Now that is a Timeline I would read. Anglo-Saxon Crimea flourishing under Roman suzerainty?
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.
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.
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.
Italy did that too, twice actually. Not that the current system is much of an improvement, but that's another matter entirely.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.
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.
What?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.
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
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).Salic law. Victoria could not inherit the throne from George IV.