Independent Québec

Britain, instead of annexing France's former Canadian territory to Canada, decides to let it remain under French rule in exchange for Guadeloupe. In setting the new boundaries in North America, Québec would condensed to the provincial borders it has in the OTL (see image attachment to understand what I mean). During the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, Louis XVIII would flee to Québec and rule as a government-in-exile. Because of Québec's faithfulness to the French crown, Louis grants Québec independence once Napoleon is exiled. Québec's government would be a democracy.


Québec.png
 
Britain, instead of annexing France's former Canadian territory to Canada, decides to let it remain under French rule in exchange for Guadeloupe. In setting the new boundaries in North America, Québec would condensed to the provincial borders it has in the OTL (see image attachment to understand what I mean). During the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, Louis VIII would flee to Québec and rule as a government-in-exile. Because of Québec's faithfulness to the French crown, Louis grants Québec independence once Napoleon is exiled. Québec's government would be a democracy.

Interesting idea.....welcome to AH.com. :cool::)
 
Because of Québec's faithfulness to the French crown, Louis grants Québec independence once Napoleon is exiled. Québec's government would be a democracy.

Why would independence be a reward for fidelity to the crown ? And if Québec (which probably would still be called Canada) were independent, why would it be converted into a "democracy" ?
 
During the French-Indian War negotiations, Britain claimed the following borders:
All Land East of the Mississippi River until the Wabash River, and all land East of that, with a line Lake Erie. This would give Britain the land south of Lakes Erie and Lakes Ontario. From there the boundary would be set much as the modern Quebec/New York boundary.

The land in Northern Quebec was claimed by Britain already as Rupert's Land, therefore it is unlikely that this would have been ceded to France. So in the end, France would have retained the Louisiana Territory (as of the 1803 borders). In addition to present-day Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. In addition to the Southern Portions of the modern Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
 
Why would independence be a reward for fidelity to the crown ? And if Québec (which probably would still be called Canada) were independent, why would it be converted into a "democracy" ?

I agree. If this timeline Europe matches OTL I can actually see the Bourbons staying in New France (less trouble with a more loyal, if smaller populace) and expanding West (so English Canada would be the Maritimes Provinces) which would create a New French Empire. A sort of Empire of Brazil scenario.
 
The border going up all the way to Ungava in a French Quebec scenario is pretty ASB. It the Anglos who gave it to them. ITTL the Anglos would do everything to contain Quebec to the Saint Lawrence.
 
French still in NA might stop the revolution or severely delay it. British Soldiers would no doubt be far more welcome with the French just over the border. No Quebec act to rile up the colonists.

Also Guadeloupe would have made tonnes of money for the treasury. Whereas Quebec was less an economic and more a strategic choice.

Overall this would be good for Britain.
 
Remember that Britain held all land north of the height of land, look at early maps of Quebec.

As others have pointed out, the borders would extend west and south [not north], and the whole scenario is ... unlikely. No one 'granted' independence to colonies in those days. Those colonies had to have armed revolts to secede.
 
Louis XVIII (Did you mean XVI?) fleeing to Canada, rather than to a more comfortable home in one of the European courts -- where he could exert more diplomatic pressure for a restoration -- seems pretty improbable, to me, as well...
 
Top