Plausbility Check: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1708?

Simon

Simon

Doesn't appear to have been discussed on here before but reading up on the two Acts of Union 1707 that created Great Britain one of the things that caught my eye that I'd never heard about before was that both houses of the Irish Parliament sent a message celebrating the union saying 'May God put it in your royal heart to add greater strength and lustre to your crown, by a still more comprehensive Union'. What appears to be an invitation/appeal to introduce similar legislation in regard to Ireland was apparently ignored by London.

So how possible would it be for Ireland to be offered a similar, if somewhat watered down deal, to Scotlands? Does anyone know why the offer was politely ignored in our timeline? And how it might be able to work around the main obstacles?
 
Grey Eminence

Grey Eminence

Not plausible in my view.

1708 is just 11 years after the end of the 9 Years War which saw an English Army implement a planned scorched earth policy in Ireland. Depending on the estimate you pick approximately 6% to 13% of the Irish population (which is of course estimated) died; say 1 in 10, most due to famine.

This war also saw the dispossession of most Catholics of their land; if I recall the proportions flip 10 years either side of the war, from 1/3rd to 2/3rds being in Protestant hands. Also interestingly the Catholic Irish were denied primogeniture, I am not sure if the Old English were (they probably were).

England did not need to unify with Ireland because they had already conquered it.

** ** **

P.S.

The Crown of Ireland was held by the Kings and Queen of England by act of English Parliament, not an act of Union. Go read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Ireland_Act_1542
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Grey Eminence said:
The Crown of Ireland was held by the Kings and Queen of England by act of English Parliament, not an act of Union. Go read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Ireland_Act_1542
Click to expand...

Well done for totally misunderstanding the OP. :rolleyes:

As for the OP itself: interesting point, I hadn't heard that before. There isn't much particular incentive for Parliament to go along with it at that point - adding Ireland's MPs would only exacerbate complaints about Scottish MPs diluting the prevailing political culture in the English Parliament - but it could have interesting effects in the long run. The Irish Catholics are going to hate it at first but later on it could work to their advantage as reforms are passed across the whole unified kingdom.

I wonder what the name of such a kingdom would be at this stage? "Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", perhaps, lacking the 'united'.
 

Falastur

Alex Richards said:
Not sure about the exact formal naming, but I have a feeling that it will be known as 'the Triple Crown'
Click to expand...

England, Scotland and Ireland would all continue to have their own distinct personalities as OTL but the Acts of Union were mergers of Kingdoms, not just political ties. Technically the only time that British monarchs had a "triple crown" (not including crowns on the continent, i.e. Hanover, the Neths) was 1603 to 1707, when the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland all resided with the same person. After 1707 Scotland and England were merged together into the Kingdom of Great Britain, and if Ireland was included it would just make the British Isles one single Kingdom, not three crowns. "The Triple Kingdom" perhaps, but not "the Triple Crown" - though I'm not sure how British a phrase that is anyway. "Triple Crown" strikes me more as a Germanic phrase, though I couldn't even try to explain why it feels German...
 

Lord Grattan

Falastur said:
England, Scotland and Ireland would all continue to have their own distinct personalities as OTL but the Acts of Union were mergers of Kingdoms, not just political ties. Technically the only time that British monarchs had a "triple crown" (not including crowns on the continent, i.e. Hanover, the Neths) was 1603 to 1707, when the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland all resided with the same person. After 1707 Scotland and England were merged together into the Kingdom of Great Britain, and if Ireland was included it would just make the British Isles one single Kingdom, not three crowns. "The Triple Kingdom" perhaps, but not "the Triple Crown" - though I'm not sure how British a phrase that is anyway. "Triple Crown" strikes me more as a Germanic phrase, though I couldn't even try to explain why it feels German...
Click to expand...


How about triune, tripartate or (on a less serious note) Britannic-Hibernian :eek:.
 
Lord Insane

Lord Insane

Falastur said:
"The Triple Kingdom" perhaps, but not "the Triple Crown" - though I'm not sure how British a phrase that is anyway. "Triple Crown" strikes me more as a Germanic phrase, though I couldn't even try to explain why it feels German...
Click to expand...
German or Germanic? They are different things, you know. As for why... well, Three Crowns is the heraldic symbol of one of the Germanic Kingdoms...
 

Falastur

LordInsane said:
German or Germanic? They are different things, you know. As for why... well, Three Crowns is the heraldic symbol of one of the Germanic Kingdoms...
Click to expand...

Yeah I know they mean different things but for the purpose of my reply the difference between them was negligible. For some reason I just don't see a "Triple Crown" nickname as a very British way of nicknaming an alternate UK, but perhaps all I'm actually thinking of here is that it's not a very me way of saying it...
 
Lord Insane

Lord Insane

Falastur said:
Yeah I know they mean different things but for the purpose of my reply the difference between them was negligible. For some reason I just don't see a "Triple Crown" nickname as a very British way of nicknaming an alternate UK, but perhaps all I'm actually thinking of here is that it's not a very me way of saying it...
Click to expand...
Er... no? Remember, English is Germanic. Germanic is a much broader term than German. The meaning changes quite a bit depending on whether you meant German or Germanic, so no, the difference between them was not negligible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top