AHC: Latest British Normandy

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I'm a bit of a Britwank mood lately, reading up on the War of the Roses and whatnot.

This challenge is basically 'is there any opportunity after losing their possessions in France that London could regain control over at least Normandy?'

Preferably Calais-Picardy as well, but I'm not holding out hope for Aquitaine, Gascony, et al.

 

[Zachariah]

Hmm. Latest possible date? If they really routed the French after the Napoleonic wars, perhaps then? Or for a real slingshot, how about having the British join the Franco-Prussian war on the side of the North German Confederation (not that far a stretch, given the historical ties between the British Monarchy and the Prussian monarchy, and the then Crown Prince Frederick's marriage to Victoria, Princess Royal)? Then, after their victory alongside the Prussians in the war, while the German annex Alsace-Lorraine (and probably a fair bit else as well- maybe a profitable colony or two? They definitely wanted those) from the French, the British could annex Normandy or (more realistically, given the extent of the Germans' occupation zone, and the attitudes of the people there) Brittany from the French themselves, to get what they most wanted at the time, increased influence and power in continental Europe. IMHO, 1871 would be the latest time when they could possibly pull it off. Of course, this would also be a massive Deutschwank as well, but hey, no problem with that, is there?

 

[Monter]

Nah, after the 17th century the English/British has no ambition in acquiring continental holding through conquest (even Hanover was seen as a burden), as after acquiring Dunkerque in the Franco-Spanish War Charles I sold it to French as it was expensive to maintain.

So I did say something around the 16th century, with the English keeping Calais and a more expansionist and anti-French foreign policy aiming to recover the "ancestral territories" or whatever they what to brand the conquest.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I think the Franco-Prussian War may be entirely too late. The British were on very good terms with Napoleon III's France at the time, and by no means on Prussia's side. Besides which, continental expansionism likely ended when the British lost Hanover.

A Napoleonic POD, though, is an interesting idea. For a brief timeline of events, I wonder if an earlier European peace which leaves the British angry at Napoleon's France, or a more successful Napoleonic Empire, could provoke the British into instigating another war a few years later when they have recovered. In this second war, nationalist fervour in Britain is at a head, and the title Duke of Normandy is thrown around alot in front of the king. At the end, the Bourbons are restored, but Normandy is broken off as an independent fiefdom in personal union with Britain to weaken France. It is later annexed outright and integrated for security reasons during another war.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Nah, after the 17th century the English/British has no ambition in acquiring continental holding through conquest (even Hanover was seen as a burden), as after acquiring Dunkerque in the Franco-Spanish War Charles I sold it to French as it was expensive to maintain.

So I did say something around the 16th century, with the English keeping Calais and a more expansionist and anti-French foreign policy aiming to recover the "ancestral territories" or whatever they what to brand the conquest.

I had a feeling it would be as early as that. I wonder if a smaller overseas empire, and the rise of nationalism in later years, could somehow convince the populace to elect someone resembling Mussolini to power who might want to break the French. As above, in the event of a Napoleonic victory, perhaps British resentment towards France is strong enough to warrant such a man coming to power in the future.

 

[Zachariah]

I think the Franco-Prussian War may be entirely too late. The British were on very good terms with Napoleon III's France at the time, and by no means on Prussia's side. Besides which, continental expansionism likely ended when the British lost Hanover.

Well, I did say the latest possible, not the latest probable.

 

[jkarr]

We do still have British Normandy.
Their called the Channel Islands, who see the Queen as Duke of Normandy

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

We do still have British Normandy.
Their called the Channel Islands, who see the Queen as Duke of Normandy

Don't be that guy.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, it's quite hard to do, giving the huge unbalance of forces between England/Britain and France when it comes to direct, continental confrontation. Not impossible, mind you, but it would require a France severely weakened by another continental power (say, Habsburgs) to the point an England/Britain allied to this continental power could take some scraps without real threat from a rump France.
That said, what played against England/Britain historically would play against other continental power at least; and even a rump, "balkanized" France would be a dangerous prospect as really damaging the balance of power (meaning that keeping scraps from France would be hard to maintain admist a huge geopolitical tempest).

I'd rather see a Flemish coastal territory (roughly from Boulogne to Anvers), but even that would ask for particularily important changes on continental geopolitics.

 

[kasumigenx]

The thing is what we needed is for the English King to lose Gascony rather than Normandy in the Battle of the Bouvines, I think what should happen is for Berengaria of Castile to marry Louis VIII as her third husband after Alfonso of Leon as she is the heiress to Gascony..

 

[LSCatilina]

The thing is what we needed is for the English King to lose Gascony rather than Normandy in the Revolt of the Bouvines

Assuming you meant the Battle of Bouvines, it's definitely not going to happen : Capetians couldn't care less about Gascony at this point (too far from their sphere of influence, basically) when Normandy was litterally at their front door and part of their geopolitical strategy for generations (more or less in order to control as much as Seine basin as possible).

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Gold Beach and Sword Beach from 6 June, 1944.

 

[yulzari]

We do still have British Normandy.
Their called the Channel Islands, who see the Queen as Duke of Normandy

Ah Yes. The Anglo-Norman Islands.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Regardless of what happens in the 1600s and 1700s, British Normandy will eventually fall if the French Revolution happens even somewhat like OTL. The period of almost unquestioned French superiority on the ground, after the implementation of the levee en masse, between 1794 and 1796 would give them the perfect opportunity to take Normandy. Personally, I don't think the English could hold on through the Sun King's reign, but they'd probably have a better chance there than the Revolution.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Apparently, 1940 or so, according to
The Anglo/American - Nazi War

 

[funnyhat]

Hmm. Latest possible date? If they really routed the French after the Napoleonic wars, perhaps then?

The problem with the Napoleonic War idea is that the British and their allies were ostensibly fighting on behalf of the House of Bourbon to restore its throne. It was one thing to seize an overseas possession like Mauritius or St. Lucia, but to take an integral part of France away would delegitimize the rule of the man they were fighting to make its King.

 

[Balaur]

France goes full Nazi being invaded and throws in it's lot with Germany. How this happens, I have no clue. After an alternate D-day and victory in Europe, Britain gets Normandy as an occupation zone.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

The problem with the Napoleonic War idea is that the British and their allies were ostensibly fighting on behalf of the House of Bourbon to restore its throne. It was one thing to seize an overseas possession like Mauritius or St. Lucia, but to take an integral part of France away would delegitimize the rule of the man they were fighting to make its King.

What about the Napoleonic idea I had above? Napoleon manages to win in Round 1, but then in a later war the resentful British decide to snatch up Normandy/Calais-Picardy to punish France, and with the anti-French feelings so rampant at the time, they also start ejecting the French en masse and slowly but surely replacing them with British settlers.

 

[funnyhat]

What about the Napoleonic idea I had above? Napoleon manages to win in Round 1, but then in a later war the resentful British decide to snatch up Normandy/Calais-Picardy to punish France, and with the anti-French feelings so rampant at the time, they also start ejecting the French en masse and slowly but surely replacing them with British settlers.

That's ASB. This would guarantee an uprising in Normandy and most likely a declaration of war by the new French king - the very man Britain has fought to install - because no French ruler would ever accept this. Normandy is a core cultural region of France. It would be akin to trying to take the Home Counties away from England.

If France is going to lose any European territory it would have to be one of the regions on its periphery, like Alsace or the Basque Country. Even that would be difficult because again, the objective of the war was to restore the map to the way it were before the Revolution and establish a lasting peace, not to leave an angry, unstable France itching for revenge. Keep in mind that France in 1800 has three times the population of Britain.