I wonder what role Prince Rupert of the Rhine will play in TTL, considering he was probably the Royalists' best general (or at least regarded as such) in OTL...always found him quite an interesting figure, like how the Puritans were convinced his poodle Boy was a demon in dog form...
He pops up in the next chapter, funnily enough, and will play as important a role ITTL’s first civil war as he did IOTL. He is interesting- certainly a good general, but I can’t say I warm to him. His nasty habit of letting his troops commit atrocities rather belies the romantic image of the cavalier prince. But then again that’s one of the things I want to show ITTL; it’s a bit more complicated than Romantic Cavaliers and dour Roundheads, even if the stereotype does have a certain basis in reality.
How'd Davenport's expedition disappear in OTL? I'd thought New Haven was a mainland colony, not one centered on Long Island, but then again I suppose it's very likely two towns could earn the same name.
Sorry, when I say Long Island Sound, I meant on the mainland rather than on the island; IOTL Davenport founded New Haven in what is now western Connecticut, and like you say it was a separate colony until 1664. ITTL Davenport finds the site of the town already occupied so he buggers off up to Maine and founds his godly commonwealth up there instead. This accelerates the settlement of the region, at the expense of being rather miserable for the poor settlers who already live there; New Haven was not exactly the most fun of places IOTL, and I can’t imagine it’ll be any better transplanted a few hundred miles to the north.
Relatively small changes from OTL so far...dubbing it "The British Revolution" probably implies a more lasting change in the mode of government than OTL, whether republican or otherwise.
Yes, some sort of Republican government probably lasts, over the whole of the British Isles. I look forward to seeing this Revolution...
And, as has been said, the use of revolution instead of civil war does have my interest and I I am trying to figure out what that may mean.
It’s worth remembering that some people use ‘English Revolution’ IOTL, and arguably this is a pretty legitimate term, given that the political and religious settlement of 1660 was completely different to that in 1638 in England, let alone Ireland and Scotland. I suspect one reason this term never properly caught on is because of a desire to stress the Glorious Revolution as the proper revolution, it being rather cleaner, clearly defined, and more convenient to remember for all concerned (bar the Jacobites, of course…). Personally, my view is that calling 1688 a Revolution and not 1642-1659 is a bit like saying that 1830 counts in France, but not 1789-1815, but that’s by the by.
While the phrase ‘revolution’ does imply a more lasting change than OTL then, it doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the case; it could simply mean there’s no *1688 equivalent to take all the glory, although I agree that would make for a rather dull TL! It also doesn’t preclude the retention of the monarchy, either through restoration or it never going away; we call 1905 a revolution after all, and that didn’t topple the Tsar…
Great stuff. I notice that you're using "Saybrook" as both noun and adjective. One of the 12 residential colleges at modern Yale is called Saybrook; denizens of the college are typically referred to as "Saybrugians". That said, it's such a Latinate phrase, that it's hard to see TTL's Cromwell's puritans adopting it as their own.
Ahh, I like that! ‘Saybrugian’ it is then, thanks for mentioning it! I don’t think it’s too implausible either. As Thande mentions, the Puritans didn’t have anything against Latin per se (see what I did there?), so long as it wasn’t used in an ecclesiastical context; indeed, the first school in New England was the Boston Latin School, founded in 1635, and entry to Harvard was conditional on knowledge of Latin and Greek. So I think we can get that- “Saybrugian’ is a far better demonym than any of the alternatives.
Interesting to see the gradual changes in terms of settlement and colonies compared to OTL. Is there a particular reason that the New Haven settlement is in New Somersetshire, or is this something where future events yet to be played out give the area its name? Also a different placed Acadia seems interesting.
Well, New Somersetshire as a name actually predates the PoD; when the first colonial grant in Maine was granted in 1629, Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason split it between them at the Piscataqua River. New Hampshire was Mason’s bit, south of the river, while Gorges took New Somersetshire, which corresponds roughly to OTL’s southern Maine. Just to add to the confusion, by the time Davenport and his settlers founded New Haven, Gorges was about to receive a second colonial charter for the same area, this time called “Lygonia”, after his mum Cecily (‘Lygon’ appeared to be her nickname).
I’ll get into this later on, but suffice it to say the name ‘New Somersetshire’ ends up being retained, instead of being replaced by ‘Maine’.
As for Acadia, it’s not actually differently placed ITTL; the French claimed everything to the east of the Kennebec, and while the territory changed hands several times, by 1638 they had a built a major fort at modern-day Castine.
I have plans for Acadia ITTL; the 1630s and 40s were a rather interesting, if unjustly obscure period for it IOTL and there’s plenty of scope for fun stuff there, not to mention the butterflies that will come flapping in from outside. So don’t worry, I’ll give a better overview of what’s going on in the north when I come to it.
What exactly are the relations between the multiple colonies in New England at this point? Does Plymouth try to pay Saybrook and Massachusettes Bay off one another, or is it more of a "keep to myself" colony trying to maintain what positions and lands that it holds?
The big difference really at this point ITTL is that there’s more of a balance between Massachusetts and the other two New English colonies. While the Bay has by far the larger population, just as IOTL, Saybrook has the dominant political personality in New England, letting it punch above its weight. While there are considerable bones of contention between the three (Plymouth is worried about being swallowed by the Bay, Massachusetts is pissed off over the Wickford affair and still covets the Enfield Falls region, Saybrook wants to channel Massachsetts expansion northwards rather than westwards), they’re united by a common enemy in the Providence Plantation, and all share pro-parliamentary sentiments when the Civil War breaks out. Arguably this makes closer cooperation between the colonies more practical than OTL, providing that Cromwell wants it to happen; a venture between two broadly equal partners is easier to stomach than a greater Massachusetts bay.
I will reply to your email soon btw!