Kinnock was continued working as a teacher whilst supporting non-violent Welsh dissident groups on the side. He never did anything big enough to get the attention of the authorities so apart from the occasional wack from a police officer at a protest he had a fairly peaceful Junta.
If I'm reading it right, based on the Southern European dictatorships IOTL (I'm thinking Greece here, as I was somewhat more familiar with it in my reading), citizens would probably still could travel abroad (they basically needed emigration badly as a way to provide extra revenue for the government, hence why so many worked abroad) and no British Chuch'e would be needed (yes, I'm spelling that Korean word old-school style). In this case, there may be some monitoring by the intelligence services to make sure its citizens didn't stray too far from what was acceptable (i.e. no repeats of Orlando Letelier or Kostas Georgakis or anything like that) unless they really wanted to truly defect. Nor would Britain itself be truly isolated - indeed, this was even true in Greece under the dictatorship, though in the range of, say, film the BBFC (which I'm assuming got nationalized) may probably curb some of the perceived excesses, as IOTL.Even so, it's not North Korea, nor, I imagine, the German Democratic Republic. Presumably British people were able to travel abroad ? It's hard to isolate Britain from the rest of the world and to be fair you don't suggest Mountbatten or Hill-Norton advocating a form of British Juche.
Lots less and probably a much more hardline stance on illegal immigrationTo be honest, considering what people have said and the points raised, it's probably better to use some minor handwavium via some natalism and 'poorer = more kids' to make Britain's population roughly the same or perhaps higher.
Certainly immigration and population growth from 2005 onwards (and really from the 70s onwards as well) should be radically different TTL.
Go on TV and say "Mountbatten is a twat and he doesn't have my support, stop this right now."How much could she do to stop it, realistically speaking?
The basic premise of the TL is implausible as it is.Go on TV and say "Mountbatten is a twat and he doesn't have my support, stop this right now."
The military swears an oath to the Queen, not to a has-been who gave away India and his wife - both to Nehru, as it happened. If the palace had made clear their opposition to the coup, most of the soldiers would have stood down.
I'm going off of the Spanish coup attempt in 1980. Juan Carlos told them to stand down and they did. The Queen is far more respected in the UK than Juan Carlos ever was in Spain. If the coup succeeds, I'm going to assume its because the palace allowed it to. In which case she would lose most of the world's respect.The basic premise of the TL is implausible as it is.
That doesn't mean we can't enjoy reading it.
Besides, an "oath to the Queen" doesn't really mean all that much in the grand scheme of things.
Britain's colonies fall around the same time, whilst Mountbatten was more inclined to fight for the colonies, with the instability at home and international condemnation abroad the Junta doesn't have the political capital to hold onto their overseas colonies.Great start, and perfect timing since I rewatched S3 of The Crown on my flight back home. I'm curious about the 1960s and 70s, does Britain hold onto her remaining colonies for a bit longer?
I would assume it's something like "Your Excellency".How do you address the First Lord? Is it "Your Lordship" or "Mr First Lord?"
And more to the point, if it's the former, and you have an American president like Jimmy Carter who probably doesn't appreciate Britain's democracy being overturned by a coup, is it possible an unfriendly American president might tweak the nose the first Lord by calling him "Mr First Lord?"