The developments in Portugal and other colonies seem very much in-step with this universalist street-fighter church that has developed, and in a situation where ultramontanes and catholic populists are creating systems in their countries that are heavily dependent on Catholicism for their legitimacy, it provides great opportunity for change for the common good.
I tend to agree on this - with Catholicism so much a part of the Belgian-model countries'
raison d'etre, pronouncements from the Pope and from Church councils will carry a great deal of weight. They'll either have to back down as Portugal did, become anti-clerical like El Salvador or come up with reasons why the Pope is wrong, and either of the latter two would cost them a great deal of internal legitimacy.
As you say, the Church will be one of the things that unites the Portuguese Africans, especially in Angola where Catholicism goes back even further than Portuguese rule. And there's precedent, in Eritrea and South Africa, for Europeans and Africans being knitted together by language and religion.
I wonder, though, if there might be more sedevacantist sentiments on the right - even with its doctrinally conservative position, the social policies of TTL's Church will alienate many reactionaries, and as you say, its anti-nationalism will also cause problems. There probably won't be a major split, but maybe more of one than after Vatican II.
Speaking of doctrinal development, can we expect a development towards some of the changes of Vatican II, for example? On the one hand, a more down-to-earth church seems like it would be more willing to embrace mass in the vernacular, as it appeals to their less educated flock, but the unity of Latin as a language of religion and the example of the Legion could act as a counter-balance. And I really have no idea how Infallibility would be influenced ITTL, if it would come about at all.
Hmmm. I can definitely see factors pulling both ways. Maybe the Church would retain Latin as the default but with a vernacular mass as an option, and there might also be earlier development of rites like the
Zaire Use (which in Portuguese Africa may even spread to some of the whites).
I'm not sure about infallibility - even if not codified, the tradition would still exist. Maybe the infallibility of Church councils would be dogma while Papal infallibility would remain more of a traditional matter.
On that note, how has N'Dele reacted to all this? Their king and royal family is Catholic, and they're now a protectorate of Germany which has a lot of Catholics itself to support it, but a lot of their population and army is still Pagan. How much evangelism is present there and how successful is it? Are they striking a fair and equitable balance between the faiths?
I'm thinking that a *Zaire Use would be very useful here, and that if one doesn't already exist, the N'Dele monarchy might invent it. They want a Catholic kingdom but also realize that they'll face rebellion, even within the army, if they push evangelism too hard, so they're probably offering incentives to converts but not suppressing non-Catholic faiths.
On another note, are we going to hear more about the development of the film industry? I am really hoping to Japanese are busily churning out 'Samurai Westerns' based on their frontier experience in Kanchatka.
The 20s and 30s will actually be a golden age of cinema, with the depression over, talkies coming in and new techniques for effects. The French, German, Ottoman and West African avant-garde will produce some masterpieces during this period.
The Kamchatka frontier has established itself firmly within the Japanese popular imagination, so samurai westerns set there are definitely in the works.
Napoleon VI ?! Maybe Napoleone I, but not Napoleon VI; Napoléone can be used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisa_Napoléone_Baciocchi.
As for the change in Imperial Succession rules, it's very interesting. IOTL, the dynastic disputes have been frequent, first between Prince Napoleon and his son Napoleon victor because of Napoleon Eugene's will and currently between Charles Napoleon and his son Jean-Christophe Napoleon because of Louis Napoleon's (Charles' father) will. Marie-Anne's brother will surely contest the move.
Perhaps Napoleone VI as a compromise- the line isn't broken, but the name accommodates Marianne's gender.
She should be like "I am Napoleon VI and am above grammar"
Napoléonne is just so ugly as a word, I would understand Marianne to take the male version.
She wouldn't be the first queen or empress to reign under a male name or title (and by this time, "Napoleon" may be considered almost as much the latter as the former in popular culture), but if that isn't something that would be done in France, I'm willing to change my mind. I actually kind of like the "Napoléone VI" compromise - "damn right I'm the sixth Napoleon, I just happen to be a female one."
In any event, the name Marianne would be used on all but the most formal occasions.
There will certainly be a small but vocal faction that considers Napoleon V's older son the true emperor, and there will also be a faction supporting the rightist younger son on the theory that the older brother had forfeited the throne due to his "treasonous" politics. With Marianne as the legislature's consensus choice, there won't be much the brothers can do to press their claims - they'll be politically active, but they're likely to be forever awaiting their moment.
The political spectrum looks interesting and even more complicated than the one of our third republic which didn't have Catholic parties.
That and the Futurists, who mainly lean left but who can sometimes cut across factional lines.
Has the Empress also decided to end the Bagnes of Guyanne?
The fact that this French empire is a lot more compact than ours is probably good for the integration strategy because can you imagine the Central African Republic as the integral part of a Western nation? The most obvious flashpoint is Algeria : I can't see it end well because there are both too few and too many colonist.
The penal colonies in French Guiana have been closed; not only have they come to be considered inhumane, but so many convicts that close to an aggressive Venezuela was considered a security risk.
The Fourth Republic in OTL did make the Central African Republic into part of the French Union, but granted, it didn't work out very well. The colonies remaining to France are the most developed ones with the strongest precolonial institutions, which will make integration easier, although as I've mentioned, there will be many difficulties in achieving practical equality.
Agreed on Algeria: not enough settlers to form a majority, too many to make withdrawal easy, and with all the wrong attitudes about their neighbors. "An Algerian in Paris and a Parisian in Algiers are Frenchmen" - the deciding factor will be whether the
colons can come around to treating Algerians in Algiers as fellow citizens.
8747286 said:
Did Italy have colonies TTL (I can't remember)
It has Eritrea and Tunisia, both of which have a substantial number of Italian settlers, although most of Tunisia is effectively a princely state.
So, we now know the French are one of the four Romance-speaking European powers with integral territories in Africa. Portugal is a no-brainer, as is Spain. That leaves - Italy absorbing Tunis? I can't see them holding onto their segment of Eritrea in the longer run, what with Ethiopia ascendant.
Well, he never did say how much territory they would still hold as an integral part. It might be that Italy gets its own version of Ceuta and Melilla, rather than absorbing Tunis wholesale.
If the people of Italian Eritrea don't want to be absorbed by Ethiopia, they might want to stay; after all, association with a European patron is one way to discourage any aggressive moves. But a Ceuta and Melilla arrangement in Tunisia, possibly developing from Italian enclave towns that are formally detached from the Tunisian princely state, is also a possibility.
With only one non-romance European power having territory ITTL's present, I would presume for Germany, meaning Britain is shut out entirely. Serves them right I suppose.
It might be a little too early to count Britain out, but I generally agree, for a couple of reasons, but the main difference is the shape and system of colonialism between Germany and Britain. Germany's got a single settler colony which has integrated the African populace through a number of ways, and everything else is protectorates with varying degrees of German interference in the government. The UK on the other hand, apart from the debacle with the Imperial party, has a less Westphalian empire.
I would argue that Germany will retain African territory directly, whereas the UK would maintain Commonwealth States, independent but sharing trade links, defence, etc. Hopefully South Africa retains the monarchy.
Germany's also a federal country, which makes it easier (both on the metropole and the new state) to accommodate more components.
Britain in OTL was never keen on making territories outside the British Isles into integral parts of the country, even in cases (such as Malta) where substantial majorities in those territories wanted to join. As you say, the path for those British colonies and princely states who want to maintain a close association with their patron is either dominion status or independence within a Commonwealth-type treaty framework. Some of them may be very close indeed, but not part of Britain.
(Of course, OTL Germany also never went for integrating colonial territories, but its pattern of colonialism in TTL is very different, especially in *Namibia.)
I suspect Coastal Algeria will remain part of France, as will Ghana (I think that was confirmed)
Algeria hasn't been decided one way or another - there are reasons why it might stay, but also reasons why it might not.
*Ghana is within the British sphere; however, Gabon is a strong possibility, and Senegal a virtual certainty.
British West Africa and Liberia will be next.
