I understand your point, but I’m talking about like how The Portuguese Monarch did, where they formed a new kingdom out of one of their colonies
Kingdom of Quebec 1804
- Thread starter GameBawesome
- Start date
I understand your point, but I’m talking about like how The Portuguese Monarch did, where they formed a new kingdom out of one of their colonies
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Actually, the vote in the Assembly (assuming they still even get their hands on the King and lay out treason charges against him) was decided by literally a single vote for execution. He could very easily be sentinced to life in prison (from which a break is possible) or stripping of titles and exile, which once he's safely in a reactionary area he could repute as having his abdication forced out of him under duress.
Quick slightly seguéd question about govts-in-exile:
What were the kings Napoléon displaced doing for those 20yrs (1795-1815) wben they were bouncing around? Borbones were still ruling at the point of British bayonets in Sicily, and the Portuguese court removed to Brasil. But for instance, the princes of Orange ran to London, then left when their debts got too bad, and went to Berlin. Same for Louis XVIII (I know he had a court in exile at Jelgava, but what about in England? And was it a government in exile as well? Or just a court?)
What were the kings Napoléon displaced doing for those 20yrs (1795-1815) wben they were bouncing around? Borbones were still ruling at the point of British bayonets in Sicily, and the Portuguese court removed to Brasil. But for instance, the princes of Orange ran to London, then left when their debts got too bad, and went to Berlin. Same for Louis XVIII (I know he had a court in exile at Jelgava, but what about in England? And was it a government in exile as well? Or just a court?)
In this ATL, Britain has as much probability of retaining peninsular Acadia (Nova Scotia) than it OTL had to retain the Delmarva peninsula. The reason is they won’t want to hold it because they know they would be at the mercy of their continental neighbors.
As far the Hudson Bay, the French took York Factory, ex Bourbon Fort, in 1782, so in I this ATL, they would have a very serious argument have it if they wanted too.
I already explained it. I perfectly understand why and how Britain would and could retain Newfoundland.
How about you explaining how Britain could retain peninsular Acadia ?
The only reason I could see this happen is that France and the US would both agree to it.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
See Halifax, Fortress City of and main British naval base in North America. If anything, it's the French in Quebec who're at the mercy of forgein good graced to keep in contact with and protected by the metropol, given how geographically limited and blockadle the St. Lawrence Bay is.
Sure. The British also held New-York during all the ARW, until they finally handed it over by their free will to the Americans. Why ?
Because trying to retain New-York would mean continuing war.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
New York and Halifax arent the same thing by any strech of the immaginiation. One has a Pro-British population and hitherlands, the other a Pro-American one. One is a military-strategic center and thus more intrinsically valuble, the other is a commercial center who's value is more extrinsicaly linked to the flow of goods from surronding areas. One is the center of a political unit that had never been part of nor currently sympathied with the rebelling region, while the other is a traditional and natural part of a broader political unit that was leaving the Empire of its own accord and thus would gurantee sour relations. One, to secure it, requires merely going back to or only modestly raising from pre-War expenditures while still maintaining what made it valuble, whole the other would nessecitate retaining the wartime expenses of a large garrison in a city which would have lost its revenue potential and usefulness as a political-logistical center for running a region they no longer govern.
And why would the US and France not realize the same thing about Nova Scotia? Because a mule-headed stubbornness to take the territory is going to require alot of blood and treasure and drag out the war for what to them is more or less useless and resentful territory
I already explained it when I said "the terrain of Maine and New Brunswick was not conducive to over land campaigns. The peninsula may as well have been an island." Unless the US and French somehow attain local naval superiority over the UK (a pretty tall order) they can't even lay eyes on, let alone threaten the Peninsula. Halifax may as well be on the moon.
The British held the Peninsula for decades without issue despite the French continuing to rule the mainland (and the surrounding Islands at that) so no, it's not at the mercy of the mainland at all.
Last edited:
Actually Nova Scotia was populated with New Englanders who did sympathize with the rebels (but were to few in number to even consider rebelling), the UK just drowned them out with resettled Loyalist refugees towards the end of the war.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Thus the operative word "currently". And the Loyalists have to be sent somewhere if the Americans and French don't want them in their country; there's quite a few of them for the Bahamas to absorb
Let’s just have some fun. Assuming Louis makes it, perhaps the dauphin would adapt well to a new climate. I think the church would try to recreate a loyal peasantry.
Oh I agree that they're keeping it, especially if (as per the OP) they can't resettle Loyalists in Quebec.
A few other things, if Louis XVI and Queen Antoinette did flee to Quebec and Established a Kingdom or Exile, how would the French Republic, under Robespierre, and then the French Empire, under Napoleon, react?
Robespierre would put a hit on the king, napoleon would promote himself as the more progressive ruler.
