How come the French never conquered these small islands near their coastline? Or how come the Brits did not sell them to the French, considering they were both useless and hard to defend?
Maybe the French don't want them?[..] they were both useless and hard to defend
They were inhabited by Frenchmen and could be useful for defense purposes.Maybe the French don't want them?
Propaganda for whom? In what way?The Channel Islands weren't worth jack beyond propaganda value. If the French wanted it, they could have obtained it in any of their peace treaties with Britain where they were the victors. The fact that they never pressed the matter showed how little they valued it compared to other territories.
Propaganda for whom? In what way?
If it were the French, it's simply for the reclamation of the whole of Normandy, which honestly isn't saying much. The only time it was ever occupied was during World War II, and it was only so the Germans could claim that they had occupied British home soil (not untrue, but the Channel Islands was pretty much what the Germans wished Operation Verboten Sea Mammal was like).
I live in Guernsey in the Channel Islands and would have to disagree with the statement that the islands are worthless. For a start the islands sit on the major trade route between the Mediterranean and Western Europe - St Peter Port in Guernsey has always been a busy port.
The islands are also the only part of the Duchy of Normandy still remaining under British control and as such have a lot of symbolic significance.
Prior to being declared neutral at the latter half of the fifteenth century the French tried to take the islands on several occasions and indeed after the neutrality ended the last invasion attempt resulted in the Battle of Jersey in 1781.
The islands were also important bases for privateers in the 18th and 19th centuries, their proximity to the French mainland meant that they had strategic importance in any war between Britain and France.
If you ever visit the islands one of the first things you will notice is how heavily fortified they are, almost every bay and headland has a fort or strongpoint of some kind.
Not true, France held them from 1461 to 1468 when they were recaptured by the english and they made earlier attempt to capture them in 1337-39 (where only the castle in jersey held out under siege, with all the rest captured), 1371-3 and 1406 as well as later attempts in 1779 and 1781.
You don't need to change history to get the French interested in taking them, you just need them to succeed in many of the otl attempts where they tried.
The last time they tried was 1781 - they were neither useless (in the days of sail) nor hard to defendHow come the French never conquered these small islands near their coastline? Or how come the Brits did not sell them to the French, considering they were both useless and hard to defend?
The last time they tried was 1781 - they were neither useless (in the days of sail) nor hard to defend
For propaganda purposes it allowed the British monarch to continue in use of the title "King of France"
It was bolstered by actually having a piece of France- the Channel Islands. And of course the title annoyed the French. People don't realize the Channel Islands aren't a part of the UK any more than Hanover was. The Channel Islands (which isn't even a political thing, they are separate and not united) are each in a dynastic union with the UK and so is the Isle of Mann. Parliament has no rights. And as far as the Privy Council, in the Queen's name, would let them they can decide to fully go their own way and to the UK to stop providing defense and representing their foreign relations. For example if the UK gives up having a monarch, the Queen and her Privy Council would still have 100% control over Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and not Parliament.I've assumed that the claim of "King of France" was simply a holdover from the Hundred Years' War era and not really based on anything serious, sort of like how various monarchs claimed to be "King of Jerusalem" long after that kingdom was abolished.
It was bolstered by actually having a piece of France- the Channel Islands. And of course the title annoyed the French. People don't realize the Channel Islands aren't a part of the UK any more than Hanover was. The Channel Islands (which isn't even a political thing, they are separate and not united) are each in a dynastic union with the UK and so is the Isle of Mann. Parliament has no rights. And as far as the Privy Council, in the Queen's name, would let them they can decide to fully go their own way and to the UK to stop providing defense and representing their foreign relations. For example if the UK gives up having a monarch, the Queen and her Privy Council would still have 100% control over Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and not Parliament.