Anglo-France? Or Franco-Britain?

Surely, the union would not be Franco British but simply British (with the definition of "British" extended to include "French")? Although no doubt historians would describe the Act of Union of 1940 as "The Anglo-French Union".
Wouldn't something like "the United Kingdom of Great Britian, Northern Ireland, and France work much better?
 

Thande

Donor
Wouldn't something like "the United Kingdom of Great Britian, Northern Ireland, and France work much better?

The French would probably insist in at least coming before Northern Ireland.

The style used before they dropped "France" from the royal title in 1803-ish was:

By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Prince-Elector of Hannover, Duke of Brunswick

So here it will probably be something like

By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

Note that the Northern Ireland thing wasn't constitutionally sorted out until 1952 in OTL.
 

Alcuin

Banned
I can't think of any term that would accurately encompass both as a geographic entity - the only time to my knowledge most of them were united was in the Angevin period, and that was not as a functioning state. Perhaps a portmanteau? ("Britance"? "Brance"?)

The Angevin Union... that'd do it. It's much more wieldy than The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and France.
 
I think it was endorsed by Churchill, and would likewise have been by Reynaud, with the tacit understanding that the Union was only for the duration of the war. Although, as Wendell says, it certainly would have made for interesting debates after Germany's surrender. After all, Jean Monnet was a lifelong supporter of supranational European integration, and in the post-war years devoted his considerable skills to setting up the European Coal and Steel Community, which by 1957 had become the European Economic Community (and by 1993 the European Union). He certainly would have lobbied both governments into making the French-British Union the core of a Europe-wide protofederal entity; whether he would have been successful, though, is anyone's guess.
The Anglo-Scottish Union was only supposed to last for the duration of Queen Annes wars. You never can tell. Wonder what the nationality wouldve been called?
Kieron Anthony said:
Apply the monarch as head of state of France and simply apply British law to France, and where other French laws that are in effect in France that do not conflict with British laws, simply keep them. hmm I think that makes sense.
Again, to use the Anglo-Scottish Union as an example, why not just keep French Laws and have the new Union Parliament legislate over any future changes?
 

Thande

Donor
The Angevin Union... that'd do it. It's much more wieldy than The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and France.
Rather sends the wrong message to France, though...like if we unified with America as in the other thread, but the united country was called The Glorious British Empire And Her Humble Colonies :D

Of course you could argue that the Normans, though based in England, were at least as French as they were "British", but it would depend on what the French think.
 
Top