British Empire's resources and settlement

JJohnson

Banned
I'm working through a timeline with a different British Empire, namely one that contains:

Caribbean - Cuba, Jamaica, Providence Islands, Bay Islands, and the other OTL islands, excluding Bahamas/Bermuda

South America - British Guiana, Patagonia/Argentina/Chile, Uruguay and the area surrounded by the Uruguay river

Australia, New Zealand, and New Caledonia

South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Egypt, Sierra Leone (Ivory Coast, Guinea, and Sierra Leone), Nigeria (roughly those territories).

Cuba in 1740, Providence in 1763, Bay in exchange for Mosquito Coast in the late 1700s. Africa in the early to mid 1850s. In this timeline, the UK lacks Canada itself, and is heavily encouraging settler colonies all over for resources and is pushing for settlement in all its colonies.

My question first is, what do these territories hold to attract people? Which resources? What would make a Londoner think to move to South Africa as a colonist, or British Zimbabwe or British Guiana, Patagonia, or elsewhere in the Empire? In this timeline, the UK is first and most aggressive in encouraging settlement, followed by France, then other European countries. Portugal and Spain lose out before 1855 their holds on Africa, Portugal likely during the time when Brazil was the seat of their empire. How big a population could England realistically get to settle out in South America, Australia, Africa, and the Caribbean? What would those places look like today with such a huge investment of settlers there? What would the United Kingdom look like today?
 
Last edited:
Top