other contributors suggest how public debate created myths as it flattened out the complexities of the strategy making and negotiations that took place behind the scenes. Black observes that during the Walpole era foreign policy decisions, which the opposition represented as indicating George II's favour of the electorate, did not always work out in Hanover's favour and displayed more pragmatism than ideological or partisan motives. Alliances with France and Austria certainly did not accord with Whig anti-Catholicism. Similarly, Pitt the Elder's use of colourful anti-Hanoverian rhetoric when in opposition made his support of intervention on the Continent when in office look opportunistic. Simms finds consistency, however, in Pitt's overarching concern with French containment. Richard Harding too thinks the association between Hanover and Continental warfare and its opposition to blue-water policy overdrawn. Keeping Hanover and Flanders out of French hands might have been a separate operation but was crucial to the Royal Navy's ability to protect the colonies. Contrary to the tenor of British public debate, Hanover might have received the short end of the stick. H. M. Scott argues that the tie with Britain actually placed Hanover under increased threat, although from France's perspective, occupation was not strategically viable until Napoleon.
Traditionally viewed as distant from Hanover, George III actually pursued actively the interests of the electorate, according to Torsten Riotte. Concerned with economic recovery rather than territorial expansion after the Seven Years War, and considering his role as elector private, George's involvement remained under the radar until military conflict flared in the 1770s and he joined the Fürstenbund against Joseph II's attempts on Bavaria at the same time as his ministers were negotiating an alliance with Austria. Moreover, he perpetuated this stewardship by making the duke of York bishop of Osnabrück and sending three other sons to the University of Göttingen. Clarissa Campbell Orr's consideration of the dynastic aspects of the Personal Union finds George III terribly lacking, however. Although he enjoyed closer access to various German rulers through his marriage to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, he failed to make advantageous matches for his numerous progeny to guarantee the Union beyond the next generation. On the other hand, Christopher D. Thompson and Mijndert Bertram both show a rare example of his having made an impression on the prince of Wales. George IV's education had included a good dose of German language and history, which imbued him with a sense of heritage. He took the trouble to visit the electorate in 1821 and used his status as elector to confer privately with foreign diplomats and manoeuvre around his ministers.
Influence did not flow in one direction. Andrew C. Thompson reminds us that contemporaries used the expression ‘Protestant succession’, not ‘Hanoverian accession’, and details how confessional concerns continued to affect political debate. He and Christopher D. Thompson each discuss the impact of confessional changes in the German territories under Napoleon on the campaign for Catholic emancipation in Britain. The University of Göttingen provided a bridge to the German Enlightenment. Thomas Biskup notes that with George III's patronage, the university attracted an increasing number of students interested in a strong scientific curriculum, which was lacking at Cambridge and Oxford. Reaction to the natural law idea of the Personal Union shaped republican thought. Nicholas B. Harding traces the anti-Hanoverian argument usually associated with Jacobites to John Toland's criticism of the Act of Settlement in 1701.
This collection raises many questions about appearance versus reality in the formation of identities and images – national, party political, and personal. In light of the archival findings showcased in these essays, scholars might want to go on to compare treatment of Hanoverian and foreign policy issues with domestic matters in the public and private discussions of political leaders and in the press. Further investigation into why and how certain topics came to the fore while others faded will be instructive.
