English-speaking polity on the Continent?

All as free men, with authority over enclosures manned by French serfs, with a Royal Sheriff in place of a Duke. English settlers dominate in towns and cities and generally do very well, in new quarters of these towns and cities that their wealth is lavished on.

French Robin Hood as an anti-English resistance fighter would make a cool AU.
 
What exactly does "culturally English" mean????
What defines it?
I´m somewhat at a loss here, although I lived in England for a year.
Denmark and Norway traditionally maintain very close relations to Britain. There`s little chance of their switching to English language-wise, but if that isn`t your main focus, then I suggest you look into this possibility?

Superficially, I was thinking of how British and associated white commonwealth politics are different from Continental ones. They have fewer parties in their parliaments. First past the post. Like Americans, free market thinking is a bigger deal. IDK, think what makes England and Wales think of themselves distinct enough to want to pursue Brexit. Despite the Danish roots in the British identity, the Scandinavians are more like the other Euros in this respect than the Brits, it would seem.
 
I think an English settlement in Eastern Europe like Crimea like @Cockroach suggest are The most likely idea. Of course a Anglo-Saxon settlement in the 11th century would only be technical English, they wouldn't speak anything we recognized as English. So maybe we could see some religious sect settle around the White Sea in the 16-17th century under Russian overlordship. Let's say that 5-6000 English Lutherans flee England around 1530, the Russians offer to let them settle around the White Sea. Other Protestants follow them late and integrate into the local Lutheran culture. By 1600 the region are home to 30-50.000 English Lutherans. When the Time of Trouble hit and the Swedes take over the region. The English Lutherans are favoured over the local non-Lutherans and as the Great Northern War hit English are spoken by the 80% of the local population. As the Russia fight, the local English see a opportunity to gain more regional freedom, and they make a deal with Peter the Great to recognise him as their ruler. So with the peace in 1721' Peter set up the White Sea up as the Grand Duchy of Bjamia with Peter as Grand Duke, English as official language and the Lutheran faith as the state religion. By modern day Bjarmi have a population of 2-3 million people, the official language are English, through it have been heavily influence by the Scandinavian languages and to lesser degree Russian. it's often seen as the 6th Nordic state.
 
Superficially, I was thinking of how British and associated white commonwealth politics are different from Continental ones. They have fewer parties in their parliaments. First past the post. Like Americans, free market thinking is a bigger deal. IDK, think what makes England and Wales think of themselves distinct enough to want to pursue Brexit. Despite the Danish roots in the British identity, the Scandinavians are more like the other Euros in this respect than the Brits, it would seem.

We also had FPTP, of course at some point we decided it was complete moronic system, and moved to a better system. In fact pretty much every European states started with FPTP single member districts, and moved away from it.
 
An English mercenary captain receives an assignment from the King of France to capture a castle in the Jura mountains. He recruits a company of English men at arms and longbow men. The captain captures the castle and then proclaims himself duke over a territory of 14 bow flights from east to west and 10 bow flights from north to south. Ergo, we have the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. Long live the Duchess Gloriana and her consort Tully Bascomb. In a way it makes sense in that there were a lot of English free companies roaming about France in the mid 15th century and if one of these companies seized an isolated and totally unremarkable territory it could have survived as San Marino and Andorra have. Now, let us discuss the League of Little Nations.
 
All the current disruptions and shenanigans going on in the EU and ex-EU make me reflect on the differences between the British and the Continentals, and also make me think of how in AH we periodically ask what kind of alternate nations could have arisen, such as a surviving Burgundy.

So how could there have been an existing English-speaking polity (preferably its own nation) in Europe? It's probably going to be Aquitaine, isn't it. If we have a low-butterfly zone, how would it have changed over the centuries, assuming a lot of the broader events of history still happen more or less the same?

Okay looks like it's been done before but I'm already aware of Frisia and their dialect/language isn't quite English, plus judging by the recent Dutch parliamentary elections, they probably are quite culturally different from the English anyway.

UPDATE: culturally English or British or Anglo is the focus, the language can be secondary. Think on the differences between Anglosphere countries and Continental ones.

You need a very early POD, such as :

- the angles and saxons stayed where they originated instead of crossing the sea to Britain.

- or they move somewhere else and succeed in not being assimilated by the locals (OTL Normans were culturally assimilated quite quickly).
 
We also had FPTP, of course at some point we decided it was complete moronic system, and moved to a better system. In fact pretty much every European states started with FPTP single member districts, and moved away from it.
Italy did that too, twice actually. Not that the current system is much of an improvement, but that's another matter entirely.
However, a "culturally British/English" place on the Continent with a Medieval or Early Modern POD would cause ripple effects that, even in a minimalist interpretation of butterflies, would completely change "British/English culture" as intended here, which is largely a result of political developments of the last three centuries (the power of the House, continuing monarchy, the Empire). Now, something like Calais is probably doable, but the very entanglement that continental possessions entail would greatly affect the sense of, well, insularity that features in British (esp. English) culture.
 
Nope, it's on the mainland, and commands that giant monolith of a mountain known to the Romans and all that guards the Mediterranean's outlet to the Atlantic.

I feel bad for forgetting the Ionian Islands as a potential Anglo place in Europe. Cyprus too might work.

I think your definition of mainland and mine differ, Gibraltar is an island, connected to Spain by an artificial bridge and nothing else, therefor, it is not part of Continental Europe, it's off its coast.
 
I think your definition of mainland and mine differ, Gibraltar is an island, connected to Spain by an artificial bridge and nothing else, therefor, it is not part of Continental Europe, it's off its coast.

Gibraltar_aerial_view.jpg


You're wrong, though...
 
A bridge? I looked up some maps and cannot see any bridge. If it has been an island, they must have filled up the area between Gibraltar and the mainland with rock or soil.
 
Have William and Mary able to have a male heir. Combined rule over both polities that sustains over a generation or two, especially with unstable German and French neighbors, would see them perhaps welcome being part of the Union crown.
 
Italy did that too, twice actually. Not that the current system is much of an improvement, but that's another matter entirely.
However, a "culturally British/English" place on the Continent with a Medieval or Early Modern POD would cause ripple effects that, even in a minimalist interpretation of butterflies, would completely change "British/English culture" as intended here, which is largely a result of political developments of the last three centuries (the power of the House, continuing monarchy, the Empire). Now, something like Calais is probably doable, but the very entanglement that continental possessions entail would greatly affect the sense of, well, insularity that features in British (esp. English) culture.

This is the strongest counter-point to the premise of this thread. I suppose it's difficult to create an English nation on the Continent and have it continued to be ruled by London in the mold of the white commonwealths, and still have London have the same political and cultural insularity that we know.

Let us examine the Gibraltar/Ionian Islands/Malta model that's been mentioned in this thread. What if the Brits just happen to be in such a situation to take control of such a disputed territory, except that happens to actually be located on the Continent? And an English enclave comes to exist there.

Just why didn't the House of Hanover retain their German territories anyway
 
This is the strongest counter-point to the premise of this thread. I suppose it's difficult to create an English nation on the Continent and have it continued to be ruled by London in the mold of the white commonwealths, and still have London have the same political and cultural insularity that we know.

Let us examine the Gibraltar/Ionian Islands/Malta model that's been mentioned in this thread. What if the Brits just happen to be in such a situation to take control of such a disputed territory, except that happens to actually be located on the Continent? And an English enclave comes to exist there.

Just why didn't the House of Hanover retain their German territories anyway

Salic law. Victoria could not inherit the throne from George IV.
 
Salic law. Victoria could not inherit the throne from George IV.
In any event, it does not appear that Hannover saw significant Anglicization when it was in personal union with Britain (nor the reverse). This may change in a context where Hannover and Britain are united politically (not just dynastically) for a long period, but this assumes a very different Germany (if any) with major consequences. (Prussia unhappy, I suppose).
It can be done, but it's difficult to do it with minor butterflies.
I give it a shot:
The Second Silesian War ends in Austrian victory. The broader war ends more or less like IOTL, so Prussia remains a relatively minor power. The Diplomatic Revolution does not occur, so the equivalent of the Seven Years War happens with Austria (and possibly the Netherlands) allied with Britain against France and some German states (and perhaps Russia). The main battelground is still Germany, but Britain has to commit much larger forces there. The endgame is a slightly larger and territorially Hannover that includes most of the modern Land of Niedersachsen (but probably not Oldenburg). However, the conflict affects Hannover significantly and creates a push for a closer union with Britain. The British public is unhappy but accepts that in a gradual way. Meanwhile, Austria's position in central and Southern Germany is increased and boosst when the Bavarian succession goes to the Hapsburgs (let's say they renounce to the Low Countries for it, which would please France). Then the Austro-British alliance collapses, but it is revived after an equivalent of the French Revolutionary wars that end earlier. The HRE is still dissolved by an early French series of successes, and after the wars, around say 1810, Germany is divided between an Austrian dominated alliance of southern and eastern states (the Empire of Germany, under Habsburg overlordship) and a Lower Saxony that is essentially united with Britan even if technically a separate realm. This thing includes more or less everything between the Elbe and the Dutch border. (let's say the House of Oldenburg is compensated with something like Pomerania, as Prussia was on the wrong side of Britain too many times).
This *Hanover feels increasingly less "German" as "Germany" is majority Catholic and centred on Vienna, on one side, and ties with Britain (and to a lesser extent, the Netherlands and Denmark) develop. A "Saxon" narrative of identity develops that emphasises the common origin of the Anglo-Saxons and the German Saxons (of Lower Saxony). This does not fly well in Vienna of course, and in the end a WWI analog develops that is primarily an Anglo-German (as opposed to Anglo-French) conflict. The *Entente wins, "Saxony is temporarily fully integrated into Britain, and an Nazism analog develops in *Germany (well, it's probably called "Austria" ITTL) leading to something vaguely resembling WWI. After the occupation, Britain decides that *Saxony is too costly to defend to keep as a direct holding, and the place becomes an independent country, part of the *Commonwealth, and very closely tied to Britain culturally and politically. There's still a * Federal Germany (maybe Brandenburg, Silesia, Pomerania and whereabouts form a separate country for a time) but it does not include Saxony and feels wery different from it. "Saxony" uses a for of Plattdeutsch as official language that has grown convergent with English in many regards, losing much of the case system and borrowing from English extensively, and most Saxons are very fluent in English as well. Political institutions and culture in Saxony are very similar to Britain's even if they keep their own traditions. The country is a member of the *EU but very Euro-skeptical and if a *Brexit happens, following London would be seriously considered in Hanover too.
 
Top