AHC: A present day U.K that is composed of a decent size territory on mainland Europe

So the present day UK composed of the British Isles minus much of Ireland but with territory on the mainland of Europe. This territory would be as much a part of the UK as wales or scotland for example.
 
It should probably be a territory obtained in the XVIIIth century at best : before, continental pressure would be eventually too important to allow England or Britain to have a definite presence.

Now, as much integrated into UK than Scotland? It seems quite hard : you had a continuous policy on this matter since centuries, you didn't have even with Ireland, even less with possible continental holdings.

It may require a failing British colonial policy, forcing a re-focus on mainland interests, as a stronger tie with Hanover : historically, it was seen with relative disinterest, when not seen as a load forcing London to act on European matters. If you don't have a real prospect in Americas (Canada, Newfoundland, etc.) maybe it could change up to a tighter personal union?

But even there, I don't see it being in the same scale of Scotland, making UK an asymmetric federal union.
 
I'm not so sure : a (even) more aggressive Prussia in the 1830's, pushing a part of Hanoverian elites into British arms, may be enough to have an "agreement" over succession.
 
There was a proposal in the mid 1700s for the Southern Netherlands to be split several ways with the Brits getting a slice.
 
Not losing the Hundred Years' War?

The succession of conflicts (not only HYW, but as well the "first HYW" before), points that it wasn't winnable, assuming we understood union of the crown as the objective of the war.

At worst, it would have turned into a war of attrition, and while France had really divided periods up to civil war, it benefited from serious resources' advantage, demographically, military and fiscally-wise.
England did held up more than honorably on this regard, but with a Parliament hostile to spend English resources about it, it only deepened this gap.

There's a reason why the war lasted decades, or why Plantagenets preferred to make truce and peace of compromise as Brétigny as more realistic objectives while they clearly had the upper hand, over taking over the french crown with dubious rights.

Now, at best, a PoD where Charles VII dies before his sacre would certainly help. Armagnacs would have loss their main rally banner : it doesn't mean that a conquest is possible, but I could see the 2/3 of France under Charles VII's rule to eventually accept to recognize Henri II/VI as king even if more or less nominally.

That said, it means no UK to speak of ITTL : at best, it would have ended with an uneasy personal union where French part would get too much importance on regard to England (probably ending the same way than Spanish-Portugal union, except England would probably plays the junior partner there).

If England can't secure resources to counterbalance continental pressure (as it with with colonial resources), mainland holdings are likely to be took over.
 

jahenders

Banned
So the present day UK composed of the British Isles minus much of Ireland but with territory on the mainland of Europe. This territory would be as much a part of the UK as wales or scotland for example.

Britain (and/or British lords) had holdings in Brittany and Normandy off and on for a long time and dominated most of France for a time. You could have a France that's slightly less organized or has more trouble elsewhere. Couple that with a less divided Britain and you could have the UK solidify its hold on (say) Brittany and Normandy such that France never truly takes them.
 
Saying that England or English lords ruled over continental holdings is quite misleading.

Angevine Empire, in spite of its name, certainly wasn't an unified demesne. It was rather a feudal Plantagenet hegemony on really diverse demesnes, themselves often divided in small entities (especially Aquitaine, that was a true political mosaic) not ruled from England or by Anglo-Norman lords, but by their own local nobility and elites.

Hence why the revolts of Henry II's sons fit remarkably the demesnes they received : Aquitaine, Anjou, Normandy, etc. each with their own identity, their own structures, their own interests. On this regard, Plantagenet hegemony knew the same issues than Capetian kingship, while on a different scale.

All of that under the still present suzerainty of the French kings that could play on the feudal piano quite easily : while this Capetian overlordship was less present than Plantagenet more direct suzerainty, it remained a very important feature allowing Plantagenet's vavassors to bypass possible disagreements, for exemple, or preventing Plantagenet's expansion (as Henry II's war against Raimond V in 1159)
 
Here's an idea: have Louis VII fail to produce a male heir/die early. At this point the Salic law had yet to be encoded for the succession and the throne was technically still elective. The succession would be disputed between many heirs, with Henry II in the best position to claim the throne, either for himself via election or for his son as the son-in-law of the late King. The legitimacy would be a grey area, but the Plantagenets were the strongest vassals of the French crown, neither of Louis VII's brothers were in a particularly strong position and the English King could produce the largest army and bribes to ensure a family member's selection.

Not the easiest thing to pull of, but I think it would be doable.
 
Top