english protectorates in france

could it be, in any way whatsoever, possible that the United Kingdom would set up protectorates in France after Napoleon's defeat?

I'm thinking Brittany and Normandy would be the most logical choice. it would decrease the change of French invasion of the British isles in the future and would make France more reliant on British trade, since major ports are under British protection. maybee the Calais-Boulogne area could be one as well, or might even be reannexatied by the British?

What do you guys think?
 
could it be, in any way whatsoever, possible that the United Kingdom would set up protectorates in France after Napoleon's defeat?

I'm thinking Brittany and Normandy would be the most logical choice. it would decrease the change of French invasion of the British isles in the future and would make France more reliant on British trade, since major ports are under British protection. maybee the Calais-Boulogne area could be one as well, or might even be reannexatied by the British?

What do you guys think?

How exactly is Britain setting up protectorates within another country?
 
France an Spain had their own protectorate zones in Morocco. Anyway, I think he just means carving protectorates out of France.
EDIT: ninja'd

Yeah, but Morocco isn't exactly in a position to protest. France, and those who have a problem with England being too dominant as is, do.

So carving protectorates out of France is going to provoke immense resistance, straddle England with continental possessions, and of course - what claim does England have to doing so? "We want it" is just going to aggravate anti-English sentiment.
 

Pangur

Donor
You would need a part of France that wanted no part of Paris and with a coast line so that they (Britain) can support it. That does not leave much in the way of options, Brittany perhaps
 
could it be, in any way whatsoever, possible that the United Kingdom would set up protectorates in France after Napoleon's defeat?

I'm thinking Brittany and Normandy would be the most logical choice. it would decrease the change of French invasion of the British isles in the future and would make France more reliant on British trade, since major ports are under British protection. maybee the Calais-Boulogne area could be one as well, or might even be reannexatied by the British?

What do you guys think?

I think annexing colonies is relatively easy since their establishement is (usualy) faily recent, they are physicaly cut off from the mother country and you always have the option of expulsing peoples to replace them with some less rowdy. Part of a country that has been integral for centuries though would be a bit more tricky.

The bretons might still remember the central government's treatement of the chouans during the revolution so they could welcome the british as long as their rights to property and especialy religion are maintained. If the british try to fully integrate them into the UK however they might rise up again. Normandy on the other hand would be a powderkeg from the get go. the british would have to maintain a heavy presence to quell the population and there would be a constant threat from irredentists in unoccupied France. This situation would probably result in a war in the short to long term.
 
and of course - what claim does England have to doing so? "We want it" is just going to aggravate anti-English sentiment.
If we're talking about Normandy, Brittany, and/or Aquitaine, at least, then that's just "reclaiming stolen lands". :p
 
could it be, in any way whatsoever, possible that the United Kingdom would set up protectorates in France after Napoleon's defeat?

I'm thinking Brittany and Normandy would be the most logical choice. it would decrease the change of French invasion of the British isles in the future and would make France more reliant on British trade, since major ports are under British protection. maybee the Calais-Boulogne area could be one as well, or might even be reannexatied by the British?

What do you guys think?

This is not the Middle Ages, where just about every province was autonomous and acted like a polity unto themselves. France, as of the Sixteenth Century, was thoroughly unified, with the bulk of its population seeing themselves as such. None of the regional authorities are going to consent to this. And the British, if they wanted to implement this, would need a shitload troops to garrison these "protectorates". France also has a larger population than Britain, with a shared national identity and are of the same technological level. This will not work.
 
Plus this is the same Britain which spent much of the Congress of Vienna trying to make sure they had as little involvement on the continent as possible.
 
Plus this is the same Britain which spent much of the Congress of Vienna trying to make sure they had as little involvement on the continent as possible.

well then, if George III, retook his title of king of France after the failure of the Bourbon restoration. Claiming he alone could stop Napoleon. the British would he a claim to portions of France. landing on the coastal regions of Brittany, Normandy and Calais.

the population of the area's could be subdued with a kind of propaganda, saying that "Napoleon would punish the french for supporting the Bourbons"
 
well then, if George III, retook his title of king of France after the failure of the Bourbon restoration. Claiming he alone could stop Napoleon. the British would he a claim to portions of France. landing on the coastal regions of Brittany, Normandy and Calais.

the population of the area's could be subdued with a kind of propaganda, saying that "Napoleon would punish the french for supporting the Bourbons"

That...

That's about the most rediculous notion I've ever heard to justify this and flys in the face of all societal and historical normalities along with the entire culture of the British political class.

The British didn't want to have any part of Europe. They wanted a series of relatively weak states along the channel coast in an ideal world, but being realistic they knew that this wasn't particularly feasible so pushed instead to just contain the one strong one.

This is basically like the US deciding after WWII that they're going to annex their occupation zones in Germany and Japan.
 
The British didn't want to have any part of Europe. They wanted a series of relatively weak states along the channel coast in an ideal world, but being realistic they knew that this wasn't particularly feasible so pushed instead to just contain the one strong one.

Then explain to me, if they didn't want a part of Europe, why a English protectorate of Western Belgium was suggested during the Belgian Revolution 15 years later?
 
Then explain to me, if they didn't want a part of Europe, why a English protectorate of Western Belgium was suggested during the Belgian Revolution 15 years later?



Which was suggested by FRANCE. British government and peace-loving people of the British island declined such proposal and instead forced the Treaty of London.
 
Top