AHC: Union of Scandinavia, Britain and France

Well, like the title says: how could a union exist that would comprise Britain (at least England and preferably also Scotland, including the Shetlands and Orkneys, and Wales, maybe also Ireland), Scandinavia (at least Norway and Sweden, preferably also Denmark and Finland, maybe even parts of the Baltic or Pommerania) and France (the entire country, roughly, so not only a port in Calais or parts of Normandy or Aquitaine)?

Ready? Steady - aaand... Go!
 
You could get France and Britain to unify under Louis VIII Capet, he did invade England towards the end of John Lackland's life and only John's death prevented most English lords from swearing allegiance to the French crown. Have a dynastic union with marriage to Ingeborg Eriksdotter of Sweden and you are well on your way (she also is the daughter of a Danish princess if memory serves). Louis IX lived into his mid-50s I think, and Ingeborg was reportedly quite fertile so there is plenty of opportunity for establishing some sort of precedent for later unions and lots of cadet houses for later conflicts or governments. Chaos in Denmark and Norway *might* enable both claims to and union with those thrones such that by 1300 (or 1370 if the Black Plague falls the right/wrong way) you could see one monarch governing territory from Marseilles to Malmo including most of all of the Baltic Sea, England, Wales, France, and perhaps additional territory. Certainly the Burgundians and Holy Roman Empire would be very nervous about having their northern and western flanks all under one crown, and being able to travel by land from Pomerania to Paris would be a goal for this new Capetian powerhouse.
 
You could get France and Britain to unify under Louis VIII Capet, he did invade England towards the end of John Lackland's life and only John's death prevented most English lords from swearing allegiance to the French crown. Have a dynastic union with marriage to Ingeborg Eriksdotter of Sweden and you are well on your way (she also is the daughter of a Danish princess if memory serves). Louis IX lived into his mid-50s I think, and Ingeborg was reportedly quite fertile so there is plenty of opportunity for establishing some sort of precedent for later unions and lots of cadet houses for later conflicts or governments. Chaos in Denmark and Norway *might* enable both claims to and union with those thrones such that by 1300 (or 1370 if the Black Plague falls the right/wrong way) you could see one monarch governing territory from Marseilles to Malmo including most of all of the Baltic Sea, England, Wales, France, and perhaps additional territory. Certainly the Burgundians and Holy Roman Empire would be very nervous about having their northern and western flanks all under one crown, and being able to travel by land from Pomerania to Paris would be a goal for this new Capetian powerhouse.

Thank you very much! You wouldn't mind me maybe using this idea in the future, would you?
 
Even if you get the fantastic number of inheritances necessary to make this work, it's a personal union that won't hold together under the strains (distances, rivalries, etc.) of trying to rule six kingdoms.

So while you might theoretically have one man heir to all six thrones, one man actually ruling that area? Practically impossible.
 
Even if you get the fantastic number of inheritances necessary to make this work, it's a personal union that won't hold together under the strains (distances, rivalries, etc.) of trying to rule six kingdoms.

So while you might theoretically have one man heir to all six thrones, one man actually ruling that area? Practically impossible.

Also not if it's a constitutional federative democracy? So that every country (federal state) has its own government, but that there's one, less important central government.
 
Also not if it's a constitutional federative democracy? So that every country (federal state) has its own government, but that there's one, less important central government.

I can't imagine very many circumstances that would induce them into such a union (not counting something like the EU where they're just some of the members).

And of course, such a democracy would need a much later POD, possibly post-1900 (or such a different world that France for example we know it doesn't exist).
 
I can't imagine very many circumstances that would induce them into such a union (not counting something like the EU where they're just some of the members).

And of course, such a democracy would need a much later POD, possibly post-1900 (or such a different world that France for example we know it doesn't exist).

And what about one king whose sons rule the kingdoms?
 
Hmm, yeah, or Alexander the Great. He dies, his friends divide the empire and everything collapses. You're right... Hmm, not exactly what I was looking for.

This is a problem that you're going to have in pretty much every scenario. The simple thing is that it was rare for people in one country to go along with a Personal Union for long periods unless the following: A - one country is far bigger than the other(s) and can completely dominate the union, making resistance futile; B - the countries all share a land border, making it very easy for the dominant country to suppress the others; C - there are strong economic reasons for the weaker countries to rely on the support of the stronger. It's not quite as simple as that, but that's largely what it boils down to - especially for unions involving more than two states. As centralisation got more and more advanced over the course of human history it became possible for one man to rule over a larger and larger area but really short of the last 150 years it's virtually impossible for a union of Anglo-France-inavia to stay together because they are too disparate, the sea between each state makes it easy for one country in a state of rebellion to defend itself from attack (or rather, makes reconquest a big issue), it would be virtually impossible for one King to devote more than a month or two of his time to each country per year, and finally there's little real reason any of the constituent countries/subjects would see the benefits of such a union.

If you really want to engineer this union, you'd be better off finding some way of creating a reason for the union to have to happen (i.e. a motivation for the countries to want to be united) - not an easy thing but it may be possible - and if you can manufacture that (long term and short...) then you'll probably find that actually creating the union slots together far easier.

But it would have to be a pretty good reason, because that combination of countries is not a natural fit...
 

birdboy2000

Banned
OTL, France and Britain seriously considered unification during WWII. Couple that with the US retreating into isolationism after the war and the Soviets doing better in Germany, and you could get some kind of postwar federation of (quite terrified) European democracies. Would be hard to buck the Swedish trend to neutrality, however, and may also be difficult to justify keeping the Benelux countries out. I'm thinking a world war II broadly resembling that of For All Time, but with the European democracies getting their act together after the peace (and Darlan never taking France).
 
Well, like the title says: how could a union exist that would comprise Britain (at least England and preferably also Scotland, including the Shetlands and Orkneys, and Wales, maybe also Ireland), Scandinavia (at least Norway and Sweden, preferably also Denmark and Finland, maybe even parts of the Baltic or Pommerania) and France (the entire country, roughly, so not only a port in Calais or parts of Normandy or Aquitaine)?

Ready? Steady - aaand... Go!

Sweden and Finland join the European Union.

Do I win?
 
Top