For all the cult of anniversaries in the modern world, the British clearly have problems with key moments that have shaped the political and constitutional contours of the modern state. The tercentenary of the revolution of 1688 was marked by only a relatively low-key exhibition, and anniversaries of the unions with Ireland and Scotland fared no better. So we should not be surprised that the 300th anniversary of the Hanoverian succession was similarly neglected in the country for which it provided the ruling dynasty, in stark contrast to a wonderful series of exhibitions and accompanying multivolume catalogue that were arranged in Hanover (Als die Royals aus Hannover Kamen, 2014). Doubtless this tells us something about the nation's current struggles with its identity/ies, and especially with its major institutions (monarchy, parliament, church) and with the legacy of the political unions. However, just as the marking of 1688 generated a series of academic conferences and some high-quality collective volumes, so commemoration of 1714 has produced this excellent set of essays, The Hanoverian Succession: Dynastic Politics and Monarchical Culture, edited by Andreas Gestrich and Michael Schaich, though revealingly it originated in conferences organized by the German Historical Institute and the Historische Kommission für Niedersachsen und Bremen (Notably, Jonathan Israel, ed., The Anglo-Dutch Moment. Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact, 1993 and R. A Beddard, ed., The Revolutions of 1688, 1991).

One of my few quibbles with the volume is the title. It is less about the Hanoverian succession, as that phrase is commonly understood, than about the Hanoverian monarchy. The main focus is on the reigns of George I and George II, but a few extend into the later eighteenth century and even into the reign of George IV. The chapters are organized into four sections (Dynastic Legacies; Representing Protestantism; Image Policies; and Contested Loyalties), but the structure is a little artificial, as a significant number of the essays could have been placed in other sections.

Most notably, the theme of religion runs strongly through most of the volume, and herein perhaps lies its most significant contribution to the development of our understanding of the Hanoverian monarchy. Much more than in any previous publication there is sustained and rigorous interrogation of what the Protestant monarchy meant. As Jeremy Gregory states in his chapter on the Hanoverians and the colonial (that is, continental American) churches, “seemingly different and competing Protestant visions of kingship … could in fact broadly coexist” (122). Gregory's point relates to the situation in North America, and it is developed in Brendan McConville's stimulating chapter to reveal George II's remarkable popularity there. But the point could be extended to other essays. David Wykes explores the specifically dissenting expectations of Protestant kingship in the immediate aftermath of their arrival in Britain, while Andrew Thompson explains the ways in which defense of European Protestants became a collective Anglo-Hanoverian concern. Looking later in the century, G. M. Ditchfield reveals how, as a result of the crisis over Catholic Emancipation visions of Protestant kingship again fractured with Ultras and Anglican Evangelicals particularly vocal in asserting the duty of the king to defend the Protestant constitution against the betrayal of the political classes and even the Church of England.

Religion is also at the heart of the more synoptic essays by Ronald Asch and Tim Blanning. These are both models of their genre, sharp and insightful essays by scholars at the height of their powers. The underlying ideas will be familiar to those who have read their recent books, Sacral Kingship between Disenchantment and Re-enchantment (2014) and The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture (2002) respectively. But both apply their learning to new problems, Blanning to the specific challenges faced by the Hanoverians and their success in building on a style of representation that emerged after 1688 and was based on the principles of liberty, nationalism, prosperity, and anti-Catholicism. Asch, in a provocative and intelligent essay, draws out the implications of his book for the years after 1688, revealing how the monarch, despite having lost his quasi-sacerdotal status, still succeeded in embodying in his person and office “the close union between Protestantism and national culture” (41).

Elsewhere, Amanda Goodrich considers radical attitudes to the monarchy during the French Revolution, revealing that the focus of criticism was much more the aristocracy than the monarchy and that the constitutionalism of most British radicals inhibited the development of an explicitly republican rhetoric. Hannah Smith, in one of the few essays to focus specifically on 1714, reveals the remarkable degree of politicization of the army and the very real possibility of a military coup d’état. It is a shame, though, in the light of Smith's earlier work highlighting the importance of a military-naval vision in the creation of the image of the early Georgian monarchy (Georgian Monarchy: Politics and Culture 1714–1760, 2006), that, with the exception of some illuminating comments by Martin Wrede on the military reputation of the Guelph dynasty, this theme is not further developed.

Finally, Gabriel Glickman and Edward Corp consider the Jacobite threat to the Hanoverians. Glickman's essay builds on his earlier work to reveal, in a striking manner, the ways in which the Jacobite threat, especially in its cultural and ideological manifestations, demanded a response from Hanoverian propagandists and so influenced their representation of the regime. Glickman, too, is one of the few contributors to devote any serious attention to Scotland, casting some light on the distinctiveness of the Hanoverian relationship with that kingdom. In the light of recent interest in “three kingdoms” history, especially among early modernists, it is perhaps surprising that this volume does not include any more sustained attempt to engage with the relationship between the Hanoverian monarchy and its other kingdoms. Such a contribution would undoubtedly have added further dimensions to the “various and often conflicting ways in which it presented itself to the outside world and in turn was portrayed by other groups” (22). However, this omission should not distract from the achievements of an impressive volume, which makes an important and original contribution to eighteenth-century political history. It is precisely the kind of volume that will remind historians why they can only lament the demise of Ashgate Publishing.