1668: Capital of England moves to Oxford

Having visited the Museum of London's recent exhibition on the 1666 Great Fire of London, I was surprised to learn that the English government gave serious consideration to moving the capital to Oxford as they were concerned over the length of time it was going to take to rebuild London. This led the leading merchants and residents of London to rebuild at a greater speed (interestingly, partly funded by a public appeal to other parts of the country).
As a result king Charles II and his ministers abandoned the idea.

Ok, what if they didn't and did move the capital to Oxford, what effects would this have on English history? To throw a few possible lines of thought out there

Would this have any effect on the development of, say, the rail network? Rather than radiating out of London, would the focus be on Oxford?

Would we see a 'University College London'-type institute in Oxford instead? If so,could this effect future development of new univeristies in England, perhaps with a continued focus on Oxford and Cambridge rather than new insitutions elsewhere?

Would Oxford grow like London and absorb surrounding villages? In contrast, how would London and the southeast develop? a much smaller London than OTL and the absorbed villages and towns remaining seperate?

Given Oxford's more inland position, would this lead to a different way of defending Great Britain during the Napoleonic Wars? Indeed, could this new capital have meant a different focus for coastal defences generally?

What effect, if any, would it have on Bonnie Prince Charlie's invasion of England?

and a couple of post-1900 thoughts-would the Royal Family still have changed its name to 'Windsor' or would the move of capital have meant a new primary royal residence nearer to Oxford and that becoming the family name?

In the Battle of Britain, I think London was close to the limit of the ME109's range. If so, (and assuming WW2 progresses as OTL) would the German air force have been willing to risk bombing the capital in daylight if it meant the bombers would have been without fighter escort for the last part of the outward flight?
 
Even if it's rebuilt slower, London would remain the most important city in England. You can't expect a city to develop just because the capital's moved there. Just look at the historical example of Bonn. Cities are chosen as capitals because they're developed, not the other way arund.
 
Even if it's rebuilt slower, London would remain the most important city in England. You can't expect a city to develop just because the capital's moved there. Just look at the historical example of Bonn. Cities are chosen as capitals because they're developed, not the other way arund.

But Bonn only became the capital after 1945, we are talking about a change at a time when London was considerably smaller than today and whilst the largest city in England, long before its Industrial Revolution growth.

Some of England's largest cities today only exist because of the Industrial Revolution, the same applies to large parts of London, and often those areas (esp east London) were industrial or commercial because they were at the heart of government.
 
Some of England's largest cities today only exist because of the Industrial Revolution, the same applies to large parts of London, and often those areas (esp east London) were industrial or commercial because they were at the heart of government.

London had the Thames, the largest population in the kingdom and long-established merchant communities. What does Oxford have? The government. Good luck with that, I can't think of any way it would seriously stimulate the economy.
 
Even if it's rebuilt slower, London would remain the most important city in England. You can't expect a city to develop just because the capital's moved there. Just look at the historical example of Bonn. Cities are chosen as capitals because they're developed, not the other way arund.

I'm pretty sure that London would remain the largest city even if was not the capital, but being the location of the government does tend to stimulate growth. In the USA, there probably would be no city at all on the location of Washington DC if the federal government had not been headquartered there. Granted, Washington DC was a small city (or a large town) until the WWII era, because the federal government in the USA was not that big. Britain's government was somewhat larger and stronger than that of the USA, though, so I suspect Oxford would grow substantially in the 17th and 18th centuries, though it would still be much smaller than London. When railroads came, Oxford would be an early rail hub because the government was there. I'm not sure if it would develop much industry or not.
 

Philip

Donor
Perhaps the capital returns to London, and Oxford becomes a summer (or winter or whenever the climate is nice(r)) residence.
 
I could see Oxford being an administrative city, but the cultural, mercantile centre will return to London - it's been an important city since Classical times, a fire isn't going to change that. Even if the public purse doesn't pay for rebuilding, private interests will.

Think Brasilia vs Rio de Janeiro - one is the capital, the other is the most important city.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Perhaps the capital returns to London, and Oxford becomes a summer (or winter or whenever the climate is nice(r)) residence.

The two cities aren't that far away, the climates are essentially identical - and neither of them is much nicer than the other!
 

Thande

Donor
Well, common sense would suggest the capital would eventually move back to London as VoCSe says. But it might be interesting if the capital is still in Oxford when James becomes King, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility, given how long it took to rebuild London in OTL. Then we could have a repeat of the Civil War, if William of Orange lands in London for the Glorious Revolution and declares it the capital once more, but if Oxford stays loyal to the Stuarts.
 
I could see Oxford being an administrative city, but the cultural, mercantile centre will return to London - it's been an important city since Classical times, a fire isn't going to change that. Even if the public purse doesn't pay for rebuilding, private interests will.

Think Brasilia vs Rio de Janeiro - one is the capital, the other is the most important city.

Not a bad analogy, I think power would stay where the money is, even if it had to spend 2 months out of the year, at some kindof administrative capital.

Than again, Oxford isn't exactly a concerted attempt to settle a rather under-developed interior.

Just out of curiosity, could the Crown, and Parliment have two different seats?

That might allow for more shenanigans between the Royals and Parliment..

Nice :D
 
And Oxford used to have industry....I think the appalling Oxbridge power link would be worse than it is now. With Oxford outweighing Cambridge.

If the commercial hub was still London, then the rail network would still be based around London. However, there would be a fast, direct line between Oxford and London.
 
But Oxford is less useful as a port because it's more inland.

Anyway, the British crown in the 17th century is simply not going to care how developed the capital is.

A: It wasn't the English crown until the 18th Century, and the Acts of Union.

B: If you'd read the first post, you'd realise that yes, in fact, they would, given that they considered moving to more-developed (or at least less-burnt) Oxford, which was the whole point of the thread.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
But Oxford is less useful as a port because it's more inland.

Anyway, the British crown in the 17th century is simply not going to care how developed the capital is.

However, oceanic shipping can't go much above London. Although there was huge barge traffic between Oxford and London.
 
A: It wasn't the English crown until the 18th Century, and the Acts of Union.

My bad.

B: If you'd read the first post, you'd realise that yes, in fact, they would, given that they considered moving to more-developed (or at least less-burnt) Oxford, which was the whole point of the thread.

Oxford was more developed in that it could actually be called a city after the fire.
 
Top