AHC: Keep Kent a distinct nation

[Iluvatar]

In OTL, Kent was reportedly the wealthiest of all the pre-English Kingdoms of Britain up until the loss of Lundenwic and the Kingdom's conquest by Mercia and later Wessex. The King of Kent even held the title of Bretwalda for a time.

Your challenge is to keep a 'Kentish' identity as, if not its own state, a genuine form of 'nationalism' akin to that of the Welsh and Cornish. Perhaps play on Kent's Jutish roots in contrast to the Angle and Saxon heritage of most of England.

Bonus points if Kent can stay independent of other English or foreign powers for at least a century longer than it did in OTL.

And yes, I realise this borders on ASB.

 

[James XI]

A Chavopia!

 

[Iluvatar]

A Chavopia!

While north Kent is predominantly Chav, mid and south Kent accents are rather less harshly Estuary.

 

[James XI]

Full disclosure; I have only ever been to Kent in the manner of passing through on train or bus, and encountered exactly zero chavs en route, just going with what my UK chums say.

In all seriousness, it's going to be practically impossible to have the region most proximous to Europe reflect 2 regions isolated by geography. I would actually argue that an independent Kent is much more likely as a more European enclave comprised of a particular incoming power a la Ulster or inverted Calais/Gascony or similar, which is probably pretty doable.

 

[Iluvatar]

Full disclosure; I have only ever been to Kent in the manner of passing through on train or bus, and encountered exactly zero chavs en route, just going with what my UK chums say.

In all seriousness, it's going to be practically impossible to have the region most proximous to Europe reflect 2 regions isolated by geography. I would actually argue that an independent Kent is much more likely as a more European enclave comprised of a particular incoming power a la Ulster or inverted Calais/Gascony or similar, which is probably pretty doable.

How fortunate!

The Wikipedia page suggests a close partnership between Kent and Francia. Could this relationship have continued later into British history (i.e. overlord-client relationship that protects Kent from domination from Mercia or Wessex. Perhaps the Danes could be this 'lieglord'? A client Kent could give the Danes a monopoly on cross-channel trade, perhaps?)?

 

[Falecius]

Full disclosure; I have only ever been to Kent in the manner of passing through on train or bus, and encountered exactly zero chavs en route, just going with what my UK chums say.

In all seriousness, it's going to be practically impossible to have the region most proximous to Europe reflect 2 regions isolated by geography. I would actually argue that an independent Kent is much more likely as a more European enclave comprised of a particular incoming power a la Ulster or inverted Calais/Gascony or similar, which is probably pretty doable.

A cross-channel Flemish Empire?

 

[Iluvatar]

A cross-channel Flemish Empire?

If 'empire' includes client states, that could fit the bill.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Can the rest of Britain being Brythonic-speaking and Kent speaking a British Romance language count?

 

[DanMcCollum]

If I remember, Kent had a very different relationship to Christianity towards the Church than did the other Anglo-Saxon states, partially as a result of its close relationship with the Franks and the Low Lands. Perhaps this would be the basis to help create a Kentish identity. Remember, the challenge is to have Kent survive as a separate national identity, but not as fully independent nation state. This means we just need to have it hold a position akin to Wales, Scotland or even the Isle of Man and Cornwall.

Perhaps we can have Christianity's spread to the rest of England held back for a generation or two (or have them be converted by the Irish, through Northumbria, while Kent gets its conversion through the Franks) and this is enough to help solidify the view that Kent's identity is, somehow, different.

 

[Iluvatar]

Can the rest of Britain being Brythonic-speaking and Kent speaking a British Romance language count?

If it manifested into a local identity, then yes. In Cornwall, nationalistic sentiments are often associated with the old Cornish tongue. I'm not sure if 'Kentish' (a Romance-Jutish hybrid, presumably) would survive as a mainstream local dialect since so much travel and commerce goes through the county.

If I remember, Kent had a very different relationship to Christianity towards the Church than did the other Anglo-Saxon states, partially as a result of its close relationship with the Franks and the Low Lands. Perhaps this would be the basis to help create a Kentish identity. Remember, the challenge is to have Kent survive as a separate national identity, but not as fully independent nation state. This means we just need to have it hold a position akin to Wales, Scotland or even the Isle of Man and Cornwall.

Perhaps we can have Christianity's spread to the rest of England held back for a generation or two (or have them be converted by the Irish, through Northumbria, while Kent gets its conversion through the Franks) and this is enough to help solidify the view that Kent's identity is, somehow, different.

An independent state of Kent would qualify for bonus points, but yes, national identity is the aim. I imagine if Kent kept a separate identity, other traditional English regions would as well - East Anglians, Mercians, Northumbrians and so forth.

I hadn't though of religion as a factor, but that could actually be a good POD. In this case, how far would the Archdiocese of Canterbury extend? Only to Ludenwic (presumably Kent could only remain viably independent if retaining the near-monopoly on cross-channel trade)?

 

[Arkenfolm]

It would have heavy Germanic influence as well as Celtic, but would be indentifiably a Romance language as Romanian (with its own Slavic influence) is. And the people who speak it could emerge as separate than their Brythonic overlords. Although yes, the heaviest areas of Romanisation in Britain were indeed the initial and heaviest areas of Germanic settlement there.

 

[Iluvatar]

It would have heavy Germanic influence as well as Celtic, but would be indentifiably a Romance language as Romanian (with its own Slavic influence) is. And the people who speak it could emerge as separate than their Brythonic overlords. Although yes, the heaviest areas of Romanisation in Britain were indeed the initial and heaviest areas of Germanic settlement there.

By the end of the Kingdom of Kent, I doubt there were many people recognisably Celtic left. Remember, the Jutes arrived in Britain first, and established Kent before other Germanic tribes began to settle.

Is your argument essentially that, had the Jutish language been influenced more by the Romance languages (probably French), a separate identity could be retained?

I don't know how the Cornish language was able to last as long as it did (and it still persists today), but I think it was something to do with enduring Celtic (Welsh) influence, so in theory that could work.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I'm more thinking of something where the Germanic settlement/assimilation of Britain is absorbed into the Roman-era situation of things with Celtic peoples and the local Roman settlers from elsewhere. But yes, Kent was ground zero of Germanic settlement of Britain, and that's an issue.

Cornish has been dead since the 18th century, all Cornish-related things nowadays seems like a residual memory of it.

 

[Iluvatar]

I'm more thinking of something where the Germanic settlement/assimilation of Britain is absorbed into the Roman-era situation of things with Celtic peoples and the local Roman settlers from elsewhere. But yes, Kent was ground zero of Germanic settlement of Britain, and that's an issue.

Cornish has been dead since the 18th century, all Cornish-related things nowadays seems like a residual memory of it.

Was Jutish not distinct enough from Anglo-Saxon tongues?

Maybe if a more Romano-Briton culture remains in Kent (and I believe Kent remained rather more 'Roman' than the rest of Britannia simply due to proximity to the continent), it could combine with Jutish to form a separate language?

The Cornish still often think of themselves as a people apart, even if they don't bother to learn the old Cornish language. When I visited Cornwall, there were no St. George's Crosses, only St. Piran's Flag. Maybe the criteria for success in this challenge should be to make the Kentish Flag (Invicta Flag) more commonplace in Kent than the flag of England:

 

[The Professor]

To keep Kent separate you'll have to go back to the settling of Britain by the Angles, Saxons, and "Jutes" (who I consider to be by this time more like Saxons with Frankish culture).
Keep a vaguely/partly united postRoman Britain and it'll slow settlement, especially if the Thames basin remains disputed. Do it for long enough and you could force excess Saxons to leave for OTL Brittany and Kent would dominate the southeast versus 1 or more Angle kingdoms to its north.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

You'd probably want to keep England quite decentralised, a la pre-Revolution France. That way you'd expect to see stronger regional identities, including Kentish.

 

[Iluvatar]

To keep Kent separate you'll have to go back to the settling of Britain by the Angles, Saxons, and "Jutes" (who I consider to be by this time more like Saxons with Frankish culture).
Keep a vaguely/partly united postRoman Britain and it'll slow settlement, especially if the Thames basin remains disputed. Do it for long enough and you could force excess Saxons to leave for OTL Brittany and Kent would dominate the southeast versus 1 or more Angle kingdoms to its north.

Were the Jutes not separate enough then? I thought Hengist and Horsa would have given them a pretty distinct heritage and identity compared to the Saxons and Angles. I imagine the distinction must have been fairly visible considering the references to the 'Jutish' nature of Kent in various historial records. And remember the Kentish (Cantware?) were very fond of burying the deceased, whereas Saxons and Angles often used cremation.

In OTL, Kent's status as bretwalda was lost due to the rise of Mercia, and the loss of Lundenwic (early London) to the Kingdom of Mercia. Kent was finally eliminated entirely by Wessex when the Danes invaded. Would a more united Romano-British 'state' prevent the rise of a territorially larger Kingdom such as Mercia or Wessex, leaving Lundenwic in Kent's control?

I'm interested to know why you say Angle as opposed to Saxon. Are you suggesting that Essex would become subordinate to Kent in that situation? Sounds possible.

Which of the three was Mercia?

You'd probably want to keep England quite decentralised, a la pre-Revolution France. That way you'd expect to see stronger regional identities, including Kentish.

Can you think of a possible POD? Did Anglo-Saxon (pre 1066) England retain the sense of the traditional Heptarchy in its administrative divisions? Kent was able to become a palatinate under William the Conqueror, so perhaps a non-Norman England would retain Kentish, South-Saxon, Mercian (etc.) identities?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Clearly, it kent be done!

 

[Iluvatar]

Clearly, it kent be done!

 

[The Professor]

Were the Jutes not separate enough then? I thought Hengist and Horsa would have given them a pretty distinct heritage and identity compared to the Saxons and Angles. I imagine the distinction must have been fairly visible considering the references to the 'Jutish' nature of Kent in various historial records. And remember the Kentish (Cantware?) were very fond of burying the deceased, whereas Saxons and Angles often used cremation.

In OTL, Kent's status as bretwalda was lost due to the rise of Mercia, and the loss of Lundenwic (early London) to the Kingdom of Mercia. Kent was finally eliminated entirely by Wessex when the Danes invaded. Would a more united Romano-British 'state' prevent the rise of a territorially larger Kingdom such as Mercia or Wessex, leaving Lundenwic in Kent's control?

I'm interested to know why you say Angle as opposed to Saxon. Are you suggesting that Essex would become subordinate to Kent in that situation? Sounds possible.

Which of the three was Mercia?

A lot of Jutish customs are fairly similar to Frankish ones post-Christianisation so I tend to subscribe to the idea that they were the Saxones Eucii who were Saxon tribes under Frankish suzerainty before the migration to Britain.
Mercia formed out of the West Angle tribes as they headed westward but soon incorporated various Saxons heading north. A more united post Roman state covering the midlands would impede this and stop the rise of Mercia. This could lead to Kent maintaining its control over most of the Germanic tribes south of the Humber.
Mercia itself was a bit of a melting pot and can be thought of one of the forces erasing the differences between those who called themselves Saxons and those who called themselves Angles.
Saxons themselves settled the southcoast and moved north and west, Angles settled the eastcoast and moved west and north/south (NB The Humber was a major division due to late control of Lindsey and Angles north of it called Northumbrians, those south called Southumbrians). This Wikipedia picture helps highlight current ideas for c600ce: