British Empire without a union of the crowns?

Three things happened in 1603.

1. Hugh O'Neill, the earl of tyone, surrendered to Baron Mountjoy esentially completing the english conquest of ireland. Certainly I think 1603 is the first time you can really say the english had complete control of the island.

2. A few days before that, James VI of Scotland became James I of England, meaning that Great Britain was also all ruler by one man, which is something that had never happened before for any meaningful ammount of time.

3. The first english trading port was built at Banten in Java. This was the first posession of the british east india company.

And just four years later, in 1607, Jamestown, the first succesful british colony in the americas, was founded.

It's very easy to connent those four events. That the fact that James I was the first monarch to control all of the british isles is also why he was the first british monarch to successfully expand outside europe. That the british empire could only become what it became because the british isles were under one ruler which meant that it had no land borders at home to man and could concentrate on events abroad.

But at the same time, the french and dutch empires didn't really kick off until the early 1600s either (and the less successful prussian, danish, swedish, courlandic, maltese etc attempts didn't start until even after that) so maybe that was just the right time for someone else to start competing with the iberians where it wasn't possible earlier and it's a coincidence that the british isles were united about then in otl.

So simple question, in a timeline with a divided britain where at least scotland if not also parts of ireland and maybe even wales were independent going into the 17th century how would the british empire(s) have evolved? Expand slower, expand faster, not happen at all, what?
 
England & Ireland are in good position for transnorthatlantic colonisation and trade so an entity combining the two will certainly try to establish and defend ports on the east coast of the Americas.
 
Depends if Scotland attempts it's own colonies as in otl. A Darien disaster without the support of English wealth could lead to a horrendous economic crash which, if England desired, would likely make for ripe conquest, the more in a situation similar to Ireland than a more than equal Union as in otl.
 
Three things happened in 1603.

1. Hugh O'Neill, the earl of tyone, surrendered to Baron Mountjoy esentially completing the english conquest of ireland. Certainly I think 1603 is the first time you can really say the english had complete control of the island.

2. A few days before that, James VI of Scotland became James I of England, meaning that Great Britain was also all ruler by one man, which is something that had never happened before for any meaningful ammount of time.

3. The first english trading port was built at Banten in Java. This was the first posession of the british east india company.

And just four years later, in 1607, Jamestown, the first succesful british colony in the americas, was founded.

It's very easy to connent those four events. That the fact that James I was the first monarch to control all of the british isles is also why he was the first british monarch to successfully expand outside europe. That the british empire could only become what it became because the british isles were under one ruler which meant that it had no land borders at home to man and could concentrate on events abroad.

But at the same time, the french and dutch empires didn't really kick off until the early 1600s either (and the less successful prussian, danish, swedish, courlandic, maltese etc attempts didn't start until even after that) so maybe that was just the right time for someone else to start competing with the iberians where it wasn't possible earlier and it's a coincidence that the british isles were united about then in otl.

So simple question, in a timeline with a divided britain where at least scotland if not also parts of ireland and maybe even wales were independent going into the 17th century how would the british empire(s) have evolved? Expand slower, expand faster, not happen at all, what?

Even without Scotland, England would still be easier to defend than pretty much any other European country: it would only have a relatively short land border, and that against a country notably less wealthy and populous than itself. So, you'd still probably see England expanding overseas, albeit probably a bit less than IOTL, because it would still need to devote some resources to defending its frontier.
 
Top