Earliest possible Kingdom of Great Britain?

[Gingerdave]

What is the earliest possible single nation that includes all of the island of Great Britain?

The way I see it, there's a few possibilities.

There's the Roman invasion - in some ways the current borders of England/Wales and England/Scotland reflect the limits of Roman rule.

Or if the Romans never conquered Britain, could the Celtic natives have formed a single nation?

Once the Romans have gone and everything's fragmented during the migration period it's probably a stretch.

I suppose there could be a similar situation to OTL's Union of the Crowns, just earlier, when the same person inherits both the English and Scottish monarchy, and the Welsh are conquered or somehow brought into the fold.

Maybe Edward I could conquer Scotland?


What would be the consequences?

I've read that the Union between England and Scotland was one of the drivers for the British Empire. From the English perspective, Scotland went from a potential enemy (due to the Auld Alliance) to an ally, providing a peace dividend to the United Kingdom.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Theoretically, the Plantagenet kings could have conquered Scotland (though this would have taken a while, with lots of revolts), eventually resulting in Scotland (and Wales too) becoming subsumed into a greater England.

The process of unification will have an impact on whether Scots Law and other autonomous Scottish institutions and practises will be maintained.

 

[VVD0D95]

Edward II abd Margaret maid of Norway marry and have kids.

 

[QTXAdsy]

Edward II abd Margaret maid of Norway marry and have kids.

Yes, was going to say that as IIRC, this was Edward I's plan to unite the crowns in which their offspring would be the eventual first rulers of a United Britain. This butterflies the wars of Scottish Independence and the entire history of Britain would take a very different turn. Maybe once England and Scotland are united earlier than OTL, Edward I focuses his aim by next conquering Ireland in with a combined force of English and Scottish troops means that Ireland is likely taken and with that, Edward I could he seen a British Bismark as the man who masterminded the unification of the British Isles instead as a villian if you're Scottish or Welsh.

Would be interesting to see the ramifications of an early united British Isles ITTL.

 

[VVD0D95]

Yes, was going to say that as IIRC, this was Edward I's plan to unite the crowns in which their offspring would be the eventual first rulers of a United Britain. This butterflies the wars of Scottish Independence and the entire history of Britain would take a very different turn. Maybe once England and Scotland are united earlier than OTL, Edward I focuses his aim by next conquering Ireland in with a combined force of English and Scottish troops means that Ireland is likely taken and with that, Edward I could he seen a British Bismark as the man who masterminded the unification of the British Isles instead as a villian if you're Scottish or Welsh.

Would be interesting to see the ramifications of an early united British Isles ITTL.

Agreed. And it also means Scotland isn’t decimated by half a century of fighting

 

[QTXAdsy]

Agreed. And it also means Scotland isn’t decimated by half a century of fighting

Plus any Scottish identity ITTL would look vastly different from OTL as such would any Irish identity in which are likely worse off here as not only have they the English invading, they now have the Scots invading too which means they are utterly screwed never mind the Welsh.

Ofc there is no Auld Alliance with Scotland and France here as Scotland is, somewhat gone here, and likely France shits the bed seeing as the British Isles are united and could pose a dangerous threat to them so likely more conflicts with a united Britain and France here or something of a cold war between them.

 

[VVD0D95]

Plus any Scottish identity ITTL would look vastly different from OTL as such would any Irish identity in which are likely worse off here as not only have they the English invading, they now have the Scots invading too which means they are utterly screwed never mind the Welsh.

Ofc there is no Auld Alliance with Scotland and France here as Scotland is, somewhat gone here, and likely France shits the bed seeing as the British Isles are united and could pose a dangerous threat to them so likely more conflicts with a united Britain and France here or something of a cold war between them.

Indeed would be an interesting turn if events

 

[FalconHonour]

Edward II abd Margaret maid of Norway marry and have kids.

This would be my pick. And then their children can push into Wales, if he doesn't have Scotland as a thorn in his side...

 

[bobbins]

Aethelstan (924) was potentially the earliest ruler who had authority over the mainland UK after defeating the Scot’s and Welsh and having them acknowledge him as ruler of the whole island. He confirmed this at Brunanburh when he defeated a Scot’s / Viking army. He died without issue and quite early - so if he’d lived longer, and had a strong successor things could have been very different?
Also worth remembering that the lowlands of Scotland were still predominantly Anglo Saxon at that point so would have been much easier to maintain control.
If I remember correctly it was Aethelstans claim that Edward1 used to justify some of his actions.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Yes, was going to say that as IIRC, this was Edward I's plan to unite the crowns in which their offspring would be the eventual first rulers of a United Britain. This butterflies the wars of Scottish Independence and the entire history of Britain would take a very different turn. Maybe once England and Scotland are united earlier than OTL, Edward I focuses his aim by next conquering Ireland in with a combined force of English and Scottish troops means that Ireland is likely taken and with that, Edward I could he seen a British Bismark as the man who masterminded the unification of the British Isles instead as a villian if you're Scottish or Welsh.

TBH I think he'd be more likely to go to war in France rather than anywhere else, relations with France were already strained and the area promised bigger returns than Ireland, which was something of a backwater in this period.

Aethelstan (924) was potentially the earliest ruler who had authority over the mainland UK after defeating the Scot’s and Welsh and having them acknowledge him as ruler of the whole island. He confirmed this at Brunanburh when he defeated a Scot’s / Viking army. He died without issue and quite early - so if he’d lived longer, and had a strong successor things could have been very different?
Also worth remembering that the lowlands of Scotland were still predominantly Anglo Saxon at that point so would have been much easier to maintain control.
If I remember correctly it was Aethelstans claim that Edward1 used to justify some of his actions.

Yeah an Anglo-Saxon conquest of Scotland and Wales is probably your best bet, assuming you don't want to go down the Roman Britain encompassing Caledonia route.

 

[spkaca]

There is a twelfth-century possibility, though it requires a few changes. King David I of Scotland's only son, Henry Earl of Huntingdon, was unmarried until 1139. If Geoffrey of Anjou had died young, preventing his marriage to the Empress Matilda, perhaps they might have married in the early 1130s. If they had had a son (let's call him "Henry-David") about 1133 (the actual DoB for Henry II), that son would have had a very strong claim to unite England and Scotland some time in the 1150s.

 

[VVD0D95]

There is a twelfth-century possibility, though it requires a few changes. King David I of Scotland's only son, Henry Earl of Huntingdon, was unmarried until 1139. If Geoffrey of Anjou had died young, preventing his marriage to the Empress Matilda, perhaps they might have married in the early 1130s. If they had had a son (let's call him "Henry-David") about 1133 (the actual DoB for Henry II), that son would have had a very strong claim to unite England and Scotland some time in the 1150s.

Getting a papal dispensation for the first cousin marriage would be difficult for the era

 

[spkaca]

Getting a papal dispensation for the first cousin marriage would be difficult for the era

Very good point. Also I can't see any very strong reason why Henry I would push for it, so overall I agree it's unlikely.

 

[VVD0D95]

Very good point. Also I can't see any very strong reason why Henry I would push for it, so overall I agree it's unlikely.

Indeed. He seemed to have been more concerned with getting another son.

Tho under the old Anglo Saxon lineage henrh Huntingdon did have the best claim. Whuch is making me wonder

 

[david31]

Aethelstan (924) was potentially the earliest ruler who had authority over the mainland UK after defeating the Scot’s and Welsh and having them acknowledge him as ruler of the whole island. He confirmed this at Brunanburh when he defeated a Scot’s / Viking army. He died without issue and quite early - so if he’d lived longer, and had a strong successor things could have been very different?
Also worth remembering that the lowlands of Scotland were still predominantly Anglo Saxon at that point so would have been much easier to maintain control.
If I remember correctly it was Aethelstans claim that Edward1 used to justify some of his actions.

I wouldn't have called Edmund I and Edraed as weak successors. Problem was both of them died young, Edmund stabbed in a fight and Edraed suffered from ill health. The turmoil of the age and the consolidation of English control over York and the Five Boroughs was probably the limit of the Kings abilities to extend their authority any further north. Two minorities after strong kings plus the renewal of Scandinavian raiding wouldn't have helped either.

 

[AlternateEagle]

Magnus Maximus remains in Britain and crowns himself Rex of Britain? Meanwhile pulling off a counter-invasion of the Picts and pacifying the Irish?

 

[Salamander]

As Bobbins said earlier, Aethelstan already attained the status, if not the title, of High-King of Great Britain. However, assuming history continues as IOTL until 1660, the Restoration of Charles II offers the chance to formally unite England and Scotland politically. After all, the Act of Union was only 47 years later in 1707.

 

[material_boy]

Yes, was going to say that as IIRC, this was Edward I's plan to unite the crowns in which their offspring would be the eventual first rulers of a United Britain.

It was more likely Alexander III's plan. The earliest surviving reference to a possible marriage between Edward of Caernarfon and Margaret of Norway is in a letter from Alexander to Edward dated in the months following Alexander's son's death.

This would be my pick. And then their children can push into Wales, if he doesn't have Scotland as a thorn in his side...

The Edwardian conquest of Wales had already happened by this time.

There is a twelfth-century possibility, though it requires a few changes. King David I of Scotland's only son, Henry Earl of Huntingdon, was unmarried until 1139. If Geoffrey of Anjou had died young, preventing his marriage to the Empress Matilda, perhaps they might have married in the early 1130s. If they had had a son (let's call him "Henry-David") about 1133 (the actual DoB for Henry II), that son would have had a very strong claim to unite England and Scotland some time in the 1150s.

Getting a papal dispensation for the first cousin marriage would be difficult for the era

Henry didn't have the greatest relation with the church, but I think the bigger obstacle to a 12th century union is that it makes much less diplomatic sense. Anglo-Scottish relations were much warmer (and the border between the two much safer) than Norman-Angevin relations, and this is a time when the counts of Anjou are rapidly rising in power. Matilda may have bristled at marrying a mere count, but bringing the Anglo-Norman's realm's most antagonistic neighbor on side just makes a lot of sense.

 

[VVD0D95]

It was more likely Alexander III's plan. The earliest surviving reference to a possible marriage between Edward of Caernarfon and Margaret of Norway is in a letter from Alexander to Edward dated in the months following Alexander's son's death.



The Edwardian conquest of Wales had already happened by this time.




Henry didn't have the greatest relation with the church, but I think the bigger obstacle to a 12th century union is that it makes much less diplomatic sense. Anglo-Scottish relations were much warmer (and the border between the two much safer) than Norman-Angevin relations, and this is a time when the counts of Anjou are rapidly rising in power. Matilda may have bristled at marrying a mere count, but bringing the Anglo-Norman's realm's most antagonistic neighbor on side just makes a lot of sense.

Indeed david only really wanted to take Northumbria during the chaos of the anarchy. Before that he was more concerned to settle Scotland

 

[QTXAdsy]

TBH I think he'd be more likely to go to war in France rather than anywhere else, relations with France were already strained and the area promised bigger returns than Ireland, which was something of a backwater in this period.

Maybe, but remember if England and Scotland are united earlier ITTL under peaceful means, France may ought to try and form a Auld Alliance with Ireland here lets say even if it is a backwater as you and Edward I would be aware of this and would likely want to make sure all the British isles are secure from any French influence. With lets say a combined England/Scottish/Welsh and Irish army now at Edward I's disposal, France will be terrified that such a combined force can not only match them but maybe have them defeated with could have major butterflies for French and British history. Such a fascinating concept that really needs to be adapted more for ATL's.