England keeps most of its French possessions

[larpsidekick]

No for the same reasons as England would not turn into a French speaking country*. Actualy nearby France, which will still be rather influential would make it even less likely that Normandy switches languages. I used belgium as an example earlier and can do the same here. Even though Wallonia (only Flandres was French) was part of the Holy Roman Empire, it still retained its Romance language, for a large part because of the influence of France. So the best case situation for an English Normandy would be an Anglophone elite and a Francophone population until nationalism arises. Although, I think in this case france's cultural influence is powerful enough for the elite of Normandy to remain Francophone.


*BTW I want to make clear I was not talking about an England whose king still owns Normandy, I was talking about the Angevin Empire or something similar, in which the king of England controls a large part of France. In that case the centre of power would be in the more wealthy French provinces (for example Richard Lionheart barely visited England and prefered France) . If he would only control Normandy the centre of power would be England.

England was the part of the Angevin Empire that was easiest to tax, and able to provide the most tax - due to the organisation of the country which started with the Anfglo Saxons and continued through Domesday etc. It wasn't because Acquitaine was richer that England that Richard spent more time there - he was born and brought up in Acquitaine, his mother with whom he was very close loved Acquitaine, he was Acquitainian, not English. His father, Henry 2, for example, spent considerably more time in England, to a degree because he had to pacify th country after his accession.

To be fair, I agree that a continued Angevin empire would lead to monarchs spending most of their time in their French territories - but because these would be the most threatened and restless territories (with France after the Vexin, Acquitainian nobles naturally restless etc).

 

[funnyhat]

You probably get a French speaking elite class, while the common people speak the local language. The middle class will try to emulate the upper class and speak French, at least until nationalism kicks in and the growing middle classes will want to speak their own language (and eventualy the local upper classes too).

England is too big (and unconnected) to be assimilated into the French speaking part. Personaly I think Belgium is linguistically the place to look at and we see that the language border very slowly moved north, something that can not happen in England, since it isn't connected to France, and Brussels turned from a Dutch speaking city into a French speaking city. This, theoretically could happen to London too, but somehow I doubt it.

But keep in mind that Belgium borders not only France but also the Netherlands, so it experienced Dutch cultural influence as well. The Flemings didn't fail to note that their native language was used on an official basis north of the border. Conversely, the English language would not have this kind of foreign support ITTL. It would have to survive on its own as (presumably) a non-official language.

Note the case of Ireland, where a linguistic shift occurred despite geographical separation and very strong Irish nationalism. The Irish language was not supported by any foreign government, and Ireland itself was considerably less populous (from the 19th century onward) than England. Social pressures to learn English were strong, and Irish eventually came to be viewed as an unimportant peasant's language.

Now, if the Anglo-French union somehow holds up, then the population disparity between France and England will probably exist in permanence. Remember that in medieval times, France had about four times the population of England. If the kings of Anglo-France permanently reside in Paris, then it will probably dwarf London in importance and ambitious Englishmen will go there instead of London to make their fortunes. English in this scenario could well be akin to Irish in OTL, where it is still widely spoken into the 19th century in the countryside but French would become increasingly spoken in the cities. Then in the 19th/20th centuries, urbanization and universal public education (in French) would likely cause its use to severely decline.

 

[Eivind]

I think the problem is outside of Brittany and Burgundy, anyone who controlled french territory would be seen as a foreign power and destined to be forcefully removed when France got its act together.

Not necessarily. Before the 15th century there'd be no such thing as a foreign power (unless they weren't Catholic or something) in France. France existed only as the title, not as an identity French people were beholden to. It's not totally impossible for the Kingdom to become fractured and either for the title to fall into disuse (like the Kingdom of Arles) or for it to be partitioned into smaller Kingdoms.

I agree with Hashoosh. This was a long time before nationalism. It was probably not before the nineteenth century that most people really started to identify as French.

About the language discussion, I assume that if the English kings kept a large part of France as their possession for a long time, the French language would remain the language of the elite for a longer time and the English language would be even more influenced by French than in OTL.

 

[Kaisermuffin]

Which is why one day, this more powerful English King, who also has vast territories in France, will start also calling himself the King of France, and will tell this OTHER King of France to stop calling himself the King of France. And when that other King of France refuses to stop, this King of England AND France swats him down with his better/larger/stronger/army, and then rules a united France himself.

If he fails to do this, the other French kill will one day win. There can be only one.

Hundred Years War I recall rite?

 

[darthfanta]

No, it wouldn't. Certainly not the vast majority of the population.

Say that to Ireland.

 

[Simreeve]

Wasn't the native language in Ireland actually subjected to active suppression of some sort for at least part of the time? Why would that happen to English?

 

[darthfanta]

Wasn't the native language in Ireland actually subjected to active suppression of some sort for at least part of the time? Why would that happen to English?

It can happen to England.

 

[Simreeve]

"can", yes... but why? In the case of Ireland IOTL it was to try anglicising the natives and thus [hopefully] make them less likely to rebel, but England ITTL would probably have been a relatively loyal part of the kingdoms anyway and -- going by OTL -- rebellions in England were more likely to be led by members of the upper classes who (ITTL) would quite possibly be French-speakers instead...

 

[funnyhat]

"can", yes... but why? In the case of Ireland IOTL it was to try anglicising the natives and thus [hopefully] make them less likely to rebel, but England ITTL would probably have been a relatively loyal part of the kingdoms anyway and -- going by OTL -- rebellions in England were more likely to be led by members of the upper classes who (ITTL) would quite possibly be French-speakers instead...

For the same reason that Occitan, Breton, Basque, Alsatian, etc were suppressed in France (and regional languages in most other European countries) - the logic of 19th/early 20th-century nationalism dictated that a country should have only one language spoken and that others were an obstacle to national unity.

 

[Dunois]

For the same reason that Occitan, Breton, Basque, Alsatian, etc were suppressed in France (and regional languages in most other European countries) - the logic of 19th/early 20th-century nationalism dictated that a country should have only one language spoken and that others were an obstacle to national unity.

Different historical dyanmics will probably lead to a "nationalism" that is completely unrecognisable TTL compared to OTL.
I would also like to point out that it is exaggerated to speak to regional languages being" suppressed" in France. They are after all still around in some form and it took until the 1950s and mass media for them to really lose a lot of traction.

Pluralism could very well become part of an "Anglo-French" identity à la British identity. Oh yes there will be a lot or cross influences from one language to the other but they will remain distinct in some form. It could become a mark of good birth to speak all the languages of the land.

 

[funnyhat]

Different historical dyanmics will probably lead to a "nationalism" that is completely unrecognisable TTL compared to OTL.
I would also like to point out that it is exaggerated to speak to regional languages being" suppressed" in France. They are after all still around in some form and it took until the 1950s and mass media for them to really lose a lot of traction.

They were suppressed in the classroom for many years. Generations of schoolchildren were forcibly made to speak only French at school, lest they suffer punishment. That is well-documented. Of course, the languages did not become completely extinct, but they have far fewer speakers now than they once did and these people tend to be elderly, as their own experiences discouraged them from passing the language on to their children. Many of the speakers moreover can't read or write in these languages; they are often literate only in French.

Pluralism could very well become part of an "Anglo-French" identity à la British identity. Oh yes there will be a lot or cross influences from one language to the other but they will remain distinct in some form. It could become a mark of good birth to speak all the languages of the land.

This seems doubtful. The trend in the 19th and 20th centuries across the Western world (not just France) was toward linguistic homogeneity. All across Europe regional languages have been on the decline. Only recently has there been a push to revive them, with limited results in most cases.

In a hypothetical Anglo-France kingdom, English would be a minority, regional language. Remember, in 1450 there were about four million people in England and 15-16 million in France. If the union persists into the present day, the population disparity probably won't shrink that much as London will not emerge as a huge global city - a lot of the people who moved there for opportunities IOTL would most likely move to Paris ITTL. (This Paris would probably be an absolute behemoth of a city, by far the largest in Europe.) In the end I don't see how England would be that much different from any other French province. Like the other regional languages of France, the English language would likely be regarded as a peasant's language, not suitable for the elite in Paris to speak.

 

[HunterX]

They were suppressed in the classroom for many years. Generations of schoolchildren were forcibly made to speak only French at school, lest they suffer punishment. That is well-documented. Of course, the languages did not become completely extinct, but they have far fewer speakers now than they once did and these people tend to be elderly, as their own experiences discouraged them from passing the language on to their children. Many of the speakers moreover can't read or write in these languages; they are often literate only in French.



This seems doubtful. The trend in the 19th and 20th centuries across the Western world (not just France) was toward linguistic homogeneity. All across Europe regional languages have been on the decline. Only recently has there been a push to revive them, with limited results in most cases.

In a hypothetical Anglo-France kingdom, English would be a minority, regional language. Remember, in 1450 there were about four million people in England and 15-16 million in France. If the union persists into the present day, the population disparity probably won't shrink that much as London will not emerge as a huge global city - a lot of the people who moved there for opportunities IOTL would most likely move to Paris ITTL. (This Paris would probably be an absolute behemoth of a city, by far the largest in Europe.) In the end I don't see how England would be that much different from any other French province. Like the other regional languages of France, the English language would likely be regarded as a peasant's language, not suitable for the elite in Paris to speak.

This thread isn't about a union with the entirety of France, Paris is probably the capital of a hostile foreign power. Besides, is there any historical precedent for a large and populous island like Britain being assimilated in the way you suggest? Even if the urban and upper classes are assimilated into French language and culture, much of that will be washed away come the industrial revolution when those English speaking peasants take over the cities, like what happened throughout other similar situations in Europe. The 19th century was hardly a time of easy assimilation for multi-ethnic European states, I'm not sure why the English language would wither when Czech, Hungarian, or many other languages didn't.

 

[Clandango]

It can happen to England.

Might be problematic if things end up with their being more English speakers than Parisian French, especially since English holdings in France were mainly of the areas that had a good deal of, frankly, non-French languages.

 

[HunterX]

Might be problematic if things end up with their being more English speakers than Parisian French, especially since English holdings in France were mainly of the areas that had a good deal of, frankly, non-French languages.

I think people are confusing the premise. The English Kings holding onto their lands in France is still likely to result in a state with its center of power in London. Even in the worst case scenario, England will keep its own separate institutions and identity.

 

[kasumigenx]

I think Aquitaine would end up independent in the long run, claiming Provence and Languedoc areas.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

I think people are confusing the premise. The English Kings holding onto their lands in France is still likely to result in a state with its center of power in London. Even in the worst case scenario, England will keep its own separate institutions and identity.

I think that's the big question though. If the Kings of England keep their French possessions, which are wealthier and more populous than England, how long before one of them decides to rule from France? Or consolidate government into one entity which meets in France? I would argue that the POD almost inevitably results in the the political center of the country moving south across the Channel eventually.

I think in reality it's extremely difficult to keep the two nations together since it's too easy for them to isolate from each other but with this POD France is likely to win out politically eventually.

 

[Janprimus]

This thread isn't about a union with the entirety of France, Paris is probably the capital of a hostile foreign power. Besides, is there any historical precedent for a large and populous island like Britain being assimilated in the way you suggest? Even if the urban and upper classes are assimilated into French language and culture, much of that will be washed away come the industrial revolution when those English speaking peasants take over the cities, like what happened throughout other similar situations in Europe. The 19th century was hardly a time of easy assimilation for multi-ethnic European states, I'm not sure why the English language would wither when Czech, Hungarian, or many other languages didn't.

Not counting the migration periods and a large technological, cultural etc. disparity (colonial period), then usually the elites adopt the more prestigious language, (partially (bilingual)) followed by the middle classes. However TTL English is very likely to survive as language of the lower classes. ITTL English revival might look to related West Germanic languages, which ITTL (German, Dutch, Frisian) had the chance to develop as a cultural language.

Might be problematic if things end up with their being more English speakers than Parisian French, especially since English holdings in France were mainly of the areas that had a good deal of, frankly, non-French languages.

They only non Romance languages were Breton, perhaps some Basque and if they also acquire Flanders Dutch (Flemish dialect group). Most of Aquitaine (including Gascony) spoke Langue d'Oc dialects, however dialects in Anjou and Normandy (and Gallo in Brittany) are like the French of Ile de France Langue d'Oil dialects.

I think people are confusing the premise. The English Kings holding onto their lands in France is still likely to result in a state with its center of power in London. Even in the worst case scenario, England will keep its own separate institutions and identity.

I think that's the big question though. If the Kings of England keep their French possessions, which are wealthier and more populous than England, how long before one of them decides to rule from France? Or consolidate government into one entity which meets in France? I would argue that the POD almost inevitably results in the the political center of the country moving south across the Channel eventually.

I think in reality it's extremely difficult to keep the two nations together since it's too easy for them to isolate from each other but with this POD France is likely to win out politically eventually.

I thought that the pod was about the king of England also stays duke of Aquitaine, duke of Normandy, count of Anjou etc. This would be a personal union.
The king of England is likely to reside in his French domains, however unifying it into one government will be rather hard. What might happen, is that various councils for England, Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou etc. will meet near the royal residence (Poitiers, Angers, Rouen or London), but formally they're likely to be kept separate.

 

[yulzari]

Rouen was the effective capital of 'English France IOTL and may well have expanded it's position with a still Francophone leading class. Even IOTL French was part of the legal system in England until into the 19th century.

I suspect that there would be an increasing friction between 'English England' and 'English France' until they eventually separate unamicably whilst 'France' remains divided. Even now my neighbour's wife has to translate his local patois into received French for him.

 

[Socrates]

This "French takes over logic" I don't buy. Even in most of these "French" territories, French isn't spoken by the common people: they speak Breton in Brittany and Occitan in Aquitaine. England is not like Ireland as a small rural country with transplanted settlers. It is a very populous country with an existing urban culture of English speakers. The middle classes aren't going to stop speaking English, much less the working classes. What will happen is that the elite might stay bilingual for a couple centuries more, and "English" gets more French loan words, but nothing more than that. Normandy won't turn English language for similar reasons.

The main linguistic change from our timeline is that the regional languages of France don't get wiped out in English areas. And they will likely push for independence when nationalism arises. The situation it will most closely resemble is the Habsburg Empire.

 

[Janprimus]

@ Socrates: the English elite is very likely to mostly speak a Langue d'Oil dialect (could be Anglo-Norman too), so not necessarily (Ile de France) French.
This has an effect on the middle classes, especially social climbers and they too will adopt this prestige language and become de facto bilingual. This is something, which was also seen IOTL in the various countries referred to in this thread.
However the lower classes are indeed unlikely to stop speaking their native language. It would be situation like the OTL Southern (Spanish & Austrian) Netherlands and later Belgium, only instead of Dutch it will be English.