Albion in America: Possible?

Presuming that the first generation, as suggestion, are initially reactionary, followed by a more liberal regieme that embraces the enlightnment, I would like some thoughts on the suggestion that the OTL founding fathers of America contribute to this enlightment. Also, considering that the King is Charles II, his succession is another issue- who shall he marry? A European Princess or a British noble? I am more supportive of a British lady, to strength the bonds between the King and the aristocracy.

I have a funny feeling many European princesses would be dismissive of the Kings of New Albion. I doubt the colonies would be seen as a "real Kingdom" in 17th century Europe... So I think it would have to be a British noble....

Also, I doubt that, with a POD in the 17th century, the "founding fathers of America" would even be born. The world would be different enough that their parents would probably be unlikely to meet, and, even if they did, their children would be genetically different.
 
Considering that the traditional means of immigration to the new world was wealthy landowners sponsoring groups of workers to go to the new world in the form of workers for the colonies, how do we get the royalists across? I want a steady stream of royalists and those oppressed by Oliver Cromwell and successors to be able to reach the new world. Who would finance their crossing over? Would the Commonwealth Government allow such an exodus?
 
What about following the death of Oliver, Richard Cromwell publically declares he is unfit and nominates Charles Fleetwood. Fleetwood becomes Lord Protector, dissolving Parliament, and initiates a series of reforms to enstablish a stable British Republic.

Fleetwood enters into negotiations with Edward Hyde and Thomas Fairfax to remove all financial penalties on the Royalists and allow safe passage to the New World. Charles II assumes the unofficial rulership of the government in-exile, before declaring official independence later in his reign (once all the royalists come over) as the "rightful" government of Britain. Charles, who has recovered a bit of his wealth, funds ventures to allow more people to come to New Albion in an unsuccessful attempt to raise an army. Realising that they are going to be stuck there for longer than they thought, they do a bit of land-claiming, leading to a war with the Dutch colonists, allowing for the British exiles to conquer New Amsterdam.

Another problem is that the New England Confederation is mainly Puritan, hence Charles will have to land in Virginia and later take-over from the Parliamentarian Puritans. Perhaps Charles Fleetwood could make some religious compromises, upsetting the Puritans and breaking the unity of the New England Federation. That allow for Charles to either conquer, after setting up shop in Virginia or land in Boston harbour as opposed to Virginia and just take over with the a veteran Royalist Army.

The difficulty for Charles is first getting to the New World, then assuming control of all of the territories. Certainly, some were more Royalist (like Bermuda), but New England for example was mainly Parliamentarian.
 
Last edited:
The only map I could find of that time was from EU3 :noexpression:
http://i.imgur.com/nGA4pkJ.png
Anyhow, my thinking is that by the end of Charles II's reign in the New World, the British Republic and New Albion look something like this: plausible?
http://i.imgur.com/patT4JU.png

The total population of the English New World was about 75,100. The population needs to be larger in order for Charles II's country to be taken seriously. Migration to the colonies could include all the Royalists who have been defeated, the Catholics in Britain who have been oppressed during the Commonwealth (in particular the Irish Confederacy) and members of the Church of Scotland ( who have been equally oppressed). The other thing is how many would go? There are quite a few people upset with Cromwell. I am thinking perhaps something similar to the OTL Puritan migration to the new world after the Commonwealth, but for the royalists. The colonial population became four times larger with the migration of puritans, so supposing instead of puritans it is the royalists and Catholics.. I was also wanting Charles II to have control over religion in the New World, in order to establish stability that the British Isles did not, and successfully passing something similar to the Clarendon Code.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps some pertaining to this:

•1650: Third English Civil War breaks out between the Scots and the English Parliament. Cromwell invades Scotland and smashes the Scottish army at the Battle of Dunbar (3 September 1650)

•1651: Henry Ireton besieges Limerick

•1651: June: Capture of the Isles of Scilly by Admiral Robert Blake

•1651: 3 September: the defeat of Charles “II” Stuart and the Scots at Worcester ends the Third Civil War. Charles “II” Stuart goes into exile in France.

•1652: Surrender of the last Irish stronghold in Galway — guerrilla warfare continues

•1653: Surrender of the last organised Irish troops in Cavan.

•1654: The end of the Royalist rising of 1651 to 1654 in Scotland

•1655: March: Penruddock uprising in southwest England

•1658: 3 September: Oliver Cromwell dies. Succeeded as Lord Protector by his son Richard.

•1658: 10 October: Richard abdicates position in favour of Charles Fleetwood.

•1660: 20 May: Charles Fleetwood meets with Thomas Fairfax, Edward Hyde and George Monck. They agree, in what is called the Oxford Agreement that: Royalists’ finances be restored and that "all peoples who were in opposition to Parliament be allowed to travel to the new world with ease, ne'er to return". However, Charles Stuart may never return to English soil or go to enter English colonial territory.

•1660: 5 August: The first Royalists ships leave England from Plymouth.

•1660: 10 August: Charles Stuart secretly boards one of the ships heading for the New World.

•1661: 15 October: The first Royalist ships arrive in Virginia. Notable members who arrive and arrive in the week following are: Prince Rupert, William Cavendish, James Stanley and Henry Wilmot . Charles Stuart secretly arrives with his personal assistant, William Carlis.


Thoughts?
 
My American Queen TL is definitely a similar premise. Almost identical POD, however, I'm going for something a little rougher on the British. I don't think they'd be able to conquer much with a diminished population base.
 
An Interesting TL! However, I have decided to go down the path of the Civil War, as opposed to the Spanish armada. The population of the new world before Charles II arrives is around 75,100. OTL, with increased migration to the colonies, by 1690s, there is about 120,000. In my proposed TL, the New World be about 160,000 in the 1690s.
 
Last edited:
The only map I could find of that time was from EU3 :noexpression:
http://i.imgur.com/nGA4pkJ.png
Anyhow, my thinking is that by the end of Charles II's reign in the New World, the British Republic and New Albion look something like this: plausible?
http://i.imgur.com/patT4JU.png
Code.

I have a couple comments on your maps:
1) Don't rely on EU3 as a good guide to how things actually were. The game oversimplifies things A LOT. How about using this as a starting place:

http://homepage.usask.ca/~schmutz/1650Map.jpg

2) The main difference between EU3's maps and the reality on the ground in 1650 is that EU3 can't adequately represent how little penetration into the interior there was at the time. There were probably fur trading forts that aren't on the map that I've found, but there was certainly very little actual settlement in the interior, and any European presence in the interior was centered around the major river systems: St. lawrence, Hudson, etc. So, when thinking about expansion, imagine that expansion following the rivers into the interior....

3) In your "end of Charles II's reign" map you have three major conquests that have happened:

a) It looks like New Netherlands and New Sweden have been eliminated. I think that would probably be doable easily with a small increase in the number of English colonists, as neither was a particularly strong colony. Although, you'd also have to think about how this would affect relations with the Netherlands and Sweden. Your New Albion would probably be relying on trade with at least one European power in order to supply it with manufactured goods. I was thinking the Netherlands would be the most likely ally as they were always more interested in trade with the New World than settlement, and would probably be ok with their colonies being flooded with English-speaking settlers, as long as the Netherlands maintained a trade monopoly with New Netherlands. But, it could as easily be France, Spain or Portugal that's their main European ally.

b) The Haudenosaunee (aka Iroqouis) are gone. Have they been conquered by New Albion or absorbed into it as allies? Conquest would probably be unlikely at the time, as conquering such a territory would be a logistical nightmare for the English, as there were no roads, little cleared land, few forts, etc. The best the English could hope for would be to drive the Haudenosaunee away from the banks of the Hudson and Mohawk rivers and establish some forts on the river bank. Penetration into the interior would require roads, which were nonexistant at the time... I think incorporating them into New Albion as an ally/vassal would be more likely..

c) You have the New Albion controlling the South Bank of the St. Lawrence. The St. Lawrence was core French territory at the time, and I doubt that the colonies would be able to build an equip a large enough fleet to launch a naval assault on Quebec City and then Montreal. A land campaign could be possible via the Hudson River and Lake Champlain, although it would likely be again a logistical nightmare due to the lack of roads. I think if a conquest of any part of New France is to occur, it would have to happen via first taking Acadia as it worked out in OTL.
 
Oops - just took another look at your maps. I misread your Northern border. It looks like it's along the lines of the present day US/Canada border which is actually a logical place to put it along the top of Maine/NH/Vermont as is roughly divides lands more accessible from the Atlantic from those more accessible from the St. Lawrence.

The only place where the USA/Canada border reaches the St. Lawrence is between Montreal and Lake Ontario, and I would still say that the South Bank of the St. Lawrence in what is now the Adirondack region would still be controlled by the French, and the border would lie more in the Adirondacks themselves.... I think the maximum Northern penetration by the English with support of the Haudenosaunee and without either roads or a conquest of New France would be the Mohawk River valley, although the South shores of Lakes Ontario and Erie could easily be controlled by the Haudenosaunee themselves...
 
Top