AHC: Single national identity in the British Isles

[BELFAST]

An early conquest of Scotland by England or a royal union between the two countries would be ideal.
Scotland has very little population, and if it has a friendly and peaceful relationship (Royal Union) with England (or is part of it / conquest) it will be assimilated.
Scotland currently has 5 million inhabitants, in the 11th or 12th century it should have a population of between 100,000 and 500,000 people, and most of it live in the south of the country. Through marriages and migration it will be colonized.
Although the union or conquest of Scotland should be before the alliance between Scotland and France, that alliance began to create a certain nationalism.

On the other hand, Ireland was partially culturally and linguistically integrated by England (Northern Ireland). Perhaps a stronger famine caused by the potatoes taking more lives and a stronger future English migration to Ireland would suffice.

On the other hand, it was not only Catholicism that marked Irish identity, but also that England never treated him as an equal (like Scotland). Because that difference avoided total assimilation ... After all if the Kings / Parliaments treat them differently (Scotland and Ireland) it must be because they are different ...

PS: France by force of numbers assimilated Brittany, Normandy, Gascony, Provence and Burgundy. England by force of numbers should be able to assimilate Scotland and Ireland (and Wales).

That might be possible if the Brtish had not spent so much time and effort creating a worldwide empire.
There were better places in the empire where English settlers could go and Ireland was never important enough for the English to take the time and effort needed to assimilate them.
To the English, Ireland was just a bothersome nuisance and not worth putting much time or effort into assimilating and is still seen as a problem during the Brexit.
Rebellion in Scotland was nixed by the clearances and the breaking of the clan system.
If industry spread to Ireland and Ireland become a major manufacturing centre then would make the assimilation of Ireland would be much easier.
Ireland was the one part of the British Isles where the industrial revolution did not happen on a large scale.
If the English wanted the Irish to become Anglican they should have banned the Irish from becoming Anglicans. Tell the Irish to do everything their priests and bishops say. Paying a tithe to the catholic church would also make being catholic a lot less popular. Then becoming Anglican would seem a lot more interesting to the Irish.

 

[BELFAST]

The brutal occupation and massacres were substantially due to the religious sectarianism, however. The mentality of the Cromwellian occupation certainly was due to Puritan hatred of Catholics. And the Famine didn't have strong relief efforts because the Catholics mainly affected didn't get a vote due to religious animosity.

Most Irish did not get to vote due to the requirement to have a rate valuation above that that most people had.
only people who controlled a large amount of land or property could vote.
The lack of relief in Ireland was partly because of the large number that needed it and the collapse of the farming economy meaning the relief could become long term.
In the end deaths from the famine and emigration solved the problem of too many people needing relief.

 

[BELFAST]

I think for this to happen the romans would've had to conquer all of the british isles, building roads and connecting people.

Road building in Ireland with Roman methods would be very hard due to how much of the country was covered in bogs where Roman roads would sink.

 

[BELFAST]

Three reasons:

1. It ties the forming of the United Kingdom to a positive effect for the Irish from the get go.

2. It happens before the formation of romantic nationalism which is when a bunch of national identity mythology gets locked down.

3. It means the British parliament would not be as grossly negligent over the response to the Great Famine, which removes the biggest anti-British narrative from the picture

It is hard to see the British giving enough famine relief to stop the famine.
It would mean feeding up to 4 million people long term.
The Irish economy these people relied on was based on exporting wheat and grain to Britain.
With the repeal of the corn laws, the price of wheat and grain collapsed so Irish rent farmers could not pay the rent on their small farms and were evicted.
Long term there were too many people in Ireland who were dependant on the export of these crops who now had no work or home or any way of feeding themselves.
If there were industrial jobs in Ireland for them to move to in the cities than might be a different story.
For a long time, Ireland was a useful source of wheat and grain, but as shipping improved it become a lot cheaper to import the wheat and grain from the Americans or elsewhere that to buy it in Ireland.

 

[BELFAST]

What you need to make a united British isles is a common enemy.
Napoleon taking over the British isles and after a long struggle, the French are forced out.
100 years of being forced to speak French and use the metric system and drive on the wrong side of the road and the landed gentry and aristocracy etc going to the guillotine. The common language in the British isles could become French.
That might work, but would be very unpleasant.
That would mean no British empire.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

What you need to make a united British isles is a common enemy.
Napoleon taking over the British isles and after a long struggle, the French are forced out.
100 years of being forced to speak French and use the metric system and drive on the wrong side of the road and the landed gentry and aristocracy etc going to the guillotine. The common language in the British isles could become French.
That might work, but would be very unpleasant.
That would mean no British empire.

Surely it's possible without such a drastic measure?

 

[Gloss]

Three reasons:

1. It ties the forming of the United Kingdom to a positive effect for the Irish from the get go.

2. It happens before the formation of romantic nationalism which is when a bunch of national identity mythology gets locked down.

3. It means the British parliament would not be as grossly negligent over the response to the Great Famine, which removes the biggest anti-British narrative from the picture

Given Scottish nationalism in the last 2 decades we can readily discount the idea that the act of union would surely remove Irish nationalism, heck even Wales at this point, especially considering that the Irish would remain catholic and that the linguistic division is still there.

 

[Dr Dee]

Aside from Scotland and Ireland, may I address the issue of Wales? Or, as it's popularly known, 'Even Wales'?

Let's just remember that Wales is England's oldest and nearest colony. During over a thousand years of interference from its relatively huge neighbour, it has maintained its national identity in pretty unpromising circumstances. No separate legal system, the Acts of Union, little geographical coherence or unity, the Anglicisation of its gentry, the massive influx of English speaking incomers during 19th century industrialisation, the lack of a coherent movement for civic nationalism (up until very recently, perhaps), heck the comparative ignorance of those outside the British Isles about its very existence. Despite all of that, and more, Wales has maintained its identity.

 

[Socrates]

Given Scottish nationalism in the last 2 decades we can readily discount the idea that the act of union would surely remove Irish nationalism, heck even Wales at this point, especially considering that the Irish would remain catholic and that the linguistic division is still there.

I tend to agree but not sure Scottish nationalism would get off the ground without Irish independence

 

[Socrates]

Aside from Scotland and Ireland, may I address the issue of Wales? Or, as it's popularly known, 'Even Wales'?

Let's just remember that Wales is England's oldest and nearest colony. During over a thousand years of interference from its relatively huge neighbour, it has maintained its national identity in pretty unpromising circumstances. No separate legal system, the Acts of Union, little geographical coherence or unity, the Anglicisation of its gentry, the massive influx of English speaking incomers during 19th century industrialisation, the lack of a coherent movement for civic nationalism (up until very recently, perhaps), heck the comparative ignorance of those outside the British Isles about its very existence. Despite all of that, and more, Wales has maintained its identity.

Yet Cornwall did not. I actually think Wales maintaining a separate identity was a close run thing, and could easily have just become a regional identity if the French Revolution and the growth of nationalism was 50 years later.

 

[Gloss]

Let's just remember that Wales is England's oldest and nearest colony.

Given that the definition of the colony is completely arbitrary, you might as well call England itself a colony of Lower Saxony and Jutland.

During over a thousand years of interference from its relatively huge neighbour, it has maintained its national identity in pretty unpromising circumstances.

Wales was never unified politically at large and when there were attempts at it they remained briefly, how can it preserve a national identity that could only really form under English rule?

No separate legal system, the Acts of Union, little geographical coherence or unity, the Anglicisation of its gentry, the massive influx of English speaking incomers during 19th century industrialisation, the lack of a coherent movement for civic nationalism (up until very recently, perhaps), heck the comparative ignorance of those outside the British Isles about its very existence. Despite all of that, and more, Wales has maintained its identity.

"Despite the non-existence of the identity in upper section of the population, the lack of any political representation at all and the fact I provided no evidence of it, Wales maintained its identity"

More like devolution and things like having separate sports teams gave fuel for something that actually most people didn't care about even when fewer people spoke English or when Wales was economically and demographically more isolated from England, but I guess we live in this imaginary world where Wales was always trying to escape English rule... oh no, we actually aren't.

Heck in the Little-England-Beyond-Wales, about half of the population identifies as Welsh, literally a medieval English settlement identifies as Welsh, it's almost as if the Welsh identity is not some primordial thing that survived through evil English rule but a changing phenomenon that today ended up integrating people with English ancestry readily, even 19th century ones at this point given South Wales and considering that 20% of the modern Welsh population is from England.

 

[BELFAST]

Surely it's possible without such a drastic measure?

I cannot think of anything else that other than a common enemy and a long very unpleasant occupation to build a national identity for the British isles.
The process of building a national id is usually a bloody one.
History after all is one Bloody thing after another.

 

[Gloss]

Yet Cornwall did not. I actually think Wales maintaining a separate identity was a close run thing, and could easily have just become a regional identity if the French Revolution and the growth of nationalism was 50 years later.

It was a regional thing since recently:

Religion and national feeling in nineteenth-century Wales and Scotland | Studies in Church History | Cambridge Core

Religion and national feeling in nineteenth-century Wales and Scotland - Volume 18

www.cambridge.org

This ties back to my example in other countries, you will hear people make the claim that Wales, Scotland and Ireland were colonies and have people literally make up victim narratives when at the same time other distinctive regions in other countries could treat similar events completely different or not care at all, so focusing on events to try to change perspective is pointless, given we human have the ability to forget, not care and also make up, exaggerate or twist the past to suit our current biases.

 

[Dr Dee]

Yet Cornwall did not. I actually think Wales maintaining a separate identity was a close run thing, and could easily have just become a regional identity if the French Revolution and the growth of nationalism was 50 years later.

Some of those elements I mentioned as militating against the preservation of a Welsh national identity (i.e. industrialisation) actually helped to keep that national identity alive - or at least on life support - up to the uncertain first developments of distinctively Welsh institutions (Eisteddfod, National Museum/Library/University etc etc). So while industrialisation sucked in many Anglophone workers from England/Ireland/Scotland, it also drew in Welsh speakers to places like Merthyr Tydfil which for a long time was entirely Welsh speaking and bigger than Cardiff, giving them some kind of urban critical mass - although it ultimately was anglicised. There was no big Welsh diaspora (at least on the scale of Ireland or Scotland) because there didn't really need to be one - internal migration was the thing. Cornwall had nothing like that (as far as I know) and so perhaps it was a more of a sitting duck for assimilation.

I'd like to know more about how you think the French Revolution and growth of nationalism might have pushed Wales into becoming simply a region (like a British Brittany?) Speaking of revolution, I've often wondered whether things like the Merthyr Rising (about 40 years after the French Revolution) or the Chartist Uprising in South Wales might have helped in creating a more strident, even violent Welsh national identity if nationalist movements of the type that sputtered out in Wales (Cymru Fydd etc) came about 50 years earlier.

 

[Dr Dee]

This ties back to my example in other countries, you will hear people make the claim that Wales, Scotland and Ireland were colonies and have people literally make up victim narratives when at the same time other distinctive regions in other countries could treat similar events completely different or not care at all, so focusing on events to try to change perspective is pointless, given we human have the ability to forget, not care and also make up, exaggerate or twist the past to suit our current biases.

I don't think the victims of the Irish Famine got that particular memo...

 

[Gloss]

I don't think the victims of the Irish Famine got that particular memo...

There are people that under the same country they live suffered things a bad and yet they today don't create a narrative out of it, which is my entire point, we are projecting nationalistic talking points to the past and pretending they are some objective view of the situation when the ideology itself is a separate entity and can change independently from what happens in the events that the same nationalistic ideologies focus on.

 

[Dr Dee]

Given that the definition of the colony is completely arbitrary, you might as well call England itself a colony of Lower Saxony and Jutland.

Okay, a possession, then? But the fact remains that any kind of independent Welsh polity died out in 1282. What you want to call it is really neither here not there; Wales was under the control of England. Don't worry - I'm not trying to fight a culture war over this. England wasn't unique in doing this so...really - it's fine. British behaviour in Ireland (with which many Scots and Welsh were entirely complicit) is another thing entirely...

Wales was never unified politically at large and when there were attempts at it they remained briefly, how can it preserve a national identity that could only really form under English rule?

I think I said that it was politically disunited for most of its history - both because of infighting and from fighting off outside forces. And surely all national identities form in response to outside influences and pressures...?

"Despite the non-existence of the identity in upper section of the population, the lack of any political representation at all and the fact I provided no evidence of it, Wales maintained its identity"

Oh dear, I'm starting to get the measure of you now. Is that meant to be a misquote of me? Please don't do that. It's bloody rude.

More like devolution and things like having separate sports teams gave fuel for something that actually most people didn't care about even when fewer people spoke English or when Wales was economically and demographically more isolated from England, but I guess we live in this imaginary world where Wales was always trying to escape English rule... oh no, we actually aren't.

Okay, you're being actively offensive now.

Heck in the Little-England-Beyond-Wales, about half of the population identifies as Welsh, literally a medieval English settlement identifies as Welsh, it's almost as if the Welsh identity is not some primordial thing that survived through evil English rule but a changing phenomenon that today ended up integrating people with English ancestry readily, even 19th century ones at this point given South Wales and considering that 20% of the modern Welsh population is from England.

If you read anything that I've submitted on this board, you'll see I've often posted on how an Imperial Federation might have come about and might have eventually constructively morphed into a multinational federal Commonwealth, preserving those positive things about Britain and Britishness that might have been helpful to the rest of the planet. Heck, forget about Little-England-Beyond-Wales, Little England itself screwed any idea of that over because there was a certain English mindset which wasn't 'evil', but self destructive and just couldn't accept any identity beyond its own. Looks like not much has changed.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

What you need to make a united British isles is a common enemy.
Napoleon taking over the British isles and after a long struggle, the French are forced out.
100 years of being forced to speak French and use the metric system and drive on the wrong side of the road and the landed gentry and aristocracy etc going to the guillotine. The common language in the British isles could become French.
That might work, but would be very unpleasant.
That would mean no British empire.

Lots of countries have managed to create a national identity, or to incorporate their neighbours, without such drastic things happening.

This ties back to my example in other countries, you will hear people make the claim that Wales, Scotland and Ireland were colonies and have people literally make up victim narratives

Yeah, it's partly a result of the modern idea that being oppressed makes you inherently more virtuous, and partly a result of modern anti-imperialism. Much more convenient to claim that Scotland, say, was a helpless colony of the evil English, and to ignore the huge role which Scots played in conquering and running the British Empire.

 

[DominusNovus]

With the butterflying-away of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, Romanization in Britain can continue and, later, spread to Ireland as well, assuming that a state based in southeastern Britain remains the regional hegemon, which seems likely for demographic reasons. That doesn't mean that the eventual Romance peoples of the British Isles won't, over time, come to see themselves as separate nations, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

Lets go even further: either the local Romanized population holds out against the Angles, Saxons, and eventually Norse, or the Empire never falls in the first place. In either case, the entire island sees themselves as Roman.

Hmmm... anyone ever done a 'Western Byzantium in Britain' TL? Could be interesting.

 

[Gloss]

Oh dear, I'm starting to get the measure of you now. Is that meant to be a misquote of me? Please don't do that. It's bloody rude.

I paraphrased what you said because you are not presenting anything supporting your argument and instead provided me with literally the opposite, still your idea of the perennial Welsh identity is taken as dogma, but I don't accept it as such so show to me where this perennial unchanging identity is.

Okay, you're being actively offensive now.

You started this by mocking my "even Wales", but sure. I'm not here to cater to your unsupported views.

If you read anything that I've submitted on this board, you'll see I've often posted on how an Imperial Federation might have come about and might have eventually constructively morphed into a multinational federal Commonwealth, preserving those positive things about Britain and Britishness that might have been helpful to the rest of the planet. Heck, forget about Little-England-Beyond-Wales, Little England itself screwed any idea of that over because there was a certain English mindset which wasn't 'evil', but self destructive and just couldn't accept any identity beyond its own. Looks like not much has changed.

Like I repeatedly said this is just your view and is not actually people in the past viewed or could have viewed things ATL, other countries did the "centralize everything and push one single national identity" and did it just fine without having people today create narratives to push for separate institutions.

So the idea that England has to be "less evil" to create a single national identity is faulty and merely a product of a nationalistic mindset that pushes the idea that national identities were solid things and that there was no way that assimilation could occur while pushing the idea that their own national identity was constantly under attack, the idea of the impossibility of assimilation is clearly wrong given that only a couple centuries separate the unification of England or the conquest of Cornwall from the complete subjugation of Wales or given the fact the Scottish acquistion of the Lothians happened as late 10th century(and that over the course of its history Scotland was Anglicized from the inside)