DBWI: the Seven Years’ War not a total French Victory

IOTL, the Franco-Spanish-Austrian-Russian alliance totally defeated the British-Prussian-Portuguese alliance with several key outcomes. First, Spain forcibly annexed Portugal and its colonies and proclaimed the Iberian Empire. Second, after the battle of Philadelphia on land and the battle of the Chesapeake on sea, Britain was forced to cede all of its colonies and split them between France, Spain, and the Netherlands (which got back New Netherlands). Third, after King George was deposed by Parliament for urging peace and Parliament proclaimed a republic that would continue to fight, the Continental powers launched what would be largest sea-borne invasion ever until the infamous Operation Sea Lion 150 years later, and defeated the Parliamentary forces. Since Parliament had killed off the entirety of the royal family, the young grandson of Louis XV, Charles, was crowned absolute monarch King Charles III of England, and Ireland, Scotland, and Wales all were ruled by Spanish, Austrian, and Russian princes, respectively. How different would things be if the French alliance didn’t totally defeat the British one? Obviously, German unification is delayed, but besides that.
 

Dolan

Banned
It would butterfly the Flight of Princess Mary to then British North America, where she met and then fall in love with Benedict Arnold, the man who would later use his marriage toold Royal Blood of Britain to manouver himself as King Benedict I of the Kingdom of America.
 
It would butterfly the Flight of Princess Mary to then British North America, where she met and then fall in love with Benedict Arnold, the man who would later use his marriage toold Royal Blood of Britain to manouver himself as King Benedict I of the Kingdom of America.

Ah, someone has been watching their (incredibly historically inaccurate) “Benedict of America.” I’m sorry, that’s plain Appalachian propaganda. Benedict coerced her to marry him to lend legitimacy to his revolution. Unfortunately, French troops could not defeat his revolution until the 1790s due to having to rebuild England into a strong Catholic ally, which allowed Benedict to have 3 children with Mary whose descendants still roam around in West Virginia.
 

Dolan

Banned
Unfortunately, French troops could not defeat his revolution until the 1790s
King Benedict's defeat is due to the treachery of George Washington, who betrays his King for promise of a Republic in North America.

Yet even then Kingdom of America still held in Appalachian mountains and the frozen North, with Virginian wars end up stretching into two hundred years war waged by countless generations between the French backed Republic of America against Kingdom of America.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Ah, someone has been watching their (incredibly historically inaccurate) “Benedict of America.” I’m sorry, that’s plain Appalachian propaganda. Benedict coerced her to marry him to lend legitimacy to his revolution. Unfortunately, French troops could not defeat his revolution until the 1790s due to having to rebuild England into a strong Catholic ally, which allowed Benedict to have 3 children with Mary whose descendants still roam around in West Virginia.
You don't believe this Bourbon propaganda do you? Don't trust those lying surveys, England is less than 10% Catholic, and a rebellion against France's Bourbon-Stuart puppet regime can break out at any moment.
 
The French and Spanish should have stopped after the invasion of Ireland, Bourbon control over Ireland and the loss of all their colonies would have crippled Britain enough to prevent them from becoming a threat to French power again. Instead the French decision to divide and maintain control over Great Britain has drained French money and resources for centuries.

Unfortunately the ease of which they conquered Ireland (which was more down to the fact that Irish Catholics saw them as liberators, in particular the Spanish decision to land the Regiment of Hibernia under Arturo O'Neill at Kinsale was a genius propaganda coup) led them to believe they could conquer and control Britain with the same ease.
 

Dolan

Banned
Unfortunately the ease of which they conquered Ireland (which was more down to the fact that Irish Catholics saw them as liberators, in particular the Spanish decision to land the Regiment of Hibernia under Arturo O'Neill at Kinsale was a genius propaganda coup) led them to believe they could conquer and control Britain with the same ease.

Which result in how Franco-Spanish Alliance could hold Britain, even if barely.

Giving lands and titles all around Britain to experienced Irish mercenaries definitely does the trick (at the expense of Englishmen and Scots), the Irish are extremely loyal elements that proves again and again to be unshakeable cornerstone of the British Bourbon.

Hell, the sheer brutality of Irish Muire garrisons enabled the Bourbon to come out of the English Potato Famine relatively unscathed.
 
Which result in how Franco-Spanish Alliance could hold Britain, even if barely.

Giving lands and titles all around Britain to experienced Irish mercenaries definitely does the trick (at the expense of Englishmen and Scots), the Irish are extremely loyal elements that proves again and again to be unshakeable cornerstone of the British Bourbon.

Hell, the sheer brutality of Irish Muire garrisons enabled the Bourbon to come out of the English Potato Famine relatively unscathed.

(OOC: England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all established in the original post as having been made independent kingdoms under different princes, so it would be the English Bourbons.)

On the other hand, there might've been less rebellious sentiment in Britain had many lands not been given to Irish landlords who in some cases didn't even reside in the same country. The Irish are sort of stuck in the mire now, in addition to the Irish Bourbons wanting to support their English relatives, there's a notable Irish-descended population in the north of England that would probably be massacred if the French and Irish pulled out, not to mention fears that a resurgent England (or even worse, a reunited Great Britain) would attempt to take revenge for all the years of Franco-Irish oppression.
 

Dolan

Banned
(OOC: England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all established in the original post as having been made independent kingdoms under different princes, so it would be the English Bourbons.)

On the other hand, there might've been less rebellious sentiment in Britain had many lands not been given to Irish landlords who in some cases didn't even reside in the same country. The Irish are sort of stuck in the mire now, in addition to the Irish Bourbons wanting to support their English relatives, there's a notable Irish-descended population in the north of England that would probably be massacred if the French and Irish pulled out, not to mention fears that a resurgent England (or even worse, a reunited Great Britain) would attempt to take revenge for all the years of Franco-Irish oppression.
OOC : Oops, sorry... Ireland ruled by a Spanish Prince then...

IC: the Franco-Spanish could not exactly retract their promise when Irish People themselves end up crowning Arturo O'Neill, who coming from the still influential O'Neill dynasty, as the High King Arthur I of Ireland, not without turning the Irish from staunch allies into outright enemy.

Thankfully, King Arthur I has only Daughters and it was a simple matter to convince him to marry Princess Aideen to Infante Carlos, the later who then took the prestigious family name of O'Neill to satisfy the Irish demands, and become High King Calbhach I of O'Neill-Bourbon.

And yeah, the proliferation of Irish landlords in British Islands was done partially to cement the rule of King Calbhach, which some Irishmen still look as foreign King even if he tried his best to become even more Irish than true Irishmen.
 
King Benedict's defeat is due to the treachery of George Washington, who betrays his King for promise of a Republic in North America.

Yet even then Kingdom of America still held in Appalachian mountains and the frozen North, with Virginian wars end up stretching into two hundred years war waged by countless generations between the French backed Republic of America against Kingdom of America.

Hah, you really are listening to that movie instead of real life. George Washington died in his ill-fated attack on Fort Duquesne, which sparked the Seven Years’ War. What actually happened that was the final blow to Benedict I was Thomas Jefferson’s infamous “Declaration of Liberation” declaring that he had switched sides in the war. I’m shocked no one else has caught onto this. And if by “still held on for 200 years” you mean they went to the Appalachians and only left to kill women and children then yes, you’re right, I’ll grant you that.
 
You don't believe this Bourbon propaganda do you? Don't trust those lying surveys, England is less than 10% Catholic, and a rebellion against France's Bourbon-Stuart puppet regime can break out at any moment.

A. If it’s so unstable, why hasn’t there been a serious revolution since 1867?
B. Pew did a poll the other day showing that 55-60% of England was Catholic.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
A. If it’s so unstable, why hasn’t there been a serious revolution since 1867?
B. Pew did a poll the other day showing that 55-60% of England was Catholic.
Did you actually read their description of the survey? They were being supervised by collaborationist security services the whole time. If you don't consider the 2001 War of English Liberation to be "serious revolution" then the only person you're fooling is yourself.
 
I assume that the proxy wars of SE Asia would have been England+OE vs Neth vs France instead of OE vs Neth+"Free Britain" vs France.
Also, since Bengal was central to british India but peripheral to french India, the equivalent to the First Franco-Burmese War would not have resulted in Burma taking the Meghna basin and severely weakening european rule in the Brahmaputra basin. It likely would instead lead to Burma losing territory, and not industrialising.
 
Second, after the battle of Philadelphia on land and the battle of the Chesapeake on sea, Britain was forced to cede all of its colonies and split them between France, Spain, and the Netherlands (which got back New Netherlands).

(OOC: this is the most unlikely part. None of those countries wants to rule the English colonies. They just don’t want the British to expand beyond the Appalachians. Having the British renounce its claims to the Ohio Valley is the real objective. Even if these nations somehow occupied the 13 colonies, they will probably give them back in the peace for something better.)
 
(OOC: this is the most unlikely part. None of those countries wants to rule the English colonies. They just don’t want the British to expand beyond the Appalachians. Having the British renounce its claims to the Ohio Valley is the real objective. Even if these nations somehow occupied the 13 colonies, they will probably give them back in the peace for something better.)

OOC: the point is a total defeat and dismembering of the British Empire (i e they couldn’t get anything better because they won totally on every front)
 
If Peter III wasn't assassinated by his wife the day after he took the throne then Russia might have switched sides. He was famously a strong prussophile. Without the Eastern front Frederick can defeat Austria and then France with Russia's aid

No saving Britain
 
If Peter III wasn't assassinated by his wife the day after he took the throne then Russia might have switched sides. He was famously a strong prussophile. Without the Eastern front Frederick can defeat Austria and then France with Russia's aid

No saving Britain

There is no evidence to support the claim his wife killed him. Zero.
 
There is no evidence to support the claim his wife killed him. Zero.

Shocking that there would be little evidence of marticide when the most ambitious Empress in recent times who has every motivation to suppress any and all evidence just took the throne.

Anyone who believes that Peter just happened to perish at the perfect moment for his wife, who wrote at length about how terrible he was, to take control without any of her involvement. I want to believe you're just innocent and unread but I suspect you're financed by AEAS [Autocratic Empire of All Slavs]. You lot will never accept any criticism of your perfect Empress
 
Shocking that there would be little evidence of marticide when the most ambitious Empress in recent times who has every motivation to suppress any and all evidence just took the throne.

Anyone who believes that Peter just happened to perish at the perfect moment for his wife, who wrote at length about how terrible he was, to take control without any of her involvement. I want to believe you're just innocent and unread but I suspect you're financed by AEAS [Autocratic Empire of All Slavs]. You lot will never accept any criticism of your perfect Empress

I don’t even like the woman, but the available evidence from the time shows he was killed by a French ambassador trying to keep the Russians on their side. Now, again, that French ambassador may have been a-er-“friend” of hers. But there’s no evidence to suggest she asked that he kill Peter.
 
If you're going to do a DB WI, at the least make it believable. A total and utter defeat of the British Empire to the point where every single colony has been occupied and handed over to a foreign power, all of the home islands have been invaded, the British royal family have been deposed and killed and foreign princes imposed onto Britain?

Absolutely no chance. Not unless Britain somehow decided to sink her own navy.
 
Top