Longest the British can hold Calais?

In OTL the British lost their last possession on the French coast in 1558 when the French overran Calais. But is there any reasonable way for the British to hold their French possessions longer than that, maybe all the way to Napoleonic times?

I was wondering what effects this would have on the development on Anglo-French relations. Likely it would be the focal point for a war at some point. Added point to note would be a stronger Royal Navy hold over the Channel . Any other effects?
 
If the english can keep Calais through the Reign of Francis I ( NOT an easy thing to do, as it would mean staying neutral or allied with France ), then it will keep it during the Religious war. Then it will be Richelieu who will get it; If not ( near ASB ), the english will loose it during THEIR civil war.

OTOH, Calais in British hands may also lead to wars between Spain and England.
 
In OTL, the Spanish did seize it once at the end of the century, but returned it to the French in the peace treaty.

If Calais was still English, on the other hand, it might be captured quite early during the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604. Then, once the peace comes, it has been Spanish for decades so it would most likely go to Spain. Something like "OK, you retain your isles, but the continent is mine".

This results in a stronger position of the Spanish in west Belgium so it would delay the French inroads in the region during the later 17th century, like it happened in Luxembourg. So while the French would ultimately seize it, the Franco-Belgian border wouldn't be as far as it is today, but some km south.

Other than that, I can't think in many more changes.
 
I don't see why they couldn't keep it to the present day. The Napoleonic and English Civil Wars can be easily butterflied away. Even if they lose it to France or Spain during some war they can take it back. The fact that they lost it in OTL was by no means inevitable; a decade earlier they controlled Boulogne to the south.
 
I think that even if they managed to hold it till 17th-18th century they would have to give it back when King George III relinquished all his claims to the (non-existant by that time) French Crown...
 
I think that even if they managed to hold it till 17th-18th century they would have to give it back when King George III relinquished all his claims to the (non-existant by that time) French Crown...

Why? Calais was treated like an English town and there really is no need to give it up. Britain had no scruples about Gibraltar and they'd have none about Calais.

And George III would be butterflied away.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Why? Calais was treated like an English town and there really is no need to give it up. Britain had no scruples about Gibraltar and they'd have none about Calais.

And George III would be butterflied away.

I agree, why would they give up a complete protestant area up, it not even sure that Calais speak French anymore at that time.
 

Thande

Donor
If I can put my pedant hat on for a moment, can I point out that the British never held Calais? Nor even the personal union of England and Scotland, it was lost during the reign of Bloody Mary.

This is not simply pedantry because if one supposes a situation where Calais is kept, a corollary to that might be a different Tudor succession (no Mary) and therefore butterflying away the Union of the Crowns, which is obviously a requirement for the existence of Great Britain.
 
I note that on previous posts, it is suggested that if (when?) the English/British lose Calais to the French they get it back at the end of the war. It would not take the French much eliminate the issue by leveling the town once they have captured it.

If the British then rebuild it, then the French can repeat the exercise in the next war.
 
I note that on previous posts, it is suggested that if (when?) the English/British lose Calais to the French they get it back at the end of the war. It would not take the French much eliminate the issue by leveling the town once they have captured it.

If the British then rebuild it, then the French can repeat the exercise in the next war.

1- To my knowledge there are no historical examples of a town being levelled.
2- Why should it be assumed (as it implicitly is in the topic post) that the British will inevitably lose Calais eventually?
 
The until the Spanish come and get it is a good point and could be pretty interesting- could maybe lead to a (rightful) Dutch Calais :D


1- To my knowledge there are no historical examples of a town being levelled.
Carthage.
A few towns during WW2.
Probally more but I can't be bothered to check.


2- Why should it be assumed (as it implicitly is in the topic post) that the British will inevitably lose Calais eventually?
Its a small patch of land in France. The last bit of the English challenge to the French throne.

Even discounting the threat it represents to the French crown its very different to Gibralter. If you'd visit Calais you'd see its not exactly a fortress built into a mountain. And its in a time period pre-UK with a weak England.
 
1- I meant around that time period.

2- Portugal was once seen as a rightful part of Castile. Corsica was once seen as a rightful part of Italy. Bosnia and Croatia were once seen as rightful parts of Hungary. Modern Belgium was once seen as a rightful part of France.

3- If France and England had been allies (Henry VIII and Francis I did negotiate about such), then French rivalry with Charles would deter them from alienating the English by attacking Calais.

4- The fact it is a small patch of land would deter the French from bothering much about it.

5- The threat to the French crown came not from Calais but from the English desire to conquer France.
 
Last edited:
Spain still wants Gibraltar back and we got that in a treaty.
Surely if we still had Calais, the French would have always been willing to take it if they could.
Wouldn't Napolean at least have taken it?
And regarding it being levelled, wasn't that all but accomplished by german bombardments during WWII?
 
And its in a time period pre-UK with a weak England.

At the time when England lost it France was going through hard times and harder times were ahead. Throughout the 16th century there was a serious possibility that France would be chopped up around the edges and the Habsburgs, England and/or Savoy would get the bits that fell off. I'd like to see the French take Calais when Picardy is part of the Spanish Netherlands.

Furthermore, it's completely possible for Anglo-French relations in the 16th century to evolve to a point where a war between them would be a waste of time, which is just how it was when that century ended (it didn't last though).

And if anyone mentions Napoleon again I'm gonna load my 16th century arquebus with butterflies and fire it in their face.
 
Why? Calais was treated like an English town and there really is no need to give it up. Britain had no scruples about Gibraltar and they'd have none about Calais.

And George III would be butterflied away.

Maybe if an alternate George III relinquished his French claims the French would have pressed for its return...
 
Spain still wants Gibraltar back and we got that in a treaty.
Surely if we still had Calais, the French would have always been willing to take it if they could.
Wouldn't Napolean at least have taken it?
And regarding it being levelled, wasn't that all but accomplished by german bombardments during WWII?

(Not counting points mentioned earlier)

1- Gibraltar's posistion was strategic- it controlled Mediteranian acess.
2- The English got Calais in a treaty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Br%C3%A9tigny)
3- I said in that time period (with regard to levelling)
 

ninebucks

Banned
Fast forwarding a lot, but I think a perpetually-held English Calais would result in an earlier Channel Tunnel. Steampunk Chunnel, anyone?
 
(Not counting points mentioned earlier)

1- Gibraltar's posistion was strategic- it controlled Mediteranian acess.
2- The English got Calais in a treaty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brétigny)
3- I said in that time period (with regard to levelling)

It's still exposed, semi-isolated from the homeland and marked as the first thing to conquer by every European army in case of war against England. Yeah, it can be captured and returned, captured and returned, captured and returned... but at some point people is going to be tired of repeating the same thing again and again. That was happened in the end with Louisbourg, Sacramento Colony and Olivenza, just to name some everconquered towns.
 

Philip

Donor
It's still exposed, semi-isolated from the homeland and marked as the first thing to conquer by every European army in case of war against England.

This is probably the biggest problem with England keeping Calais. Comparisons with Gibraltar don't really pan out since Gibraltar is far more easily defended.
 
This is probably the biggest problem with England keeping Calais. Comparisons with Gibraltar don't really pan out since Gibraltar is far more easily defended.

Gibraltar is easier to defend, but Calais is easier to supply. Hugely fortified, you would probably need control of the Channel to take it.

It could be held, it's just unlikely; and it would probably require history to take some different turns.
 
Top