UK of England, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Aquitaine, Gascony, Navarre & Low Countries

After the Battle of Pavia Henry VIII tried to use the opportunity to revive his kingdom's claims to France. In real life the Holy Roman Emperor essentially replied "Go stuff yourself, you whiny little second-rate power," but I suppose that if Henry's England had acquitted herself better in the previous years' campaigns, Charles V might have agreed to support Henry's claims to Aquitaine, Gascony and Navarre, since these areas had been under English rule for most of the Middle Ages, and giving them to Henry wouldn't upset the balance of power in the same way that giving him the whole of France would. As for the Low Countries, I think the Dutch rebels offered to make Elizabeth I Queen of the Netherlands, so if she accepted we could see this area come under English sway as well. Of course, this would be a dynastic union, and even if England managed to hold onto them (which is by no means certain -- at any rate, I can't imagine the French monarch being happy with losing large swathes of his territory, and England probably didn't have the resources to defend them against a determined French attack) it's quite difficult to see all these territories being welded together into a proper United Kingdom. Perhaps if these territories all end up converting to Protestantism we might see them uniting to better combat the Catholic menace (something similar was actually proposed in the 1650s between England and Holland). Possibly, too, the English monarch might offer the Huguenots aid in return for their recognising English rights to Aquitaine et al., so, if the Huguenots end up winning/forcing a better deal than IRL, that might provide a way for the English to keep hold of their continental territories.
 
This will have to take centuries. Let's say England keeps her mideival territories in France, they become intergrated during the Tudor age. Personal union with the Netherlands comes later and the dutch intergrate during the Georgian era. The trick will be to hold everything together long enough for it all to come together. A slow process over centuries allowing each new addition to intergrate and settle in before the next one joins or is conqured is the best option in my opinion.
 
A rough, quick map of the UK:
(By the way, I included Normandy, because I noticed I'd forgotten to put it in the title, but I think that could also be in the UK)

mega-uk.png
 
I think that could hold together if (and probably only if) England (calling it England just because I think that's the only Kingdom in there) becomes a major naval power a LOT earlier. Essentially, that conglomerate is going to have to be kept together by the sea.

How they all become tied together, no idea. Perhaps a different Plantagenet heritance around the time of Henry II/Richard. Richard had possession, or at least claims to most of it , except the Low Country. So, avoid John, bring Arthur of Brittany in instead, and screw Philip Augustus disastrously , one way or other (Richard could maybe have done that had he lived) , and it could be on it's way. Plausibility, so-so. Likelihood, remote at best. But , maybe, possible. Probably means that France never really develops as a centralised state, splits up like Germany into *this 'UK', Burgundy, Provence, other break away states and statelets.

I think that after OTL John , it's not feasible. Basically, if Chateau Gaillard falls, not going to happen.
 

katchen

Banned
England would have to decide early on (maybe as early as Henry II) that a united and centralized France would always be a threat to it and therefore make common cause with Raymond of Toulouse to destroy Louis VII, abort the Albigensian Crusade (and quite possibly the rest of the Crusades altogether) and preserve an independent Occitania in return for Occitania and Toulouse recognizing England's claim to Acquitane, Brittany, Normandy and the Low Countries. Navarre can come later. England develops a navy early on.
 
England would have to decide early on (maybe as early as Henry II) that a united and centralized France would always be a threat to it and therefore make common cause with Raymond of Toulouse to destroy Louis VII, abort the Albigensian Crusade (and quite possibly the rest of the Crusades altogether) and preserve an independent Occitania in return for Occitania and Toulouse recognizing England's claim to Acquitane, Brittany, Normandy and the Low Countries. Navarre can come later. England develops a navy early on.
If anyone has a common cause against France with England it is Aragon, they have the fief of Gevaudan and Provence which it has some conflict with Toulouse and France.
 
England would have to decide early on (maybe as early as Henry II) that a united and centralized France would always be a threat to it and therefore make common cause with Raymond of Toulouse to destroy Louis VII, abort the Albigensian Crusade (and quite possibly the rest of the Crusades altogether) and preserve an independent Occitania in return for Occitania and Toulouse recognizing England's claim to Acquitane, Brittany, Normandy and the Low Countries. Navarre can come later. England develops a navy early on.

What is this "Occitania' you speak of as of the 13th century?

And Henry II and descendants seem to have found France a big damn deal - but that didn't stop Brittany, Anjou, and Normandy from being lost under John, and Aquitaine-Gascony steadily whittled down.
 
It's difficult to gain the full area in the "traditional" ways as above so let's go another way.
Matilda marries Thierry of Flanders and brings that county in to the "English possessions", England then expands its control over Wales as per OTL and Britanny comes into orbit, perhaps coming in under the odd younger royal son.
Meanwhile Aquitaine (inc Gascony) comes under the Kingdom of Navarre (or vv) and becomes a natural ally of the English against the French.
Eventually Aquitaine, Britanny, Normandy, & Flanders are (fully) detached from the French Kingdom - perhaps like the HRE collapse.
Come the Renaissance period equivalent there's an extended personal union between Navarre and England which lasts until an Alt-Enlightenment whereupon it goes imperial and several further territories incl Britanny full under the new Imperial Crown
 
The biggest problem is in defence - you have an outer rim that faces enemies with internal lines. Now, this is not an insurmountable problem in medieval times since kings basically are overlords of the lesser lords, even down to the 16th century (Henri of Navarre). These lesser lords have their own motivations, loyalties and ability to influence things - see the Bourbon dukes, the Dukes of Orleans etc even "within" France in the 15th century.

Beyond this, into the early modern period, a sense of national unity is going to be needed. Your enemies are going to be forging one, even if France can be assumed to be weaker, and perhaps with big holes in its edges where barrier states survive (eg Lorraine).

Having the best navy will need to be combined with a good Marines and local defence levies. Massive fortresses and treaties which secure the borders, guaranteed by alliances with major powers. It can be done, but wholesale war will usually lead to the loss of control, only regaining it at the peace - this didn't stop France from maintaining rule over Martinique and Guadeloupe, though.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top