What if Britian underwent gradual and peaceful reform within the existing system of government until it became a constitutional monarchy and de-facto democracy, and France underwent revolution after revolution before finally settling on a Republic? In other words the exact oppostie of what happened in OTL.
DBWI: Make Britian and France Switch fates?
- Thread starter ArKhan
- Start date
Kaiphranos
Donor
Perhaps it would help if we got rid of the Stuarts somehow? Wasn't there some sort of hullaballoo in the 1640's or something? That could maybe have sparked some reforms if thing have been different, but I don't know much about that period in English history...
Perhaps if Charles I had not made himself endearing? That could pave the way for the then-more powerful than ever English Parliament to assert itself.
Another thing to change perhaps would be for the Bourbons to assert their absolute rule.
Having Henry not declare independent from the church would do wonders for stability by keeping the civil unrest down.
Kaiphranos
Donor
On the contrary--I think if Henry IV had not declared independence from the church, France would have seen more civil unrest, not less. As it was, I think the compromise he made was key to preventing further trouble with the Huguenots.
*OOC I meant Henry VII of England but let's roll with that. A protestant France changes things up.
True for France, but in England All it did was alienate their catholic colonies like Virginia for years to come, along with England's failed and harsh attempts at converting them lead to the the Colombian (American) Revolution.
True for France, but in England All it did was alienate their catholic colonies like Virginia for years to come, along with England's failed and harsh attempts at converting them lead to the the Colombian (American) Revolution.
Kaiphranos
Donor
Hmm. You think keeping England Catholic from the start would set it on the path to constitutional monarchy? That could butterfly away the Stuarts entirely. I guess maybe a continuing Tudor dynasty might have let more power devolve to the parliament over time, but who's to say you might not end up with the same trend towards absolutism that Britain faced in our world?
wolf_brother
Banned
Let's also consider their relative geopolitical situations. Britain lost most of her colonies to France, underwent the first republican period when she overextended herself supporting Louisianian Independence, had the monarchy restored, gained some territories in Africa, flipped to a republic again, expanded those territories slightly, then underwent another revolution, while all the while France continued to build on her lead and assert herself as the hegemon of Europe and India, and briefly North America before Louisiana asserted herself. So you'd have to reverse or avoid that trend somehow.
Maybe it is a matter of external forces? What if Austria had more of an interest in the Germanies uniting them giving France a worry at home? Or One of the Scandinavians unite the rest and give France a real colonial contender? or You have Spain do both and not go into its chronic decay
Kaiphranos
Donor
Now, now--there was more to the Colombian Insurrection than just the religious side of things. Still, a more democratic Britain might allow its American possessions some greater degree of autonomy, which should help too.
I guess this brings up the question of when our last chance for our switch is. By the time Britain loses Nouvelle-Angleterre in the Hannoverian Wars, is it already too late? Some would argue revolution was pretty much inevitable at that point, given the state of British finances...
I didn't mean to discount the other reasons for the Colombian Insurrection, but the Religious differences and resentment caused by that issue is one of the key factors. The Economics didn't help either along with the English using it as a dumping grounds for the bastard lords of England didn't help either.
I think England would still have a chance to be a more dominate or equal power to France if it embraced industrialization more than a necessary evil, and try at the colonial game one more time maybe in south east Asia, or South America
Last edited:
wolf_brother
Banned
I'd say losing her colonies is what really threw British finances into such a wreck, and led to the First Republic, so we'd need to avoid that. The best bet then would be avoiding the Diplomatic Revolution. Without her traditionally allies on the continent the Stuarts (1) were forced to rely solely on the Prussians and Hanoverians in the Family War (2), and after the later were defeated at Liegnitz & Torgau in 1760 the British were forced to focus on Europe at the expense of North America; especially after the French nearly landed their forces on the island the previous year, that was a real scare for the Stuart aristocracy.
(1) OOC: You brought up the Stuarts remaining in power, and I think that's worth looking at. Perhaps the true POD is that Prince William, Duke of Gloucester doesn't die ITTL. Even IOTL his death was essentially a fluke.
(2) ITTL's Seven Year's War, which is more shorter compared to OTL. The name references the Pacte de Famille between the Bourbons of Spain and France.
Last edited:
Kaiphranos
Donor
True, but there's always the chance that the moderates in the Revolution manages to remain on top--no need for Charles III to lose his head. If the London mob hadn't taken over the city during the Hundred Days, then we might have seen some more gradual reforms along the French model. Which reminds me--we should also be thinking about the French half of this challenge...
OOC: I was thinking that the English Civil War had been averted, for one thing, or possibly ended with a quick Royalist victory, but events in France might have been diverging even before that.
Also OOC: We might want to clarify the situation in North America as well. Given the mention of some sort of "Colombia" it sounds like at least one English colony survives the Family War--perhaps Virginia remains while much of New England is annexed by a victorious France? And then afterwards some portion of the French colonies become independent as *Louisiana...
Get rid off Montesquieu. Accident, disease, whatever. It's ironic that a champion of the separation of powers managed to get the Estates General into such a powerful position that the King couldn't govern without their consent. Additionally, the reform of 1768, which merged the First and Second Estates must be stopped at all costs. Keep the structure of the thing as complicated and bureaucratic as possible. Prevents the assembly from effectively putting demands on the monarch. If you want to do it really late, then your only chance is stopping the reforms of Council-President Célestin Lanova in the 1840s. Once Senators could be elected to sit with the noblemen and bishops in the High Estate, there was no going back. Have King Philip VII oppose the reforms and rally the old order against Lanova. Or even better, make sure Lanova was never born and the Parti conservateur-radicale never find a leader as eloquent and commanding as him.
As it was, by the early 18th century, the French Constitution established the King to rule together with his Council, and the Estates-General passed the law. The King would traditionally appoint a prominent figure from whoever held the majority in the Third Estates as Council-President. Due in part to the Council-President's command of the Estates, as well as Louis XV and Louis XVI's preference for parties and other frivolities over the affairs of government allowed the CP to establish himself more and more as a figure of authority. In the 1790s, the English satirist Frederick North marveled over that France seemed to have "two executives" However, the gradual establishment of a partisanship in the early 19th century was growing more and more problematic for the established order, and Lanova encountered severe difficulties in pushing through for representation of the colonies and in ending the trading embargo on the Third British Republic. Although he had the support of the Third Estate and much of the bourgeois aristocracy and landowners (who benefited greatly by selling corn to Britain), many in the old order hated the idea of British manufactured goods flooding the poorly industrialized France. This would only bring about more power to the wealthy layers of the commoners, and thus undermine their own power. Despite re-election after re-election, the King had no choice but to re-appoint Lanova. In 1846, things drew to a close and Lanova introduced the Senatorial Act, which effectively halved the representation in the High Estate as far as the nobility and the clergy were concerned and introduced elected Senators. After the bill first passed the Third Estate, the High Estate vetoed it, despite Célestin Lanova's ally Guilliaume de La Fayette's very thorough attempt to bring it through. The King demanded a re-election over the bill, which the Parti conservateur-radicale won again. Finally, in 1847, the bill passed through the High Estate thanks to La Fayette and, with the Council-President having signed it, it was now up to the king. Philip VII, the old aristocrat, now refused to do so, creating a constitutional crisis. In early January 1848, the Bastille was stormed, and massive protests were held all over France. In March, the largest of them all were held outside of Versaille, and it continued for over three weeks. On the 22nd day, the King invited Lanova to sort things out. When the Council-President was arriving, the masses started cheering and applauding, chanting "Célestin du peuple!" The King demanded over coffee that Célestin bring the country to rest, and expressed his intention to have the mobs taken away from the village of Versaille by the army if necessary. Lanova merely responded that only the King could bring the crisis to an end, and that by signing the bill. If he didn't, and tried to use the army, they would likely mutiny against their sovereign. Apocryphally, Lanova is said to have stated that unless the king signed the bill, he would surrender the State into anarchy. When the king responded by stating the words of his ancestor, Louis XIV that he was the State, Lanova calmly replied: "Non, Votre Majesté, vous êtes simplement leur servante." ("No, Your Majesty, you are merely her servant.")
Bullied, and without allies, the king signed the bill two days later, and soon enough the discontent ended.
As it was, by the early 18th century, the French Constitution established the King to rule together with his Council, and the Estates-General passed the law. The King would traditionally appoint a prominent figure from whoever held the majority in the Third Estates as Council-President. Due in part to the Council-President's command of the Estates, as well as Louis XV and Louis XVI's preference for parties and other frivolities over the affairs of government allowed the CP to establish himself more and more as a figure of authority. In the 1790s, the English satirist Frederick North marveled over that France seemed to have "two executives" However, the gradual establishment of a partisanship in the early 19th century was growing more and more problematic for the established order, and Lanova encountered severe difficulties in pushing through for representation of the colonies and in ending the trading embargo on the Third British Republic. Although he had the support of the Third Estate and much of the bourgeois aristocracy and landowners (who benefited greatly by selling corn to Britain), many in the old order hated the idea of British manufactured goods flooding the poorly industrialized France. This would only bring about more power to the wealthy layers of the commoners, and thus undermine their own power. Despite re-election after re-election, the King had no choice but to re-appoint Lanova. In 1846, things drew to a close and Lanova introduced the Senatorial Act, which effectively halved the representation in the High Estate as far as the nobility and the clergy were concerned and introduced elected Senators. After the bill first passed the Third Estate, the High Estate vetoed it, despite Célestin Lanova's ally Guilliaume de La Fayette's very thorough attempt to bring it through. The King demanded a re-election over the bill, which the Parti conservateur-radicale won again. Finally, in 1847, the bill passed through the High Estate thanks to La Fayette and, with the Council-President having signed it, it was now up to the king. Philip VII, the old aristocrat, now refused to do so, creating a constitutional crisis. In early January 1848, the Bastille was stormed, and massive protests were held all over France. In March, the largest of them all were held outside of Versaille, and it continued for over three weeks. On the 22nd day, the King invited Lanova to sort things out. When the Council-President was arriving, the masses started cheering and applauding, chanting "Célestin du peuple!" The King demanded over coffee that Célestin bring the country to rest, and expressed his intention to have the mobs taken away from the village of Versaille by the army if necessary. Lanova merely responded that only the King could bring the crisis to an end, and that by signing the bill. If he didn't, and tried to use the army, they would likely mutiny against their sovereign. Apocryphally, Lanova is said to have stated that unless the king signed the bill, he would surrender the State into anarchy. When the king responded by stating the words of his ancestor, Louis XIV that he was the State, Lanova calmly replied: "Non, Votre Majesté, vous êtes simplement leur servante." ("No, Your Majesty, you are merely her servant.")
Bullied, and without allies, the king signed the bill two days later, and soon enough the discontent ended.
Last edited:
*OOC If the northern French Colonies go then I think it would be called Quebec for simplicities sake. What I'm imagining is Colombia being Virginia south while Quebec is the colonies north. Independence wise I think Columbia gets independence through French aid, and Quebec gets a lot of help from Colombian and English aid (causing England to go bankrupt, again). I see these states being essentially the same with the exception of Columbian being English speaking, and having Slaves. Further down the line we might see the two coming together with Columbia removing the Slaves.
Louisiana could be the name of the union?
*back on topic
We might see France weakening herself by messing up in the foreign alliance game if they allow the Germanies to unite. It's not a common fact that if you add all the GDP's of the modern German States they would ellipse most countries excluding France. possibly even France if you account for the removal of all the silly tariffs and custom laws they have with each other.
Last edited:
OOC: I don't think anyone was implying that France was protestant, just that they are 'Catholic without Rome'
I'm doing a module on this period interesting, this should be interesting. You probably need to have the Valois all die off at some point, as they were pretty committed to a more constiutional monarchy. Compared to the Tudors however, the Valois were pretty healthy so that might be difficult to achieve without a second Black Death.
Morty Vicar
Banned
Couldn't be done, this is ASB. The main reasons are
1) Britain is far too splintered to avoid revolution for any significant time period, especially right up the present. Divisions exist not only between Scots, English, Welsh and Irish, but between Protestants and Catholics, and Royalists and Republicans. Whatever happens and whoever is in charge some sort of civil war/ revolution is inevitable, at all stages throughout history. Added to this the fact that especially Scots and Irish rebels have almost infinite numbers of places from which to wage a guerrila campaign against the Crown, it makes it almost impossible for any Monarchy to be the absolutist power required.
2) France is surrounded by too many powerful enemies to survive a revolution, it would simply be swallowed up by any one of the surrounding powers, not to mention the Basque, Breton, Corsican peoples would take the opportunity to break from France and the future of France would be sealed. In other words the French would never recover enough to become any sort of significant colonial power as I assume you're suggesting..
3) Furthermore France after a revolution will have no interest in accumulating territories, they will have enough difficulty administering rule in France, and subduing any Royalist attempts at counter revolution. Not to mention the famine has not been magically solved by this point either. Britain only acquired new territories post-revolution out of necessity, basically it had to defend itself from other powers that threatened its very existence during the British Revolutionary Wars. And its only because of its unique advantage of being an island nation (with a powerful navy not neccesarily required by other nations at the time) that it even survived.
4) The dominance of the Catholic religion in France makes it virtually impossible to seperate Church and State, even if you somehow overthrow one of the most powerful Monarchies of the time and their armies who were amongst the most powerful in Europe, not to mention the Spanish, who if not for their allegiance to Bourbon France would almost certainly have intervened after any perceived attack on the Catholic church. Furthermore you'd need some French equivalent to the Covenanters/ Whigs/ Charles James Fox and William Pitt etc, I guess it would have to be the Huguenots, but by that time they had nowhere near enough power, and any sort of action would be opposed by the majority of French society, rich and poor alike. There's also no precursor to rebellion in France, as you have in Britain with Guy Fawkes, Wars of the three Kingdoms, Irish and Scottish rebels etc.
So sorry but imo it just can't be done.
Last edited: