An Early Britain?

Hi everybody.

I've been cruising Wikipedia recently, and recently discovered that whilst the official merger of England and Scotland occurred in 1707 with the Acts of Union, there had been several attempts to unite the realms of James VI in 1606, 1667 and 1689.

What would have been the effects of an early unification of the British isles, and how would the country have played out from there? Would it even be called 'Great Britain,' or could another name have been used instead?

So many questions can be asked about this, so just contribute whatever you can!

Many thanks!
 
IIRC James I came up with the idea of the name, so it was in use during the 17th century so I doubt some other name would have come into being. Of course, the curve-ball (for all your Americans) out there, is the Commonwealth, tho I admit I don't really know WHAT its political structure was with regard to the separate kingdoms within the British Isles?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Of course, the curve-ball (for all your Americans) out there, is the Commonwealth, tho I admit I don't really know WHAT its political structure was with regard to the separate kingdoms within the British Isles?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

A bunch of soliders turn up and announce that a Union has taken place, and that the Parliament of England will rule you well. :D
 
IIRC James I came up with the idea of the name, so it was in use during the 17th century so I doubt some other name would have come into being. Of course, the curve-ball (for all your Americans) out there, is the Commonwealth, tho I admit I don't really know WHAT its political structure was with regard to the separate kingdoms within the British Isles?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
The Commonwealth was officially a merger of the three kingdoms more-or-less as equals, although in practice it was dominated by the English (Parliament, and then Cromwell) by force of arms.
 
The Protectorate Parliaments met in Westminster and sat MPs from all three Kingdoms, but it looks like England was over-represented relative to its population compared with Scotland and England.

The total population of England (including Wales) was about 5.5 million, which was represented by 400 MPs (375 from England proper and 25 from Wales). This works out to about one MP per 14,000 people.

Scotland and Wales each had a population of about 1 million, and each sent 30 MPs to the First Protectorate Parliament, which works out to about one MP per 33,000 people.

I can't find numbers for the Second Protectorate Parliament, but England appears to have been even more over-represented in the Third Protectorate Parliament, with 480 English and 27 Welsh MPs but still one 30 Scottish and 30 Irish MPs.
 
The Protectorate Parliaments met in Westminster and sat MPs from all three Kingdoms, but it looks like England was over-represented relative to its population compared with Scotland and England.

The total population of England (including Wales) was about 5.5 million, which was represented by 400 MPs (375 from England proper and 25 from Wales). This works out to about one MP per 14,000 people.

Scotland and Wales each had a population of about 1 million, and each sent 30 MPs to the First Protectorate Parliament, which works out to about one MP per 33,000 people.

I can't find numbers for the Second Protectorate Parliament, but England appears to have been even more over-represented in the Third Protectorate Parliament, with 480 English and 27 Welsh MPs but still one 30 Scottish and 30 Irish MPs.

English over representation was true of British parliaments until the Great Reform Act.
 
Top