Channel Islands annexed by France?

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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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).

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.
 
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.

Ah, I stand corrected then.
 
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?
The last time they tried was 1781 - they were neither useless (in the days of sail) nor hard to defend
 
The last time they tried was 1781 - they were neither useless (in the days of sail) nor hard to defend

The French HQ was extremely reluctant to the operation and never officially supported it. The french government clearly did not make a point about taking the Channel Islands. Both the 1779 and the 1781 landings were made by mavericks, with the French funding them in case of success, but not planned by the HQ.
 
For propaganda purposes it allowed the British monarch to continue in use of the title "King of France" and in response to the comment they are British home territory- they are not. The Channel Islands are not a part of the UK. The UK provides defense as a result of the British monrach owning the islands, crown dependencies were never colonies, but lands of the monarchy through their own purchase or inheritence, not of colonies administered by or established by parliament or charter from the govt of the UK. There is a big difference. The Channel Islands cooperate voluntarily with the UK.
 
For propaganda purposes it allowed the British monarch to continue in use of the title "King of France"

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Yep, there's loads of fighting and dealing going on between the channel islands and the uk. They're very much their own thing.

For instance I knew a guy who built communication cables out there and one of the things that was emphasised was making sure that nobody in the uk could intercept them and know what was happening in jersey or Guernsey.

And the british intelligence forces were giving back handers to a lot of people in order for them to get an intercept so they could see where money was being moved. Because they had no actual power to do it legitimately. The UK government can't audit jersey and Guernsey because it's a different county.

Or for instance for two years between 2009 and 2011 the UK government pulled out of the healthcare agreement with jersey that meant the british government paid for nhs treatment for citizens of jersey. Because again they're not obliged to.

It's an interesting relationship people don't really think about much.
 
Top