DBWI: Britain doesn't stand up to France over the Corsican crisis

What if the British government hadn't interfered and France had taken over Corsica in 1768? Besides the obvious lack of the Corsican republic and its enlightenment constitution, what would the aftershocks be? Would Russia have still formed its alliance with Great Britain? Would women's suffrage have been set back to a later date with out the republic's example of women taking part in the public sphere?
 
rofl I foresee some Corsican general rising to be a prominent French commander and conquer Europe. Man, that would be just so epic lol
 
With women's suffrage delayed, you can forget about Christabel Pankhurst's stint as PM in the '40s. The Great War probably would have speeded things up - the progressive era would have happened eventually and there's nothing like a war against France to shake up British society. I don't see women MPs making their mark until the second half of the 20th century as they simply won't have been around long enough. Look how long it took Christabel! I'm not saying it'd be another hundred years, but maybe Barbara Castle would lead the Progressives to victory in 1972 like in OTL...
 
The most obvious effect would be a very delayed American Independence, perhaps delaying it by a good 10-30 years, maybe happening in 1860 at the very latest. Heck, thanks to this, we might even see the Confederation becoming a monarchy instead of the very loose Confederation of republics that we have today. Another thing this might change was the radical Austrian Revolution, which IOTL inspired the American Rebellion. If It wasn't for the Republic of Corsica, the Austria Revolution probably wouldn't have happened ITTL.
 
@Meadow

I also think that Thatcher wouldn't have curb stomped Castle in '79 with out the republic, but do you think suffrage would have arrived later then the late 1880's?
 
Too hard to say as there's so many factors in play. Does Victoria still support it? In a world without the beacon of Corsica I can see her siding with her male ministers against what she called in her youth the 'wild, mad folly' of women's suffrage. I think if Victoria isn't in favour of it it's not going to happen while she's alive. Same goes for OTL, if Victoria hadn't been convinced of the value of progressivism by that charming Ambassador, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, I can't see Suffrage happening while she draws breath.

EDIT: No Thatcher opens up a whole new can of worms - without her leadership demolishing the public's faith in female PMs, would we have had a female party leader again before Harriet Harman won the Progressive leadership contest last week? Twenty years is a long time.
 
well the Irish question cost her big, but her economic policy seemed to get Britain out of its slump, and her victory in the Falklands reasserted the commonwealth's standing as a global political force, and Britain's position in the commonwealth, which under Castle was seeing a long term trend of being dominated by India and Australia at the exclusion of the UK. I think it was just an absence in both parties of good qualified female successors to Castle and Thatcher rather then demoralizing public faith. On the side though, Harman's 'new progressivism' seems promising, looks like a good balance of social activism and support for standard Commonwealth economic and defense policy.

rofl I foresee some Corsican general rising to be a prominent French commander and conquer Europe. Man, that would be just so epic lol
It would be especially funny if it was some mad man like that crazy Italian nationalist Napoleon Bonaparte, how could he have thought that he could single handedly lead a successful expedition to depose the Pope and capture Rome? I've heard it argued by some that the destruction of his small force and his execution in Rome set back Italian unification significantly.
 
Last edited:
Top