Expansion of the United Kingdom within Europe post 1700

[how]

Which region or regions, if you think that more than one of the options outlined in the poll are most likely to be folded into the United Kingdom and additionally do you think that this union would persist today and possibly include regions which broke off such as Ireland, Malta and Cyprus as well?

Also discussion on the benefits or possible scenarios along with the merits aswell would be appreciated.

 

[BenC]

Iceland seems the most obvious answer.

It was repeatedly offered up for sale or as collateral to England pre-1700 by Denmark, but that's before the PoD.

There were multiple opportunities for the United Kingdom to annex it during the Napoleonic Wars.

The issue is getting the British government to actually have the will and interest in annexing it, it wouldn't have been a particularly difficult thing to do, it seems it was just the minimal financial benefits of doing so that kept it Danish for so long.

 

[how]

Iceland seems the most obvious answer.

It was repeatedly offered up for sale or as collateral to England pre-1700 by Denmark, but that's before the PoD.

There were multiple opportunities for the United Kingdom to annex it during the Napoleonic Wars.

The issue is getting the British government to actually have the will and interest in annexing it, it wouldn't have been a particularly difficult thing to do, it seems it was just the minimal financial benefits of doing so that kept it Danish for so long.

Is it possible it could be bundled with all of the Denmark-Norwegian atlantic possessions to add something that will provide a non negative value. So Iceland, Faroes, Greenland, Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bouvet Island? I think your right that the government had little interest in purchase of the possessions so perhaps it is granted after a long conflict due to preasure at home to gain something for a long war like the Napoleonic wars perhaps?

Also on Hanover, suppose the British intergrate it prior to Victoria or if there is some way that Britain can insure the Union does not collapse, what would its territorial borders look like? I'm thinking the modern day state of Lower Saxony plus Bremen and Hamburg with also Schleswig-Holstein up for grabs if the British want it.

 

[Simreeve]

Is it possible it could be bundled with all of the Denmark-Norwegian atlantic possessions to add something that will provide a non negative value. So Iceland, Faroes, Greenland, Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bouvet Island? I think your right that the government had little interest in purchase of the possessions so perhaps it is granted after a long conflict due to preasure at home to gain something for a long war like the Napoleonic wars perhaps?

Also on Hanover, suppose the British intergrate it prior to Victoria or if there is some way that Britain can insure the Union does not collapse, what would its territorial borders look like? I'm thinking the modern day state of Lower Saxony plus Bremen and Hamburg with also Schleswig-Holstein up for grabs if the British want it.

Svalbard, Jan Mayen, and Bouvet Island, were never "Danish-Norwegian", they didn't become claimed or internationally recognised as Norwegian until after the crowns had been separated.


_________________________________________________________________________

If Britain retains or regains control of Minorca/Menorca, then maybe in a later war it takes the rest of the Balearic Islands as well?

 

[naraic]

Iceland seems the most obvious answer.

It was repeatedly offered up for sale or as collateral to England pre-1700 by Denmark, but that's before the PoD.

There were multiple opportunities for the United Kingdom to annex it during the Napoleonic Wars.

The issue is getting the British government to actually have the will and interest in annexing it, it wouldn't have been a particularly difficult thing to do, it seems it was just the minimal financial benefits of doing so that kept it Danish for so long.

I'm not sure what the port in Iceland was like in the 1700s. If its seen as strategically important it will be annexed. What if Villeneuve's squadron sails for Iceland after being in the West Indies for some reason.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

Minorca is actually an interesting prospect all on its own. I could see it going the way of Malta or it could stay with the crown. If they get all of the Balearics I could see it achieving kingdom status. Maybe a revived kingdom of Majorca.

 

[how]

Minorca is actually an interesting prospect all on its own. I could see it going the way of Malta or it could stay with the crown. If they get all of the Balearics I could see it achieving kingdom status. Maybe a revived kingdom of Majorca.

Is Sicily possible aswell? Also I think it would be cool if the British had kept the Ionian islands and gone for Crete and Rhodes.

 

[Socrates]

Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus most likely.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

Is Sicily possible aswell? Also I think it would be cool if the British had kept the Ionian islands and gone for Crete and Rhodes.

Sicily is probably a stretch. It would essentially be the kingdom of Sicily at that point as Sicily outshines the balearics in almost every sector, and that’s ignoring the cultural differences. I can’t see them joining, especially if you want to integrate the “Kingdom of Majorca” into the UK proper. I can’t see it getting much larger than the Balerics, Gibraltar, Malta, and perhaps any odd North African cities the British pick up. Even then I doubt said cities stay in this kingdom unless the British and the citizens of the kingdom bend over backwards to accommodate them.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Which region or regions, if you think that more than one of the options outlined in the poll are most likely to be folded into the United Kingdom and additionally do you think that this union would persist today and possibly include regions which broke off such as Ireland, Malta and Cyprus as well?

Also discussion on the benefits or possible scenarios along with the merits aswell would be appreciated.

None. Britain had no desire to be tied down by continental possessions. They tended to be a major cash-drain and were threats to British foreign policy (cough *Hanover* cough). So the British would (almost) never pursue continental territory if they have a choice. Moreover, I think your also getting "Europe" confused with " islands". Yes Britain controlled Minorca, Malta and Cyprus at various points in its history, but those were strategic, easily reinforced positions. What your proposing in the poll is various expensive, prestige territories.

The only continental territory I can feasibly see Britain aiming for is Dunkirk. For much of the 18th century it was the port that housed the Dunkirkers, the famous privateer-raiders that often threatened British commerce in peace and wartime. Moreover, Dunkirk was the springboard for the various French attempts to invade Britain throughout the 18th century. So I could see Britain trying to grab it in, say the Spanish succession war. It would be costly to defend but that cost might be balanced by removing the Dunkirker threat.

Now if William and Mary had children, you would have (likely) seen a lasting Anglo-Dutch union, but that means a pre-1700 POD.

Iceland seems the most obvious answer.

It was repeatedly offered up for sale or as collateral to England pre-1700 by Denmark, but that's before the PoD.

There were multiple opportunities for the United Kingdom to annex it during the Napoleonic Wars.

The issue is getting the British government to actually have the will and interest in annexing it, it wouldn't have been a particularly difficult thing to do, it seems it was just the minimal financial benefits of doing so that kept it Danish for so long.

Minorca is actually an interesting prospect all on its own. I could see it going the way of Malta or it could stay with the crown. If they get all of the Balearics I could see it achieving kingdom status. Maybe a revived kingdom of Majorca.

Considering that Britain did control Minorca from 17108 to 1783, I think that island is obviously feasible. But taking all of the Balearics? Why? What's the strategic reason for having to fortify all the islands?

Is Sicily possible aswell? Also I think it would be cool if the British had kept the Ionian islands and gone for Crete and Rhodes.

Yeah because if there's one thing Britain wants, its millions of angry Catholics to govern🙄.

 

[how]

None. Britain had no desire to be tied down by continental possessions. They tended to be a major cash-drain and were threats to British foreign policy (cough *Hanover* cough). So the British would (almost) never pursue continental territory if they have a choice. Moreover, I think your also getting "Europe" confused with " islands". Yes Britain controlled Minorca, Malta and Cyprus at various points in its history, but those were strategic, easily reinforced positions. What your proposing in the poll is various expensive, prestige territories.

The only continental territory I can feasibly see Britain aiming for is Dunkirk. For much of the 18th century it was the port that housed the Dunkirkers, the famous privateer-raiders that often threatened British commerce in peace and wartime. Moreover, Dunkirk was the springboard for the various French attempts to invade Britain throughout the 18th century. So I could see Britain trying to grab it in, say the Spanish succession war. It would be costly to defend but that cost might be balanced by removing the Dunkirker threat.

Now if William and Mary had children, you would have (likely) seen a lasting Anglo-Dutch union, but that means a pre-1700 POD.





Considering that Britain did control Minorca from 17108 to 1783, I think that island is obviously feasible. But taking all of the Balearics? Why? What's the strategic reason for having to fortify all the islands?



Yeah because if there's one thing Britain wants, its millions of angry Catholics to govern🙄.

All the mentioned regions are within Europe, yes even Malta, it was to restrict it from suggestions such as Greenland, Newfoundland, Sri Lanka and Hong Kong which would all be pretty unrealistic, also it is restricted to before 1900 making all those unions highly implausible. Also, fair enough these regions are more trouble then they are worth but think of unproductive regions Britain owned already such as Orkneys and Shetland, these regions are a similar economic drain to Britain as Faroes or Iceland would be. Britain inherited these regions through their union with Scotland as the Scottish had bought them of the impovrished ruler of Denmark in the 15th Century. Britain could have had a political union with the Netherlands and yes this is before the pod, however was their no other time subsequently this was possible through inheritance or conquest? Also, wars and conquest are not always motivated for financial gain. The problem with just Minorca is that this is too small and insignificant a region to integrate into the United Kingdom as one of the realms to the same status as Scotland and Ireland, maybe it could join in similar style to channel islands. Also, cannot imagine the channel islands were economically viable but Britain did not abandon them after the failed French invasion in 1779, instead opting to fortify them, Britain was certainally wealthy enough for a cash drain vanity project and its interesting to think about what would happen if it sticks. Your comment is quite dismissive and deterministic that there is no way even an annexation of Iceland could stick?

 

[pompejus]

Now if William and Mary had children, you would have (likely) seen a lasting Anglo-Dutch union, but that means a pre-1700 POD.

Well, there is another possibility. Not saying it is likely, but it is possible. The POD is a couple of years before William III's death by accident. What if William III remaries and has some kids and at least one boy with his new wife? Sure, he will not inherit the throne of England, but it would strengthen his position in the Netherlands as stadholder, so no stadholderless period. Anyway, like OTL, Anne dies without any children and suddenly the descendents of William III are next in line (instead of the house of Hanover). And I will admit that it would still not be a true personal union since a stadholder is not a king and he would not be stadholder over all provinces and the position of stadholder is not even hereditary, but if he plays his cards well and so do his descendence and there will be no women next in line for the English (or maybe British) throne, I could see a possibility that the Dutch stadholdership changes into a monarchy and unifies with England and Britain. Sure it is a longshot, but it is possible.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

All the mentioned regions are within Europe, yes even Malta, it was to restrict it from suggestions such as Greenland, Newfoundland, Sri Lanka and Hong Kong which would all be pretty unrealistic, also it is restricted to before 1900 making all those unions highly implausible. Also, fair enough these regions are more trouble then they are worth but think of unproductive regions Britain owned already such as Orkneys and Shetland, these regions are a similar economic drain to Britain as Faroes or Iceland would be. Britain inherited these regions through their union with Scotland as the Scottish had bought them of the impovrished ruler of Denmark in the 15th Century. Britain could have had a political union with the Netherlands and yes this is before the pod, however was their no other time subsequently this was possible through inheritance or conquest? Also, wars and conquest are not always motivated for financial gain. The problem with just Minorca is that this is too small and insignificant a region to integrate into the United Kingdom as one of the realms to the same status as Scotland and Ireland, maybe it could join in similar style to channel islands. Also, cannot imagine the channel islands were economically viable but Britain did not abandon them after the failed French invasion in 1779, instead opting to fortify them, Britain was certainally wealthy enough for a cash drain vanity project and its interesting to think about what would happen if it sticks. Your comment is quite dismissive and deterministic that there is no way even an annexation of Iceland could stick?

All the examples you named (Orkney and Shetland, the Channel islands, ex ex) had been English or Scottish possessions for centuries. They had representation in Parliament and their people were culturally part of their respective kingdoms. Your basically arguing that Britain already had unproductive territories, so why not acquire more. That's not really how 18th century geopolitics worked.

And not really no. Personal unions were dying out in the 17th century, and were few and far between by the 18th. I can think of only two in that century (Britain and Hanover, Saxony and Poland, and briefly Sweden and Hesse-Kassel). So any kind of personal union would be accidental, and would necessitate a POD before 1700 or a really specific chain of events. For example, the future George II and Prince Frederick both die in 1708, leaving his sister Crown Princess Sophia Dorothea of Prussia as the next in line. Boom, British-Prussian union.

As for conquest, again why? Why would Britain want to have to rule over hundreds of thousands to millions of foreign Catholics (which would be the scenario for most of your conquest ideas), to deal with constant rebellions, and have to spend millions to maintain permanent soldiers to keep control? For vanity? Again, that's not how most 18th century nations worked. Same for buying Iceland. A worthless vanity project that Parliament would veto. Your asking us to find a way to reduce British foreign policy to that of a paradox game, and that's simply unrealistic.

Well, there is another possibility. Not saying it is likely, but it is possible. The POD is a couple of years before William III's death by accident. What if William III remaries and has some kids and at least one boy with his new wife? Sure, he will not inherit the throne of England, but it would strengthen his position in the Netherlands as stadholder, so no stadholderless period. Anyway, like OTL, Anne dies without any children and suddenly the descendents of William III are next in line (instead of the house of Hanover). And I will admit that it would still not be a true personal union since a stadholder is not a king and he would not be stadholder over all provinces and the position of stadholder is not even hereditary, but if he plays his cards well and so do his descendence and there will be no women next in line for the English (or maybe British) throne, I could see a possibility that the Dutch stadholdership changes into a monarchy and unifies with England and Britain. Sure it is a longshot, but it is possible.

Honestly? Would probably be worse for the Dutch. The position of Stadtholder wasn't hereditary until 1747, and any male issue Willem has with a second wife would be underage at the time of his death (unless we're butterflying the ittle gentleman in velvet), so we'd still see a second Stadtholderless period. Hell, as it would be abundantly clear by 1702 that Willem "IV" would be the next in line to the British throne, I can't see the Dutch ever electing him as Stadtholder. They're more likely to turn toward the Nassau-Dietz line. At best William IV accepts this loss without a fuss (maybe with a financial payment for his rights?). At worst? We see him and his descendents insist on being the "rightful" Stadtholders and cause damaged relations between London and the Hague. Not to mention Willem III seemed to have fertility issues (he had no children with his mistress Elizabeth Hamilton, but she ended up having three children in very quick succession after the relationship ended and she married the Earl of Orkney), so children with a second wife might be out of the cards.

That's why I said a son of William and Mary. Their children would have been born and raised in the Netherlands, and would be acceptable. Moreover, their kids would be of age by Willem III's death and much harder to side-step. Hell, depending on Willem's position, he might be able to get his son elected Stadtholder-designate )or something like that) before his death. Though, if there's two sons, Willem and the Dutch might split the inheritance between them, to stop a personal union.

 

[how]

All the examples you named (Orkney and Shetland, the Channel islands, ex ex) had been English or Scottish possessions for centuries. They had representation in Parliament and their people were culturally part of their respective kingdoms. Your basically arguing that Britain already had unproductive territories, so why not acquire more. That's not really how 18th century geopolitics worked.

And not really no. Personal unions were dying out in the 17th century, and were few and far between by the 18th. I can think of only two in that century (Britain and Hanover, Saxony and Poland, and briefly Sweden and Hesse-Kassel). So any kind of personal union would be accidental, and would necessitate a POD before 1700 or a really specific chain of events. For example, the future George II and Prince Frederick both die in 1708, leaving his sister Crown Princess Sophia Dorothea of Prussia as the next in line. Boom, British-Prussian union.

As for conquest, again why? Why would Britain want to have to rule over hundreds of thousands to millions of foreign Catholics (which would be the scenario for most of your conquest ideas), to deal with constant rebellions, and have to spend millions to maintain permanent soldiers to keep control? For vanity? Again, that's not how most 18th century nations worked. Same for buying Iceland. A worthless vanity project that Parliament would veto. Your asking us to find a way to reduce British foreign policy to that of a paradox game, and that's simply unrealistic.



Honestly? Would probably be worse for the Dutch. The position of Stadtholder wasn't hereditary until 1747, and any male issue Willem has with a second wife would be underage at the time of his death (unless we're butterflying the ittle gentleman in velvet), so we'd still see a second Stadtholderless period. Hell, as it would be abundantly clear by 1702 that Willem "IV" would be the next in line to the British throne, I can't see the Dutch ever electing him as Stadtholder. They're more likely to turn toward the Nassau-Dietz line. At best William IV accepts this loss without a fuss (maybe with a financial payment for his rights?). At worst? We see him and his descendents insist on being the "rightful" Stadtholders and cause damaged relations between London and the Hague. Not to mention Willem III seemed to have fertility issues (he had no children with his mistress Elizabeth Hamilton, but she ended up having three children in very quick succession after the relationship ended and she married the Earl of Orkney), so children with a second wife might be out of the cards.

That's why I said a son of William and Mary. Their children would have been born and raised in the Netherlands, and would be acceptable. Moreover, their kids would be of age by Willem III's death and much harder to side-step. Hell, depending on Willem's position, he might be able to get his son elected Stadtholder-designate )or something like that) before his death. Though, if there's two sons, Willem and the Dutch might split the inheritance between them, to stop a personal union.

Found an interesting article, mentions points that others noted above that Iceland was offered as collateral several times prior to the pod, however, Sir Joseph Banks proposed an invasion in 1800 that fell through due to the rapidly changing diplomacy of Europe at the time. The reasoning was its ease, docile population and that essentially Prefidious Albion owed the little Atlantic island its protection and embrace within its nurturing bosom.

https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/23162/1/Loka%C3%BAtg%C3%A1fa_STJ_hannes.pdf

 

[Simreeve]

And not really no. Personal unions were dying out in the 17th century, and were few and far between by the 18th. I can think of only two in that century (Britain and Hanover, Saxony and Poland, and briefly Sweden and Hesse-Kassel).

Britain and Ireland, technically, even though Britain was clearly the dominant partner... in fact, Britain and Ireland and Corsica [!], for a few years in the 1790s.

Austria (effectively united, although theoretically still four separate duchies [Austria proper, Carinthia, Carniola, & Styria], at least one Imperial County [Tyrol], plus whatever the various bits of either 'Further Austria' [in Swabia, some extending into lands that now are Swiss] or the Hapsburgs' lands at the head of the Adriatic counted as...) with the 'Lands of the Crown of St Wenceslaus' (Bohemia &, Moravia, and whatever bits of Silesia -- and even, early on, Lusatia -- were still linked to those; not for two brief interludes), the 'Lands of the Crown of St Stephen' (Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia), and the Duchy of Milan (later the 'Duchies of Milan and Mantua'), until just after the end of the 18th century when the 'Austrian Empire' was proclaimed uniting them.

Bavaria with the 'Lands of the Crown of St Wenceslaus', instead, 1742-1745.

Brandenburg-Prussia (effectively run as a unified state, I think, even though Brandenburg was inside the HRE whereas Prussia itself wasn't, but theoretically -- as in, the ruler got a separate vote in the Imperial Diet for each of them except Prussia -- three Duchies [Prussia, Further Pomerania, Magdeburg], one Margraviate [Brandenburg, to which the Electoral role and various conquered territories were attached], and three Principalities [Halberstadt, Kammin, Minden]) with not only various statelets in Westphalia [possibly also under a unified administration with Brandenburg?] but also with both the Principality of East Friesland (from late in the 18th century; self-governing under its own old laws) and the Principality of Neuchatel (from 1707 ; also self-governing, and actually an ally of the Swiss Confederation).

Denmark with Schleswig & [varying amounts of ] Holstein, and for a while with Oldenburg, and for a while with the [unified, but still worth 2 votes rather than just 1 in the Diet'] 'Duchy of Bremen & Principality of Verden'.

"Hanover" with both the 'Duchy of Bremen & Principality of Verden' (having acquired this from Denmark) and -- from later in the 18th century -- the Duchy of Saxe-Lauenburg.

The Duchy of Modena with, from fairly late in the 18th century, the smaller North Italian state of 'Massa and Cararra'.

Savoy (including its various acquisitions in Piedmont) with the County of Nice (from Medieval times), and with firstly the Kingdom of Sicily (the island realm; 1713-1720 only) and then the Kingdom of Sardinia (1720+).

Sicily [the kingdom containing the eponymous island) with 'Sicily' (the kingdom in mainland Italy whose capital was Naples) for most of this period .

Tuscany with the 'Lands of the Crown of St Wenceslaus' (under Francis of Lorraine, Holy Roman Emperor, husband of Maria Theresa).

and various other combinations of smallish statelets in [by modern definitions] Germany or Italy.