I petition that this Afghanistan be immediately ISOTed in place of the OTL one.
The Anglo-Saxon Social Model - The Expanded Universe
- Thread starter Rattigan
- Start date
Seconded. Now we just have to get a hold of that satellite from Arose from the Azure Main.
I think it's important not to assume that TTL is some kind of cybernetic utopia. For example, while things like personal computing and even smart products TTL predate their counterparts OTL by decades in some cases, the backlash against tech companies, AI and privacy invasions comes several decades earlier too (the Caracus Accords mentioned in the Turing profile are the result of this). That being said, cybernetics are very popular in medical circles, with bodysuits for paraplegics and synthetic arms to replace lost limbs being relatively common and in the military manned jets and bombers are mostly phased out in favour of remote piloted drones.
As for the commercial cosmetic market, see my answer below. I have no firm opinions on this and would welcome contributions/ideas. I suspect that the cycles of debate about cosmetic surgery are largely as OTL but minor procedures to remove (or install) scars, fix teeth, tuck in tummy fat etc. might be more common because of the extra disposable income people have.
I have no specific views on this. I suspect that tattoos are as accepted as OTL but that there would remain significant social taboos against more extreme bodily modifications.
Businesses: Muhammadi-Oceanic Steamship Company Limited
The Muhammadi-Oceanic Steamship Company Limited, more commonly known by its trading name the White Star Line, is an Anglo-Pakistani shipping company operating both cruise lines and container shipping, as well as substantial shipbuilding operations.
Muhammadi-Oceanic was formed in 1954 by the merger of the British company Oceanic Steam Navigation and the Pakistani company Muhammadi Steamships. During the Edwardian period, Oceanic became famous for its innovations in passenger ship design, notably ships such as RMS Oceanic I (1870), RMS Titanic (1912) and RMS Oceanic II (1936), as well as its emphasis on reliable and comfortable passages for upper class and migrant travellers. The company was prominent in international shipping markets into the 20th century but it entered a prolonged decline after 1930. It launched the Oceanic II in 1936 but only thanks to substantial investment from the “People’s Home” government programs. During the World War, a large number of Oceanic ships, including the Titanic and the RMS Laurentic, were sunk by Axis submarines and the company entered the postwar period with a skeleton fleet and at a severe disadvantage against its rivals.
Muhammadi was founded in 1917 and found success in the commercial shipping field out of the expanding Port of Karachi. Following Pakistani independence in 1948, the company became a national champion and was able to gain access to preferential loans from the Pakistani and British government to complete the purchase of the troubled Oceanic line in 1954. The additional equity provided by the healthier commercial shipping business allowed Muhammadi-Oceanic to successfully draw down its year-round trans-Atlantic passenger service over the course of the 1960s in order to concentrate on cruising and summer voyages for vacationers. Meanwhile, the commercial shipping branch of the company flourished further following the advent of container shipping.
As of 2020, Muhammadi-Oceanic is the largest shipbuilding and shipping container company in the world by revenue, fleet size and cargo capacity. Its main shipyard is in Karachi but it operates a network of smaller shipyards around the Commonwealth, notably in Colombo, Birkenhead and Dar es Salaam. Its container fleet consists of over 400 cargo vessels including the Elizabeth-class, the largest container ships ever constructed. The company’s passenger fleet currently consists of three liners, all of the Albion-class. The company’s headquarters are in Muhammadi House in Karachi.
Muhammadi-Oceanic was formed in 1954 by the merger of the British company Oceanic Steam Navigation and the Pakistani company Muhammadi Steamships. During the Edwardian period, Oceanic became famous for its innovations in passenger ship design, notably ships such as RMS Oceanic I (1870), RMS Titanic (1912) and RMS Oceanic II (1936), as well as its emphasis on reliable and comfortable passages for upper class and migrant travellers. The company was prominent in international shipping markets into the 20th century but it entered a prolonged decline after 1930. It launched the Oceanic II in 1936 but only thanks to substantial investment from the “People’s Home” government programs. During the World War, a large number of Oceanic ships, including the Titanic and the RMS Laurentic, were sunk by Axis submarines and the company entered the postwar period with a skeleton fleet and at a severe disadvantage against its rivals.
Muhammadi was founded in 1917 and found success in the commercial shipping field out of the expanding Port of Karachi. Following Pakistani independence in 1948, the company became a national champion and was able to gain access to preferential loans from the Pakistani and British government to complete the purchase of the troubled Oceanic line in 1954. The additional equity provided by the healthier commercial shipping business allowed Muhammadi-Oceanic to successfully draw down its year-round trans-Atlantic passenger service over the course of the 1960s in order to concentrate on cruising and summer voyages for vacationers. Meanwhile, the commercial shipping branch of the company flourished further following the advent of container shipping.
As of 2020, Muhammadi-Oceanic is the largest shipbuilding and shipping container company in the world by revenue, fleet size and cargo capacity. Its main shipyard is in Karachi but it operates a network of smaller shipyards around the Commonwealth, notably in Colombo, Birkenhead and Dar es Salaam. Its container fleet consists of over 400 cargo vessels including the Elizabeth-class, the largest container ships ever constructed. The company’s passenger fleet currently consists of three liners, all of the Albion-class. The company’s headquarters are in Muhammadi House in Karachi.
Last edited:
Thank your for the White Star Line box there @Rattigan. The Line surviving this way ITTL seems very viable to me.
Titanic and Laurentic and others go down to torpedoes? Ouch. At least they had Oceanic III, but ouch. I imagine they picked up some of Germany's shipping post--war?
Cunard probably survived the loss of Queen Mary, esp if they had an Alt!Queen Elizabeth - but I can see them being ripe for takeover in the 50's as well or perhaps they merge with American Lines (owner of the United States OTL) and tap into the lucrative American cargo market, and later cruising?
Titanic and Laurentic and others go down to torpedoes? Ouch. At least they had Oceanic III, but ouch. I imagine they picked up some of Germany's shipping post--war?
Cunard probably survived the loss of Queen Mary, esp if they had an Alt!Queen Elizabeth - but I can see them being ripe for takeover in the 50's as well or perhaps they merge with American Lines (owner of the United States OTL) and tap into the lucrative American cargo market, and later cruising?
Commonwealth: Royal Navy
The Royal Navy is the Commonwealth’s naval warfare force. The modern Royal Navy traces its origins to the Tudor maritime reforms of early 16th century England (although warships were used by the various English, Scottish and Irish kings beforehand). The oldest of the Commonwealth’s armed services, it is known as the Senior Service. From the middle decades of the 17th century, and through the 18th century, the Royal Navy vied with the Dutch and French navies for maritime supremacy. From the mid-18th century onwards, it has been the most powerful navy in the world. The Royal Navy played a key part in establishing the British Empire as the preeminent world power during the 19th and 20th centuries, remaining the world’s foremost blue-water navy into the 21st. Due to its historical prominence, it is common, even in non-Commonwealth circles, to refer to it as the “Royal Navy” without qualification.
Unusually amongst global military institutions, the Royal Navy is a single fighting force which is shared amongst the sixteen member states of the Commonwealth. In 1906, as part of the Asquith Reforms, the fledgling Australian and Canadian navies were scrapped and control of the Empire’s naval capacity was centralised under the Imperial Chiefs of Staff (renamed the Commonwealth Chiefs of Staff in 1953). Following British entry into the Great War in 1917, the Royal Navy proved key to the ultimate defeat of the Central Powers, winning a decisive victory over the Imperial German Navy at the Battle of Jutland in October 1917. Foreseeing the increased obsolescence of battleships, during the interwar years the Royal Navy successfully transitioned to a carrier-based force, with several aircraft carriers being commissioned as part of the “People’s Home” program. It played a central role in the defeat of the Axis Powers in the World War, winning notable victories over the Spanish and Italian navies in the Mediterranean and the Chinese navy in the Pacific.
Following the World War, the Royal Navy transformed again into a power projection and anti-submarine force, active around the world. Its primary combat doctrine remains based around carrier fleets transporting advanced air and amphibious elements to deliver overwhelming firepower to combat zones. In the post war environment, it provided key logistics and fire-support capacity to conflicts such as the Malayan Emergency and the Third and Fourth Anglo-Boer Wars. It is the largest blue-water navy in the world in terms of the number of carriers (although the US Navy has a greater number of commissioned ships) with the ability to project force in a variety of theatres such as the Pacific, Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. It is also capable of engaging in forward deployments during peacetime, making it a frequent actor in non-military Commonwealth foreign policy.
The Royal Navy is part of the Commonwealth Armed Forces and its professional head is the First Sea Lord, who is an admiral and member of the Commonwealth Chiefs of Staff. The senior administrative body of the Royal Navy is based out of Portsmouth Station in the United Kingdom. Below Portsmouth Station, there are six ‘Fleet Stations’ around the world: Gibraltar Station, Singapore Station, Bermuda Station, Trincomalee Station, Stanley Station and Sydney Station. With the exception of Stanley Station, each Fleet Station is supplied with sufficient ships to maintain two carrier strike groups and remain (at least in theory) self-sufficient. The fleet at Stanley Station is different, being operated under a unique force-sharing agreement with the Argentinian government. It thus consists of a single carrier strike group, with the Argentinian Navy acting as a force-multiplier.
Portsmouth Station retains overall administrative competence over all of the Fleet Stations beneath it, as well as direct control over the 188 inactive or mothballed ships in the Royal Navy Fleet Reserve and the 169 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (which includes 23 container ships, 41 oilers and 36 brown-water patrol vessels). In addition to Portsmouth and the Fleet Stations, the Royal Navy maintains a network of 27 smaller bases around the Commonwealth and 14 naval bases in foreign countries around the world, all of which come under the direct authority of one Fleet Station. Divided between its Fleet Stations, the Royal Navy maintains a fleet of technologically sophisticated ships and submarines, including 12 aircraft carriers, 11 cruisers, 22 helicopter carriers, 22 destroyers, 55 frigates and 22 submarines.
As one of the earliest Commonwealth-wide institutions, the Royal Navy retains a significant public profile around the Commonwealth as a symbol of unity and of the Commonwealth’s global influence. The concept of ‘Navy families’ - where multiple generations of a single family serve - remains common, particularly in the United Kingdom, Ceylon and the Pacific Islands and naval vessels continue to play prominent parts in civic Commonwealth celebrations such as Commonwealth Day, the monarch’s Official Birthday and Queen Elizabeth II’s Golden and Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
Last edited:
United States: Copperhead Rebellion (1863)
The Copperhead Rebellion (April 6-15, 1863), also known as the Draft Riots and the New York Uprising, was a series of violent disturbances in Lower Manhattan that turned into an armed insurrection aimed at bringing an end to the ongoing American Civil War by means of a negotiated peace. It was the most significant anti-Union insurrection outside of the South during the Civil War and remains the largest civil urban disturbance in American history. The insurrection and subsequent political developments ultimately contributed to an increase in popular support for the Union war effort, the final decline of the Democratic Party outside of the South and an increase in popular anti-Irish racism.
The insurrectionists were overwhelmingly white men, mostly Irish or of Irish descent. The primary causes of the uprising were concerns about the imminent introduction of a national draft to help prosecute the ongoing war against the Confederacy and fear of competition for wages with free black people in the multi-racial republic promised by the Emancipation Act (passed on July 4, 1862, in effect from January 1, 1863). Furthermore, during the antebellum period, a large portion of the economy of New York City was associated with the cotton trade (either processing it in mills or shipping it from the port) and a large number of the city’s citizens believed their business interests to be closely tied to the South. When Southern states began to secede, Mayor Fernando Wood introduced a bill of secession to the city’s Board of Aldermen, which was only narrowly voted down.
Planning for protests had been underway since 1861, under the belief that opposition in major Northern cities would force the federal government to negotiate with the Confederacy. The first disturbances began on April 6, 1863, when agitators disrupted a drawing of draft numbers. This quickly escalated into a series of riots across Lower Manhattan. There were isolated riots elsewhere across the Union, notably in Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Columbus. With the state militia at the front, the New York City Police Department was unable to control the rioters.
On 10 April, however, prominent New York ‘Peace Democrats’ Fernando Wood and Horatio Seymour emerged and attempted to regain control of the uprising and declared that New York City would no longer abide by either federal or state laws and would seek friendly relations with the Confederacy. Debate continues to this day as to the extent to which this was intended to be a declaration of secession or whether it was an attempt by Wood and Seymour to calm the rioting, which had threatened to spin out of control. Either way, the federal government in Philadelphia immediately declared this to be an act of treason and ordered Brigadier General John E. Wool to proceed towards the city to put down the uprising.
The Union brought in thousands of reinforcements as well as artillery and a gunboat. Importantly for Union strategy, the uprising did not spread out of Manhattan, with Brooklyn, Staten Island and Westchester County remaining loyal and bases for the Union reconquest. There was fighting on the docks of New York harbour and in the streets up to Lower Manhattan, where the rebels slowed the Union advance and inflicted many casualties. The main rebel positions, centered around City Hall, were gradually surrounded and bombarded with artillery.
With much greater numbers and heavier weapons, the Union Army eventually suppressed the uprising. Wood agreed to an unconditional surrender on 15 April, although sporadic fighting continued briefly. After the surrender, the city remained under martial law with Wool as the military governor. The Union army arrested around 1,500 people and imprisoned them in internment camps in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Most of the leaders of the uprising, including Wood and Seymour, were arrested and prosecuted for treason.
Of the 746 people killed in the Copperhead Rebellion, 384 were civilians, 202 were rebels, 17 were policemen and 143 were Union soldiers. More than 5,000 were wounded, most of them civilians. Many of the dead civilians were members of New York’s pre-war free-black population, who were murdered by mob action in the first days of the uprising. Others were killed in the crossfire when the Union army re-took the city. In addition, the city suffered an estimated $6million in property damage.
Although at the time presenting a serious challenge to Union control of the city, in the long run the uprising proved to be a negative for the peace cause. The ambiguity of New York Democrats’ response to the initial uprising caused a split amongst the Peace Democrat faction in Philadelphia: with the movement stripped of its leader (Stephen Douglas having died in 1861), associated with violence and mob rule and now divided between those who wanted to achieve peace by constitutional means and those openly supporting the Confederacy, the movement entered a terminal spiral and would not survive the Civil War. The military government installed in New York would also prove to be a trial run for the governments installed in the secessionist states after the Civil War was over.
The insurrectionists were overwhelmingly white men, mostly Irish or of Irish descent. The primary causes of the uprising were concerns about the imminent introduction of a national draft to help prosecute the ongoing war against the Confederacy and fear of competition for wages with free black people in the multi-racial republic promised by the Emancipation Act (passed on July 4, 1862, in effect from January 1, 1863). Furthermore, during the antebellum period, a large portion of the economy of New York City was associated with the cotton trade (either processing it in mills or shipping it from the port) and a large number of the city’s citizens believed their business interests to be closely tied to the South. When Southern states began to secede, Mayor Fernando Wood introduced a bill of secession to the city’s Board of Aldermen, which was only narrowly voted down.
Planning for protests had been underway since 1861, under the belief that opposition in major Northern cities would force the federal government to negotiate with the Confederacy. The first disturbances began on April 6, 1863, when agitators disrupted a drawing of draft numbers. This quickly escalated into a series of riots across Lower Manhattan. There were isolated riots elsewhere across the Union, notably in Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Columbus. With the state militia at the front, the New York City Police Department was unable to control the rioters.
On 10 April, however, prominent New York ‘Peace Democrats’ Fernando Wood and Horatio Seymour emerged and attempted to regain control of the uprising and declared that New York City would no longer abide by either federal or state laws and would seek friendly relations with the Confederacy. Debate continues to this day as to the extent to which this was intended to be a declaration of secession or whether it was an attempt by Wood and Seymour to calm the rioting, which had threatened to spin out of control. Either way, the federal government in Philadelphia immediately declared this to be an act of treason and ordered Brigadier General John E. Wool to proceed towards the city to put down the uprising.
The Union brought in thousands of reinforcements as well as artillery and a gunboat. Importantly for Union strategy, the uprising did not spread out of Manhattan, with Brooklyn, Staten Island and Westchester County remaining loyal and bases for the Union reconquest. There was fighting on the docks of New York harbour and in the streets up to Lower Manhattan, where the rebels slowed the Union advance and inflicted many casualties. The main rebel positions, centered around City Hall, were gradually surrounded and bombarded with artillery.
With much greater numbers and heavier weapons, the Union Army eventually suppressed the uprising. Wood agreed to an unconditional surrender on 15 April, although sporadic fighting continued briefly. After the surrender, the city remained under martial law with Wool as the military governor. The Union army arrested around 1,500 people and imprisoned them in internment camps in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Most of the leaders of the uprising, including Wood and Seymour, were arrested and prosecuted for treason.
Of the 746 people killed in the Copperhead Rebellion, 384 were civilians, 202 were rebels, 17 were policemen and 143 were Union soldiers. More than 5,000 were wounded, most of them civilians. Many of the dead civilians were members of New York’s pre-war free-black population, who were murdered by mob action in the first days of the uprising. Others were killed in the crossfire when the Union army re-took the city. In addition, the city suffered an estimated $6million in property damage.
Although at the time presenting a serious challenge to Union control of the city, in the long run the uprising proved to be a negative for the peace cause. The ambiguity of New York Democrats’ response to the initial uprising caused a split amongst the Peace Democrat faction in Philadelphia: with the movement stripped of its leader (Stephen Douglas having died in 1861), associated with violence and mob rule and now divided between those who wanted to achieve peace by constitutional means and those openly supporting the Confederacy, the movement entered a terminal spiral and would not survive the Civil War. The military government installed in New York would also prove to be a trial run for the governments installed in the secessionist states after the Civil War was over.
I see this is based off a real event, I take it that overall the effect of this is the same- flight of black folk to Brooklyn, property damage, economic hardship etc but much worse?
Do the Democrats ever return to winning in New York?
Is New York much more scared cos it seemed to bounce back easily enough OTL?
How does the Irish-American community come out of this?
Do the Democrats ever return to winning in New York?
Is New York much more scared cos it seemed to bounce back easily enough OTL?
How does the Irish-American community come out of this?
Yes. The story is basically as OTL but an order of magnitude more difficult.
No. The Democrats continue briefly after the war as the party of Southern revanchism but are finally killed in the early 1880s. The GOP then splits between the Republicans and the Liberals, with the latter being the small-government, sound-money party until the 1910s and the Great War cause another realignment.
Yes and no. New York is of course going to be an important city in the postwar era, not just as a commercial port but as a financial centre and site for arriving immigrants. There is a more longstanding tension with Brooklyn, however, which results in them remaining separate cities in the 20th and 21st centuries.
One of the most obvious long-term results is that for many decades Irish-Americans are effectively blocked from joining the NYPD and Tammany Hall is clamped down on by the military government.
They did. Initially sentenced to death, his sentence is commuted to imprisonment for the duration of the war. Afterwards he makes an attempt to return to politics but fails and he dies in penury.
Hello to all of you who have been following the somewhat random progress of this TL. Just to outline the slightly-more-planned progress over the next few weeks:
As you will have noticed, this EU thread has been a lot more self-indulgent than the original TL but I hope this will peak/hold your interest.
- Week beginning 13 April - week beginning 4 May: major Commonwealth manufacturing businesses, including the automobile industry.
- Week beginning 11 May: Commonwealth banking industry.
- Week beginning 18 May: major tech companies.
- Week beginning 25 May - week beginning 1 June: Commonwealth and American film and television industries.
As you will have noticed, this EU thread has been a lot more self-indulgent than the original TL but I hope this will peak/hold your interest.
No, I haven't. There's no real conspiracy behind it but I've not put enough thought into it. My initial thoughts are that the Antarctic Treaty System is much the same as OTL: competing territorial claims by more or less the same parties as OTL overlaid by treaties that set the continent aside as a preserve and which therefore prevents any of those claims being acted upon beyond scientific research stations and suchlike. One of the obvious changes would be that Australian, New Zealand and British claims would be administered collectively as a Commonwealth claim. The South Atlantic fleet does have some bases in the Antarctic (particularly on the Palmer Archipelago) but they're resupply bases for the research stations rather than real military bases.
Last edited:
Very interested to see what you’ll do with the major businesses.
I do love automotive alternate timelines; you can find quite a few on this website: https://www.aronline.co.uk/ The only thing that upsets me as much as the decline of the British car industry is the decline of the British aerospace industry.
Your timeline has got me thinking about what might have been for the British/Commonwealth motor industry – almost to the point of ASB.
Maybe the BMC/Rolls Royce/AEC merger that was apparently touted in the 60s goes ahead, eventually leading to a company consisting of Austin-Morris (combined as the split between the marques stopped making sense by the 60s and producing cars that in OTL would be like a cross between Citroen, Fiat and BMW’s MINI), Sterling (a renamed Wolseley – easier to pronounce and sounds more aspirational – that would produce cars a little like Volvo or Skoda in OTL), MG (something like Audi, BMW or a successful Alfa Romeo in OTL), Vanden Plas (something similar to old school Mercedes or Rover in OTL), Austin Healey (something like Corvette or Porsche in OTL), Bentley and Rolls Royce (exactly as they are OTL). No Riley – but see below.
A Triumph-Riley merger would go ahead in the 30s as I think was suggested at the time and the pair of them would then be picked up by Leyland in the 50s. Here’s one big example of ASB: Ford give up on Ford UK as they did with Ford France. Just as Ford of France was sold to Simca, Ford UK is sold to Leyland. Say hello to the Leyland Cortina! Roy Haynes still gets to implement a common platform strategy but not for the Leyland company he went to work for in OTL! Triumph continues its association with Reliant and Leyland-Triumph eventually create an alliance a la Toyota/Suzuki. The Triumph motor cycle company continues to be associated with the car company. The association with Saab that began via Ricardo continues, to the point where Leyland-Triumph save Saab! Yay!
The Rover group continues where the old Rover Car Company finished off at the end of the 60s to become a competitor with Mercedes Benz and BMW by today. One difference is that they collaborate with GM after their purchase of the Buick V8, eventually leading to GM offloading Vauxhall (but not Opel) to Rover in the early 70s.
Jaguar merges with BSA and together, they eventually pick up Singer instead of Rootes; Singer eventually resembles the OTL Audi. They inherit Daimler which goes up against Rolls Royce. They also eventually pick up Aston Martin and Lagonda. The whole package is taken over by the Canadian company Magna to form Magna-BSA at the turn of the twenty first century.
Finally, the Bristol car company (which remains part of the Bristol Company generally, together with the truck/bus and aircraft divisions) expands much further than in OTL, becoming a rival to BMW. It eventually merges with Rootes (which itself picked up, via war reparations, designs for the Beetle and the various cooperative people’s cars put forward by Roy Fedden etc). The Rootes brands are eventually consolidated under one name: Sunbeam. The Bristol company sold off its aero engine division to Armstrong Siddeley, exchanging them for Armstrong Siddeley’s car division in the 60s. Armstrong Siddeley Motor Cars now rivals Bentley. Eventually, the Bristol company takes a controlling share in the struggling Chrysler company to form Bristol-Chrysler, thus establishing an extensive presence in North America.
Ludicrous, I know…but makes me smile. And if Japan can have 18 operating car brands in OTL, then the Commonwealth can have 25ish…!!
I do love automotive alternate timelines; you can find quite a few on this website: https://www.aronline.co.uk/ The only thing that upsets me as much as the decline of the British car industry is the decline of the British aerospace industry.
Your timeline has got me thinking about what might have been for the British/Commonwealth motor industry – almost to the point of ASB.
Maybe the BMC/Rolls Royce/AEC merger that was apparently touted in the 60s goes ahead, eventually leading to a company consisting of Austin-Morris (combined as the split between the marques stopped making sense by the 60s and producing cars that in OTL would be like a cross between Citroen, Fiat and BMW’s MINI), Sterling (a renamed Wolseley – easier to pronounce and sounds more aspirational – that would produce cars a little like Volvo or Skoda in OTL), MG (something like Audi, BMW or a successful Alfa Romeo in OTL), Vanden Plas (something similar to old school Mercedes or Rover in OTL), Austin Healey (something like Corvette or Porsche in OTL), Bentley and Rolls Royce (exactly as they are OTL). No Riley – but see below.
A Triumph-Riley merger would go ahead in the 30s as I think was suggested at the time and the pair of them would then be picked up by Leyland in the 50s. Here’s one big example of ASB: Ford give up on Ford UK as they did with Ford France. Just as Ford of France was sold to Simca, Ford UK is sold to Leyland. Say hello to the Leyland Cortina! Roy Haynes still gets to implement a common platform strategy but not for the Leyland company he went to work for in OTL! Triumph continues its association with Reliant and Leyland-Triumph eventually create an alliance a la Toyota/Suzuki. The Triumph motor cycle company continues to be associated with the car company. The association with Saab that began via Ricardo continues, to the point where Leyland-Triumph save Saab! Yay!
The Rover group continues where the old Rover Car Company finished off at the end of the 60s to become a competitor with Mercedes Benz and BMW by today. One difference is that they collaborate with GM after their purchase of the Buick V8, eventually leading to GM offloading Vauxhall (but not Opel) to Rover in the early 70s.
Jaguar merges with BSA and together, they eventually pick up Singer instead of Rootes; Singer eventually resembles the OTL Audi. They inherit Daimler which goes up against Rolls Royce. They also eventually pick up Aston Martin and Lagonda. The whole package is taken over by the Canadian company Magna to form Magna-BSA at the turn of the twenty first century.
Finally, the Bristol car company (which remains part of the Bristol Company generally, together with the truck/bus and aircraft divisions) expands much further than in OTL, becoming a rival to BMW. It eventually merges with Rootes (which itself picked up, via war reparations, designs for the Beetle and the various cooperative people’s cars put forward by Roy Fedden etc). The Rootes brands are eventually consolidated under one name: Sunbeam. The Bristol company sold off its aero engine division to Armstrong Siddeley, exchanging them for Armstrong Siddeley’s car division in the 60s. Armstrong Siddeley Motor Cars now rivals Bentley. Eventually, the Bristol company takes a controlling share in the struggling Chrysler company to form Bristol-Chrysler, thus establishing an extensive presence in North America.
Ludicrous, I know…but makes me smile. And if Japan can have 18 operating car brands in OTL, then the Commonwealth can have 25ish…!!