The United Kingdom of Britain, Ireland, and France

How can we make this happen? When would this most likely to occur, before or after the Hundred Years war? Could they take the young King Edward of England to be king of France as well, or could the English win the war and forcibbly become part of the English Monarchy?
 
There's a whole load of ways this can happen, though the specific use of the term "United Kingdom of..." may be anachronous. Also, when you talk about "King Edward"...which King Edward? England had eight of them.
 
Assuming you want all of Ireland and not just Northern Island, butterfly away Irish independence. Better treatment of the Irish from the English, a higher percentage of Protestants, etc etc could lead to Ireland remaining British. It'd probably still be uneasy, but might not go so far as to declare independence. Lots of ways to increase unity, Ireland and Britain were at least nominally united for quite a long time.

The French bit is a bit harder, as it was never an integral part of the British Empire (was only part of it shortly, hundreds of years ago). There was some sentiment in France for a union with Britain uniting during WW2. Some key people (de Gaulle, Monnet, Churchill) supported it, but France was conquered too soon for anything to happen. Increase French support a bit, and have the Battle of France take longer, and we could see a British-French union. From what I understand, it was planned mostly to force Britain to increase support against the Nazis, and probably would've fallen apart after the war was over. But for at least a few years, you'd have your UKBIF.
 
The French bit is a bit harder, as it was never an integral part of the British Empire (was only part of it shortly, hundreds of years ago). There was some sentiment in France for a union with Britain uniting during WW2. Some key people (de Gaulle, Monnet, Churchill) supported it, but France was conquered too soon for anything to happen. Increase French support a bit, and have the Battle of France take longer, and we could see a British-French union. From what I understand, it was planned mostly to force Britain to increase support against the Nazis, and probably would've fallen apart after the war was over. But for at least a few years, you'd have your UKBIF.

It was the other way around, actually. It was designed to persuade the French to keep fighting after Paris had fallen. But by that stage, the French weren't interested.

Also, of course, there's 1955, when several countries were looking at forming a European Union. The French President, very secretly, requested that France join the Commonwealth on the same terms as the Irish Free State had been granted, presumably (though I've never actually seen anyone else posture this) with the intention of solidifying Europe in a single structure, which would under this system have been headquartered in London. Other countries were probably believed to intend to follow, though there was never anything certain about that. The British said no, not believing themselves capable of dealing with Europe's problems, and a year later the French turned their back on the British and formed that organisation which would later cause so much consternation to the UK, the European Union. Have the British decide that they do want to include the French, and then have the rest of Europe not follow suit, and you could have your wish. Of course, since Norway was completely unperturbed by the British refusal to accept French membership and in 1959 themselves requested incorporation as a Commonwealth realm, by waving away British unwillingless you may have to make it the United Kingdom of Great Britain, France, Ireland and Norway ;)
 
Here's something else to work with! Now, the nation wouldn't be called The United Kingdom of Britain, Ireland, and France, but it could be the same basic thing.

We'll call it the Empire of Carausia, a union of northern France and Britain in the late 3rd century. Have it more successful, and ultimately conquer the rest of France over the next millenia.

It was the other way around, actually. It was designed to persuade the French to keep fighting after Paris had fallen. But by that stage, the French weren't interested.

Interesting. I knew it was originally thought of by Monnet for somewhat more altruistic purposes (he wanted to see a unified Europe), but I thought it ended up being DeGaulle trying to mess with the British, not the other way around.

Also, of course, there's 1955, when several countries were looking at forming a European Union. The French President, very secretly, requested that France join the Commonwealth on the same terms as the Irish Free State had been granted, presumably (though I've never actually seen anyone else posture this) with the intention of solidifying Europe in a single structure, which would under this system have been headquartered in London. Other countries were probably believed to intend to follow, though there was never anything certain about that. The British said no, not believing themselves capable of dealing with Europe's problems, and a year later the French turned their back on the British and formed that organisation which would later cause so much consternation to the UK, the European Union. Have the British decide that they do want to include the French, and then have the rest of Europe not follow suit, and you could have your wish. Of course, since Norway was completely unperturbed by the British refusal to accept French membership and in 1959 themselves requested incorporation as a Commonwealth realm, by waving away British unwillingless you may have to make it the United Kingdom of Great Britain, France, Ireland and Norway ;)

According to the internet, this was unlikely, though. The request was very unofficial, and when the former French Interior Minister was interviewed, he said that if the request had been official, the Prime Minister would've been arrested for high treason. That might've been a bit of exaggeration, but it implies a 1956 union would've been very unlikely.
 
According to the internet, this was unlikely, though. The request was very unofficial, and when the former French Interior Minister was interviewed, he said that if the request had been official, the Prime Minister would've been arrested for high treason. That might've been a bit of exaggeration, but it implies a 1956 union would've been very unlikely.

Well, the French agreeing to a union in 1940 was never going to happen either. Churchill knew it, he just threw it into the water "just in case". Neither the French nor the British had any stomach for it.

I should probably say, personally I feel the best chances of success for this idea come around the Hundred Years War and before, anyway. Though of course, a behemoth Anglo-French state at that early time in history does kind of plough into European history, changing everything radically...
 
what if henry V doesnt die of disease and carries on and solidifies his families hold over the throne of France (after all, he was accepted by the french, but onc ehe died, they reverted back t french kings)
of course that would cause a french speaking england and althoug london based the main culture would be french (as english culture and aristocracy wasnt solidified by that point, hence why union rule would be accepted by the people but also create a french nation in the long run) This would most likely cause scotland (at least the low lands) to fall directly under crown control (before 1700, after that the technologically backward clans would find it hard to match gunpowder) ireland would suffer much the same fate behind a large french and english powerbase thts for once would be combined rather than lockied in adversarian conflict.
It may also mean that the american revolution would also fail (or even not begin as it was because of tax levvied (among other things, but it is an escalating factor) to defend from the seven years war) but with no french navy stopping the pinpointing of ground forces, if somethign does kick off then there is a very good chance it would be unsuccessful.
The royal family wouldent be different until after elizabeth (witha french connection, there would be no need for a useless stuart king, no early rebellion, no constitutinal monarchy and possibly a full blown republic and revolution)

but this is beyond this

to get over the anglo-french adversaries yo woudl need to amke POD before there was rel hate between the two, medieival times is best for this as nationalism was stil years in the future. It aso gives time for the culures not to diverge as much as therefore create a union with greater national acceptance.
 
That's not strictly true - English Society in the 15th Century was becoming increasingly "English", since the loss of the bulk of Normandy and Aquitaine/Gascony in the previous centuries, the English Aristocracy no longer had the divided loyalties or lands. In turn that lead to a much more English and xenophobic aristocracy and crown - French was fading as the language of polite society - English was used at court and the days of an Anglo French monarch were also long gone - Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V were all very English monarchs.

I just don't see how England could have held France in perpetuity for that and other reasons - it would have been essentially a personal union of crowns because both countries had very different political systems even at that period. It is also likely that whilst Henry V might have done it through sheer will power (had he managed to defeat the Dauphin) and been able to govern his empire through his immediate family but the problems would come after - the Plantagenets would still have to deal with France's overpowerful vassals most of whom were of Royal Blood and had a claim (in many cases far more valid than the Plantagenets) to the Crown of St Louis assuming English success and Henry V living in the 1440's or 50's that doesn't negate a weak successor facing dynastic problems in both France and England (it was the weakness of Henry VI that reopened the succession issue in England).
A better solution might have been a full treaty with the Dauphin along the lines of full recognition of England's rights to Gascony and Normandy and a willingness by the French King to recognise the ENglish King as a sovereign Duke in both territories - the south west of France and the stretch of North coast would over time become more anglicised and less French if you like as both regions had a history of independence that might work and the English might be able to hold them for some time.
 
1420/30s: Henry V doesn't die. Takes France. Beats down last Valois resistance.

1420-1500: Burgundy would likely break further and further away from France with HRE support (Plantagenets are just too powerful), centre of power shifts away from London to Paris. It'll only take 2 or 3 kings after Henry before they are French first and English second. Rebellions happen all over the place just as IOTL; its part of life. Nothing TOO serious I'd imagine though.

16th century: English war of independance. With foreign support. A republic seems likely given how much of the nobility would also have heavy interests in France. Probally also a backlash against Frenchness and we end up with a more Dutch influenced English.

So thats not a way to get it really.....It has to be modernish.
 
Last edited:
I'd move the POD back a bit.

Have the Maid of Norway live to marry the future Edward II, effectively making him King of Scotland. This negates most of the clashes with Scotland for the next two-three centuries and the Auld Alliance. Subsequently, when France (under one of the Phillips, iirc) made a grab for Gascony, Edward I can concentrate his own forces (and probably the Scots as well) on fighting them.

Historically England had a very hard time at this point, but it could turn things around enough to shake France's centralisation. It's unlikely that an English King could have become King of France, but it might have been enough to keep Gascony solidly English and possibly move Burgundy and Brittany into closer alliance with it. This could lead to an extended disintegration of France, with various regions aligning into English hands rather than get torn apart, while others incorporate into the HRE or remain independent.
 
There's also my new pet theory, formulated recently against my previous inclinations. In it, Henry is pressured to end the war with the Dauphin, probably by Parliament running out of will to keep taxing England to pay for armies to subjugate France. He stops somewhere just to the north of Bourges, the location of the Dauphin's court. The Dauphin, though swearing revenge and ceaseless war also has little money and his nobles, some of whom have defected to Henry's cause (there were French supporters of Henry's claim) are tired of what they see as a lost cause war and force him also to come to terms. Henry and the Dauphin agree to each keep what they are presently holding, and because of its position (almost/entirely cut off from France) Gascony is recognised as an English dependent state. Both men claim the title King of France but gradually over the years the French kings, not holding Paris or Rheims (the tradition city for crowning new kings, so important that the French campaign started by Joan of Arc specifically cut a bee-line through English territory for it, and not Paris), lose their argument and are forced to take a different title...though I'm not sure what title this would be. There are several possibilities but most would be insulting to the French kings.

This way you get a much-reduced France, but in union with England. Also, in this configuration there can be little doubt that France in general and Paris in particular would be the weaker sibling to England and London respectively, securing an English future for this state while allowing France the power and prestige to keep its own identity. There's a whole lot I could add to this theory, but really none of it is relevant to the basic idea of just uniting England and France.
 
There's also my new pet theory, formulated recently against my previous inclinations. In it, Henry is pressured to end the war with the Dauphin, probably by Parliament running out of will to keep taxing England to pay for armies to subjugate France. He stops somewhere just to the north of Bourges, the location of the Dauphin's court. The Dauphin, though swearing revenge and ceaseless war also has little money and his nobles, some of whom have defected to Henry's cause (there were French supporters of Henry's claim) are tired of what they see as a lost cause war and force him also to come to terms. Henry and the Dauphin agree to each keep what they are presently holding, and because of its position (almost/entirely cut off from France) Gascony is recognised as an English dependent state. Both men claim the title King of France but gradually over the years the French kings, not holding Paris or Rheims (the tradition city for crowning new kings, so important that the French campaign started by Joan of Arc specifically cut a bee-line through English territory for it, and not Paris), lose their argument and are forced to take a different title...though I'm not sure what title this would be. There are several possibilities but most would be insulting to the French kings.

This way you get a much-reduced France, but in union with England. Also, in this configuration there can be little doubt that France in general and Paris in particular would be the weaker sibling to England and London respectively, securing an English future for this state while allowing France the power and prestige to keep its own identity. There's a whole lot I could add to this theory, but really none of it is relevant to the basic idea of just uniting England and France.
Hmmm...

This would be exceedingly interesting linguistically - there would not be any overwhelmingly predominant dialect for the state. English (of various sorts, probably standardizing on London dialect as OTL), French (langue d'oil, of various sorts - Anglo Norman, Norman, Angevin etc, possibly even Parisian - but it won't likely have the prestige of OTL), Breton, Welsh, Irish, Langue d'oc (in its Gascon form)

In this situation, I would expect that the minor languages survive better so that e.g. Occitan and Irish are official languages of the empire (at least for local usage). Latin might even survive as a bureaucratic, record keeping language.
 
As would I. I'd expect - somewhat ironically - for "French France" to centralise relatively quickly as the Dauphins (I'm getting tired of typing French Kings and getting confused with the King of France, so let's call them Dauphins for simplicity) attempt to react to losing their power base. I also anticipated the Dauphins annexing Savoy partly as the foreign policy equivalent of "I'm depressed, I'm going to get drunk and get laid" and partly as a means of expanding their resources to compensate, and such a large area of land without the typical French powerful nobles is going to help the Dauphins bash the nobles into line. In the north, however, with ultimate power ending up in London, I can see the French nobles who remain growing more powerful than ever - though I can't see English France disintegrating as some postulate that OTL France could have. Brittany would probably revolve in and out of the English orbit but essentially be an independent state under English influence - their loyalty would fluctuate and they might try and rebel but ultimately I think the English would keep them in line. I reckon they'd eventually just settle down to enjoying the freedom that the English granted them whereas the French were constantly trying to control them. But really that's another story. Champagne would probably be divided up, half royal demese (as IRL) and half for the defecting nobles. These nobles, plus the counts of Maine, Anjou, the Vendee nobles maybe (haven't decided who would get the Vendee), etc, would probably then keep a show of loyalty to allow themselves to become quasi-independent. But controlling much smaller areas of land, mostly with no coastline, they're going to be economically independent upon English France, so they will stay loyal - they only stand to lose power by defecting back to the Dauphin anyway, though that doesn't mean they won't try to intrigue with the south anyway. Normandy would probably be influenced by English, though I certainly don't think it would actually start speaking English. Gascony would be the same, but their language started off differently and they had a very autonomist regional identity anyway - Gascony might become a mini-France, with a whole load of sub-regional variations just as English France has a ton of regional variations. Each of these areas of France would probably develop a slightly different culture and linguistic variations, and I can't see there being any enforcement of a unified language - it just doesn't appear to have a benefit here. This acceptance of autonomous linguistic and cultural development would then probably spill over into the handling of Scotland and Ireland to a degree, and to the colonies later on too.

Burgundy would surely become an independent country. I can see Henry's brother (Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester) being more of an annoyance to an independent Burgundy, and I can see Henry stepping in to prevent the Burgundians slapping the Hollandais around (his main reason for arguing against Humphrey's marriage to Jacqueline of Hainaut was over the Burgundians' claim to Holland and Hainaut) so there's the potential for a very cut-down Netherlands in the English orbit, adding some Dutch flair into the language mix. Also, Gloucester was a bit of a power-hungry guy, and large parts of Frisia were uncontrolled at this point, so imagine him going off and conquering all the lands which - Papal guaranteed and everything - the Counts of Holland were entitled to. You'd have a County of Holland controlling the north coast of Germany virtually to the Jutland peninsula, and there's some real interesting language variations in there. It's great, there's a load of possibility.

Really, this is the one thing I'd really ever be interested in doing a TL about. However, my TL would be so biased and reliant on amazing flukes bordering on ASB behaviour that I don't think it would really ever be viable for anyone other than me.
 
Top