Questions about an English colonies timeline

This is an idea for a timeline I originally posted in the "ideas we've had but haven't executed" thread a while back. This is what I've outlined for it so far.

During the English Civil War Charles II is almost killed but is saved by a Virginian serving in the army. They become very close friends. The rest of the world goes OTL until the Restoration in 1660. While in exile Charles is relayed stories of loyalty from the English colonies (for the most part exaggerated by his Virginian friend) with the result that when he becomes king he decides to reward the colonies by making them an equal part of his kingdom (really this is at the urging of the Viginian who ends up effectively running the whole government for Charles)

What I'm wondering (and don't know enough to eally work out) is what the actual status of the colonies would be. As in would they be integrated into England, become a seperate kingdom along the lines of Scotland or something else?

Lastly, I'm aware that the whole premise is a bit far fetched but I think the consequences would be fascinating to explore.
 
Perhaps like Wales? It seems (from my American opinion) that whilst Wales was legally part of England proper de-facto everyone recognized Wales existed, had a separate culture, language, Welshmen existed separately from Englishmen, etc.

So basically legally intergrated, but de-facto still able to run themselves quite a good bit.
 
Perhaps like Wales? It seems (from my American opinion) that whilst Wales was legally part of England proper de-facto everyone recognized Wales existed, had a separate culture, language, Welshmen existed separately from Englishmen, etc.

So basically legally intergrated, but de-facto still able to run themselves quite a good bit.

Wales never ran themselves until devolution under Blair. I think the separateness of Wales from England is something we see through modern eyes. I would say between the 1600s and early 1800s, Wales was seen as both English and non-English in different contexts. As with Cornwall, it would have been considered simply an extremity of the Kingdom with late conversion to 'civilised' English culture, with that process further underway in the south than the north. There would certainly have been an upper class that considered Wales to be their home and rightly part of the Kingdom of England. An alternate timeline could have had that mentality filter down (as in Cornwall) rather than the lower class mentality filtering up. The split in the church played a big role here.
 
In the situation, de facto a part of England but running themselves, what do you see happening in terms of representation in parliament? My understanding is that Wales sent MP's to Parliament in London but I can't see that being practical for the colonies as they would have to send MP's all the way across the Atlantic.
 
At the time, I believe Virginia mostly ran itself anyway, de facto appointing their own governors. Charles II bestowed the name Old Dominion on Virginia for her loyalty. In this scenario, couldn't you simply give them the official right to appoint their own governor, but he has to be confirmed by the king. Also, elevating noteworthy Virginians to the peerage could be useful not only for him (stuffing the Lords with loyal appointees) and for his Virginian favourite (control over the power of patronage).

The Lords at this time is still more important than the Commons and will be seen as the more prestigious house where things get done. In time, the Lords could become an Imperial House, where representatives from all of the Empire meet, while the Commons deals specifically with home stuff. In the same way the House of Burgesses will deal with domestic issues in Virginia.
 
The Colonies being granted independent Kingdom status is certainly an interesting idea. Much more plausible then them getting representation in the English parliament. I don't see the American Colonies being united though. Virginia would certainly be a separate Kingdom. What happens in New England would be interesting.
 
At the time, I believe Virginia mostly ran itself anyway, de facto appointing their own governors. Charles II bestowed the name Old Dominion on Virginia for her loyalty. In this scenario, couldn't you simply give them the official right to appoint their own governor, but he has to be confirmed by the king. Also, elevating noteworthy Virginians to the peerage could be useful not only for him (stuffing the Lords with loyal appointees) and for his Virginian favourite (control over the power of patronage).

The Lords at this time is still more important than the Commons and will be seen as the more prestigious house where things get done. In time, the Lords could become an Imperial House, where representatives from all of the Empire meet, while the Commons deals specifically with home stuff. In the same way the House of Burgesses will deal with domestic issues in Virginia.

I had completely forgotten that the Lords dominated the Commons at this point in time. I like the possibilities it brings up in terms of giving the king more influence in Parliament. Also you could get fun dynamics between the different colonies if say New England gets jealous of Virginian influence in London.

General Greene
Maybe a mix of the two? Some colonies become a part of England, others become their own kingdom.
 
I had completely forgotten that the Lords dominated the Commons at this point in time. I like the possibilities it brings up in terms of giving the king more influence in Parliament. Also you could get fun dynamics between the different colonies if say New England gets jealous of Virginian influence in London.

General Greene
Maybe a mix of the two? Some colonies become a part of England, others become their own kingdom.

Ugh, I can see things getting weirdly HRE in this scenario.
 
I had completely forgotten that the Lords dominated the Commons at this point in time. I like the possibilities it brings up in terms of giving the king more influence in Parliament. Also you could get fun dynamics between the different colonies if say New England gets jealous of Virginian influence in London.

General Greene
Maybe a mix of the two? Some colonies become a part of England, others become their own kingdom.

The colonial nobility is an interesting one, but unlikely I think. I think a far more likely mix is some colonies become kingdoms while others remain as they are. I see Virginia very easily becoming a kingdom, but the Puritan colonies of New England remaining as colonial territories. With Scotland still having an independent parliament this idea won't probably be so difficult to implement, and would solve some future problems between the OTL colonies and Parliament while potentially creating some interesting new ones. I could see later colonies campaigning for kingdom status and being rewarded for loyalty to the monarch and empire by being granted it. Might make the ITTL ARW very interesting as perhaps an angry New England isn't able to gain support for rebellion in the Kingdoms of Virginia and New York and the Duchy of Pennsylvania.

Perhaps eventually some of these kingdoms eventually agree to Acts of Union with England/Great Britain ala Scotland or Ireland, but it would take awhile and isn't to likely in my opinion.
 
ok so I have a question. Would becoming a separate Kingdom and having peers appointed to the Lords be mutually exclusive? I thought I read somewhere that there were Scottish members of the House of Lords or is that wrong?
 
I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it is certainly possible. Britons probably wouldn't be too happy about it though, and it would be hard to find high status families that aren't primarily oriented towards Britain. There's a reason Lord Fairfax was the only peer residing in the colonies OTL. The land and its people were viewed as backward and primitive despite their British heritage. Those in the colonies who wouldn't be snubbed by the rest of the British gentry probably already have significant holdings in Britain.
 
During the English Civil War Charles II is almost killed but is saved by a Virginian serving in the army. They become very close friends. The rest of the world goes OTL until the Restoration in 1660. While in exile Charles is relayed stories of loyalty from the English colonies (for the most part exaggerated by his Virginian friend) with the result that when he becomes king he decides to reward the colonies by making them an equal part of his kingdom (really this is at the urging of the Viginian who ends up effectively running the whole government for Charles)

What I'm wondering (and don't know enough to eally work out) is what the actual status of the colonies would be. As in would they be integrated into England, become a seperate kingdom along the lines of Scotland or something else?

I think the idea of creating Virginia as a separate Kingdom is something of a red herring, at least in the short term; there was a method of establishing a colony on a different basis to the chartered plantations of the north IOTL, and all you need to do is look across the Potomac. What you’d probably get is Virginia being made a County Palatine, on the same basis as Lancaster and Durham, which effectively makes the colony a semi-detached part of the Kingdom of England with a whole range of specific rights, most notably the local feudal overlord having the right to administer the place rather than the Crown. This is exactly what happened in Maryland, which was established on the basis of being a hereditary County Palatine under the control of the Calvert family.

In terms of what this would do, a lot depends on whether the King’s favourite is actually popular in Virginia. If, for example, it’s not William Berkeley, who was a Royal favourite IOTL and dominated the colony at the time, there will be serious political consequences. It would be much more difficult to establish somebody as the owner of an existing colony than a new one; perhaps more likely would be the King granting the favourite the Carolinas to settle, much as Charles gave his brother James New York and New Jersey IOTL. I can’t help but thinking that trying to impose a feudal overlord on Virginia would be a bit like James II’s attempts to mess about with the northern colonies through Edmund Andros; everyone hates it, and eventually there’s a revolt. I think you actually may have found a way to get Bacon’s Rebellion to succeed ITTL, although I suspect Charles II is too smart to let this happen in the first place.
 
Top