The united Kingdom invades France during the revolution.

The british monarch at the time still styled himself as king of france. What if during the chaos of the revolution the king presses his claim on France. would the other powers even come to the defense of France to avoid a powerful personal union?
 
Uh, not exactly "I'm still King of the French" but have you heard of the French Revolutionary Wars per chance?
The british didn't go to war with the premise of a personal union. I imagine Austria would be spooked out, i mean i wouldn't want such a powerful neighboor even tough radicals still rule France.
 
It'd be impossible to enforce in the first place and it's obvious to every power in Europe. The monarchists wanted a king, sure, but not a British king, and the revolutionaries didn't particularly want a king once the heads started rolling. Unlike the Hundred Years' War, there's no support on the mainland for a British king trying to take over France and the British army's not strong enough to take on the French army AND occupy all of France while the people would rally to either the French royalists or the revolutionaries. It'd just bleed Britain for no real gain and a whole lot of bad press in continental Europe. None of the other powers need to intervene since France alone could push out the British (at the start of the French Revolutionary Wars, Britain's army had fewer than 50,000 men while France fielded hundreds of thousands once they began mass conscription). But it might make future cooperation a bit more difficult.
 
It'd be impossible to enforce in the first place and it's obvious to every power in Europe. The monarchists wanted a king, sure, but not a British king, and the revolutionaries didn't particularly want a king once the heads started rolling. Unlike the Hundred Years' War, there's no support on the mainland for a British king trying to take over France and the British army's not strong enough to take on the French army AND occupy all of France while the people would rally to either the French royalists or the revolutionaries. It'd just bleed Britain for no real gain and a whole lot of bad press in continental Europe. None of the other powers need to intervene since France alone could push out the British (at the start of the French Revolutionary Wars, Britain's army had fewer than 50,000 men while France fielded hundreds of thousands once they began mass conscription). But it might make future cooperation a bit more difficult.
Perhaps the british could only occupy the north leaving the south as an independant kingdom. They might get lucky and mabye win some crushing victories. History is full of these against the odds moment. Still i dont see how could they occupy a chunk of France without another european power invading.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
1792 was not 1415. The Prime Minister would have gently told George III (assuming he was lucid) that it would cost too much in money and lives, that the people would not accept such a war, and that the whole idea was a no-go.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Britain did try this then, and can be argued to be the cause of Napoleon's victory and ascendancy.
 
Top