Britain Is Never United

It depends when the divergence would be. I imagine England would be a constitutional monarchy, and quite free. Scotland too probably. Wales cant be independent without a POD before 1066 (at least). Ireland might be a quagmire of statelets, speaking Gaelic, with a few Anglo-Norman outposts on the coast.
 
Perhaps a longer Commonwealth, then leading to a more disastrous end to it, but without the restoration of the monarchy. If the Stuarts dont get the throne back, Scotland and England would go seperate, Ireland would probaly still clamour for independence and most likly get it...Whales however is the stickler...
 
Well, "never united" means that even the earliest combination of two of these countires did not happen. Elsewise, it would be "united but broke up again".

So, we are talking about a PoD before 1300, approximately. England and Wales stay independent from each other. Perhaps the princes Edward and Edmund die during the Ninth Crusade. That might result in a war of succession to set the English kingdom back for a while.
I have to idea where to take it from here.

Perhaps it might work to have England as the insular possession of the French crown, with the French kings not even wishing to expand into Scotland or Wales - the British barons might become too powerful and unruly.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
Maybe an English policy of favoring installing clients instead of direct annexation? England is certainly going to be able to exert its will on Wales, and often on Scotland and Ireland as well... but if it was fine with those states being friendly clients instead of provinces with voting rights in Parliament, then they'd survive as independent polities.

At least in the case of Scotland. Ireland has the problem that it wasn't particularly unified until the English did it, and you need a succession of High Kings capable of making said kingship more than nominal and often disputed. Wales did unify before English annexation, but said unification had a lot to do with putting up a united front against England; if England's content to have a friendly Welsh border, that border could very well be divided between Deheubarth, Gwynedd, and Powys.
 
You have to break up England somehow, otherwise it's eventually going to be so much bigger and stronger than the rest that unification will be inevitable.

A messier 1066 with all of Hardrada, Godwinson and the Bastard surviving but none getting a clear victory would help, but even that may be too late for a lasting split. You may need a different battle of Brunaburgh (937AD), with Aethelstan and his brother both killed to achieve it.
 
Wales cant be independent without a POD before 1066 (at least).
Yes it can, only requires a POD in the 1200's. Some possibilities would be Dafydd ap Gruffydd dying early or perhaps just not turning against his brother Llywelyn so often, or an early death of Edward I. Perhaps both, perhaps Owain ap Gruffydd angers his younger brother Llywelyn enough that Llywelyn kills him, or possibly just kills him in battles, leading to Dafydd being shocked into obedience and having enough trust placed in him that Llywelyn gives him command of the Welsh forces at the Battle of Evesham. This can lead to the Welsh contingent there actually committing to the battle from the start instead of attempting to flee, which results in a more two-sided bloodbath than the bloodbath of OTL, which sees both Prince Edward and his father Henry III being killed alongside many earls and knights and England being thrown into anarchy while Llywelyn gets to enjoy the peace not having a treacherous brother and angry rival princes. Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was a reformer with the same mind and skill as his grandfather Llywelyn ap Iorwerth and the two of them had important ideas that would result in a more stable and affluent Principality of Wales. Llywelyn the Last (not so ITTL of course) even got the King of England to recognize him as the Prince of Wales at one point which was unprecedented, only Llywelyn's uncle had claimed that title before and he was unrecognized by Henry. However, before Evesham Llywelyn was successful enough in his wars that Henry had to recognize his rule over most of Wales even if Llywelyn had to pay some tribute. With a new anarchy in England however this might be left ignored and Llywelyn would be free to stomp all over his rival Powysian princes as well as the perfidious Marcher Lords while pro-Royal and pro-Baron nobles and armies continue to harass each other in the beginnings of the uncertain reign of King Edmund I.
 
Yes it can, only requires a POD in the 1200's. Some possibilities would be Dafydd ap Gruffydd dying early or perhaps just not turning against his brother Llywelyn so often, or an early death of Edward I. Perhaps both, perhaps Owain ap Gruffydd angers his younger brother Llywelyn enough that Llywelyn kills him, or possibly just kills him in battles, leading to Dafydd being shocked into obedience and having enough trust placed in him that Llywelyn gives him command of the Welsh forces at the Battle of Evesham. This can lead to the Welsh contingent there actually committing to the battle from the start instead of attempting to flee, which results in a more two-sided bloodbath than the bloodbath of OTL, which sees both Prince Edward and his father Henry III being killed alongside many earls and knights and England being thrown into anarchy while Llywelyn gets to enjoy the peace not having a treacherous brother and angry rival princes. Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was a reformer with the same mind and skill as his grandfather Llywelyn ap Iorwerth and the two of them had important ideas that would result in a more stable and affluent Principality of Wales. Llywelyn the Last (not so ITTL of course) even got the King of England to recognize him as the Prince of Wales at one point which was unprecedented, only Llywelyn's uncle had claimed that title before and he was unrecognized by Henry. However, before Evesham Llywelyn was successful enough in his wars that Henry had to recognize his rule over most of Wales even if Llywelyn had to pay some tribute. With a new anarchy in England however this might be left ignored and Llywelyn would be free to stomp all over his rival Powysian princes as well as the perfidious Marcher Lords while pro-Royal and pro-Baron nobles and armies continue to harass each other in the beginnings of the uncertain reign of King Edmund I.
I know of this time, but I imagined that there were enough Marcher Lords that any Welsh Rebellion would last only a few years, and eventually be reannexed into England. How do you imagine a Wales founded it that time would be linguistically?
 
A Variation idea of mine;

what if Britain was never *centralised*, united culturally and all?

I means, look at continental states like France or HGE, etc... strong local cultures, etc... Britain was united as a Kingdom and relatively culturally early as well.

What if there was some stronger local identities remaining beyond the celtic states, and what if like France or such, not united so quickly and strongly? Surviving 'dialects' of Anglo-saxons or sister languages?
 
I know of this time, but I imagined that there were enough Marcher Lords that any Welsh Rebellion would last only a few years, and eventually be reannexed into England. How do you imagine a Wales founded it that time would be linguistically?
Some of the most prominent Marchers were present at Evesham and possibly would have died ITTL. Also, it doesn't seem they could take on a united Wales on their own given the massive defeats inflicted on them at this time. Also, reannexed? Wales was only conquered completely in 1282/3. Before then they just had a few loyal princes (most prominently the Prince of Powys Wenwynwyn as the other state of Powys was friendly to Gwynedd) and at the time I am referring to Llywelyn and his allies orchestrated a large-scale assault on English holdings that resulted in his recognition as Prince of Wales by the King of England. This wasn't a rebellion, I don't see how it qualifies when it was already independent.
 
The trouble is if you keep things too disunited then as the centuries go on some foreign leader will eventually decide to make himself king of Britain and the disunited land won't really be able to stop him.
 
The trouble is if you keep things too disunited then as the centuries go on some foreign leader will eventually decide to make himself king of Britain and the disunited land won't really be able to stop him.

They seemed to be able to stop the Vikings in the great army period, but then again, that forced them to unite into one kingdom.
 
They seemed to be able to stop the Vikings in the great army period, but then again, that forced them to unite into one kingdom.

Even then that was more a question of one kingdom (Wessex) emerging dominant and later (under Canute) England being ruled by a external monarch anyway.
 
Top