Can Napoleon screw things enought for the British Empire reannex Normandy?

[Gukpard]

The region of Normandy was english ruled for some time, from the invasion of William the bastard until the end of the 100 years war, as the map in the spoiler below shows

Spoiler

When the treaty of Paris was signed after Napoleon's defeat, the very pragmatic personalities that discussed the therms came to a common understanding that to prevent the de estabilization of europe, it was extremely necessary to garantee also the stability of France, both to prevent another revolution if France was crushed and also to prevent the balance of power of Europe to be broken with the absense of a large power like France. Basically what the treaty of Postdam emulated after the end of WWI... on the western side.

But let's say that things went different, Napoleon didn't invaded Russia, he adopted even harsh crackdown on the spanish resistence, maybe Austria was bribed by the UK to reenter the war and provocking Napoleon into creating a final solution for the Habsburgs, and then after Marching on Vienna he dissolved the empire allowing all the other ethnic groups to break free as long they continued supporting Napoleon.

Some no specified events happens, the war continues and he's defeated. On this time however the situation moves towards blaming him and France for the many coalitions, and with the germanic states, especially the restored habsburg austria wanting vegeance, and so they get the Versallies treatment.

My question is: Could the UK take over normandy, citing the rulership from William I and his successor as a argument that the United Kingdom have a claim to the area? There are some reasons for a irate UK want such thing, and it would give them a strategical position to advance to Paris in case of war.

What do you think?

 

[Jared]

My question is: Could the UK take over normandy, citing the rulership from William I and his successor as a argument that the United Kingdom have a claim to the area? There are some reasons for a irate UK want such thing, and it would give them a strategical position to advance to Paris in case of war.

Short answer: no.
Long answer: hell no.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Not a chance. If, by some token they somehow tried to seize it in the peace treaty, it'd be astonishing if they held it for five years after the withdrawal of Russian and Austrian forces.

 

[funnyhat]

Normandy is a core French region, and always was - even when the English kings ruled it in medieval times, they did so as French noblemen. There is no way in the XIX century it can be given away without totally destroying France as a state.

 

[Socrates]

I think the best you could get is an enforced federalization of France, with the Normandy region being supported by the British with the threat of independence lurking, in a sort of Donbass situation.

 

[Gukpard]

I think the best you could get is an enforced federalization of France, with the Normandy region being supported by the British with the threat of independence lurking, in a sort of Donbass situation.

How deep the British influence there could go?

 

[LordTerra]

Even with a situation of French failure after even further brutal repression of Europe by this time it would go against British policy.

After the loss of Calais, or even before that you could argue the UK lost all real interest of owning land on the continent itself beyond small strategic enclaves like Gibraltar, preferring to focus on naval dominance and holding onto islands (Malta, heligoland). Even after getting Hannover via personal union the main focus of everyone except the monarch was getting rid of it.

A large slab of land on the continent both brings Britain more into mainland power politics which I don't think any of them would want beyond maybe another counter balance to an overpowering France and because land on the continent will require a larger and more well funded army at the expense of the navy which is what kept Britain alive during the Napoleonic wars.

It could possibly happen with a Alot of changes to the wars but it goes against the standard policy that had been working for the UK for a long time. They are more likely to grab Corsica cause at least that just needs the Navy to keep safe

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Adjacently, I've suggested splitting off Brittany and the Chouans areas and giving them to the Bourbons.

 

[The Professor]

Others have pointed out that it wasn't a case of the English ruling Normandy but more of a personal union where the Duke of Normandy happened to be King of England.
Interestingly the Duke of Normandy still exists as a title of our current monarch Elizabeth. It refers to the Channel Islands, which also aren't part of the United Kingdom either.
I suppose it's possible that with a royal French restoration the British King agrees to drop the claim to said throne in favour of actually having Normandy but this wouldn't be acceptable to the UK politicians, who don't want a monarch with continental connections they'd be asked to fund protection of, nor French politicians who are trying to centralise administration of France not fracture it.

 

[Gukpard]

Even with a situation of French failure after even further brutal repression of Europe by this time it would go against British policy.

After the loss of Calais, or even before that you could argue the UK lost all real interest of owning land on the continent itself beyond small strategic enclaves like Gibraltar, preferring to focus on naval dominance and holding onto islands (Malta, heligoland). Even after getting Hannover via personal union the main focus of everyone except the monarch was getting rid of it.

A large slab of land on the continent both brings Britain more into mainland power politics which I don't think any of them would want beyond maybe another counter balance to an overpowering France and because land on the continent will require a larger and more well funded army at the expense of the navy which is what kept Britain alive during the Napoleonic wars.

It could possibly happen with a Alot of changes to the wars but it goes against the standard policy that had been working for the UK for a long time. They are more likely to grab Corsica cause at least that just needs the Navy to keep safe

Others have pointed out that it wasn't a case of the English ruling Normandy but more of a personal union where the Duke of Normandy happened to be King of England.
Interestingly the Duke of Normandy still exists as a title of our current monarch Elizabeth. It refers to the Channel Islands, which also aren't part of the United Kingdom either.
I suppose it's possible that with a royal French restoration the British King agrees to drop the claim to said throne in favour of actually having Normandy but this wouldn't be acceptable to the UK politicians, who don't want a monarch with continental connections they'd be asked to fund protection of, nor French politicians who are trying to centralise administration of France not fracture it.

Ok, Just to prevent this thread for being a total trainwreck, on the worst case scenario for France, Britain take over Corsega, and the rest of europe, what they can take over?

 

[The Professor]

Ok, Just to prevent this thread for being a total trainwreck, on the worst case scenario for France, Britain take over Corsega, and the rest of europe, what they can take over?

Nothing in Europe really. Corsica would be a protectorate, the small nations bordering France get adjustments against France.
Outside Europe you'd see more French concessions to Britain, Netherlands, and others.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Others have pointed out that it wasn't a case of the English ruling Normandy but more of a personal union where the Duke of Normandy happened to be King of England.
Interestingly the Duke of Normandy still exists as a title of our current monarch Elizabeth. It refers to the Channel Islands, which also aren't part of the United Kingdom either.
I suppose it's possible that with a royal French restoration the British King agrees to drop the claim to said throne in favour of actually having Normandy but this wouldn't be acceptable to the UK politicians, who don't want a monarch with continental connections they'd be asked to fund protection of, nor French politicians who are trying to centralise administration of France not fracture it.

The claim to the French throne was dropped in 1800. It's not going to be revived again.

 

[funnyhat]

Ok, Just to prevent this thread for being a total trainwreck, on the worst case scenario for France, Britain take over Corsega, and the rest of europe, what they can take over?

In France, they could perhaps capture an island like Ouessant off the coast of Brittany for another naval base. Overseas they could take over the rest of France's colonial empire - Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana, Réunion. These would deprive the French government of a lot of sugar revenues.

 

[The Professor]

The claim to the French throne was dropped in 1800. It's not going to be revived again.

Oh, thought it was after Napoleon. Ah well even less reason to claim continental Normandy!

 

[pompejus]

Nothing in Europe really. Corsica would be a protectorate, the small nations bordering France get adjustments against France.
Outside Europe you'd see more French concessions to Britain, Netherlands, and others.

My guess for the colonies: French India, Martinique and St Pierre and Miquelon to Britain, Guyana to Portugal/Brasil, St Martin to the Netherlands, St Barts and Guadeloupe to Sweden. Maybe France could keep Senegal and Reunion? Maybe France is allowed to keep those. Who could want them? Well maybe Britain again. Maybe some other ally would get them, but who?

In Europe, I would say that the Netherlands could gain Departement Nord (French Flanders and French Hainaut). I believe Spain could gain Roussillon. Mulhouse could go to Switserland. There are probably some areas Sardina-Piedmont can claim from France.

That said, it would require a very different situation after the Napoleonic wars. In the end the goal was after all not to punish France, but Napoleon. By not punishing France, they gave legitimacy to the next French king.

 

[Gukpard]

My guess for the colonies: French India, Martinique and St Pierre and Miquelon to Britain, Guyana to Portugal/Brasil, St Martin to the Netherlands, St Barts and Guadeloupe to Sweden. Maybe France could keep Senegal and Reunion? Maybe France is allowed to keep those. Who could want them? Well maybe Britain again. Maybe some other ally would get them, but who?

In Europe, I would say that the Netherlands could gain Departement Nord (French Flanders and French Hainaut). I believe Spain could gain Roussillon. Mulhouse could go to Switserland. There are probably some areas Sardina-Piedmont can claim from France.

That said, it would require a very different situation after the Napoleonic wars. In the end the goal was after all not to punish France, but Napoleon. By not punishing France, they gave legitimacy to the next French king.

After a peace treaty like that, what would be the development of France on the next decades? Could they go revanchist like Germany after WWI?

 

[Intosh]

I think the best you could get is an enforced federalization of France, with the Normandy region being supported by the British with the threat of independence lurking, in a sort of Donbass situation.

You seems to forget that the Donbass region and the Crimea were regions where the Russians were always a big minority or a majority, and these regions only become ukrainian by the will of communists leaders before or after WW2.

Normandy had 0.001 englishmen living in 1815. Even the Channel islands had a clear french speaking majority until the 1940's.

Edit : correct for grammar errors

 

[NolanFoster]

No. I don't recall reading about any British claims to that region after the medieval era. It's never been a part of the modern idea of Britain.

Perhaps it could be split off from France as a separate kingdom in personal union with the UK? You would have to create a Norman nationalism from scratch to avoid pro-French sentiment leading to a reunification. I doubt that would succeed.

If you want to split pieces off France to weaken it, you have better options. Brittany, Occitania, Catalonia, Gascony.

 

[Socrates]

You seems to forget that the Donbass region and Crimea were regions where the Russians were always a big minority or a majority, and these regions only become ukrainian by the will if communists leaders before or after WW2.

Normandy had 0.001 englishmen leaving in 1815. Even the Channel islands had a clear french speaking majority until the 1940's.

Crimea was ethnically Russian but the Donbass ethnically Ukrainian.

 

[pompejus]

After a peace treaty like that, what would be the development of France on the next decades? Could they go revanchist like Germany after WWI?

There would be a lot less sympathy and a lot more hate for the allies and the rest of Europe. The relationship between Britain and France would be a lot worse. I would say that the chance of France attacking one of its neighbours would be significantly bigger. For example the French intervention during the Belgian revolt could be an attempt to actualy annex Belgium, instead of creating an independent country like OTL. This would change the sympathies of the other European nations. Britain would not like a French Belgium, so the outcome of the Belgian revolt would be different.