WI/AHC: No United Kingdom

How do you keep the formation of the UK and keep England, Scotland, and Wales apart and Northern Ireland still a part of Ireland? And what affects would this have?
 
No UK is relatively easy Elizabeth has a clear acceptable alternative heir to James VIth, so no union of thrones. Then knockons take care of Northern Ireland as no plantations (unless ITL Scotland does it?). For Wales you probably have to have a more successful Owain Glyndwr.
Alternatively Edward VI lives longer and has an heir?
Ultimately England will still dominate the islands but no UK.
 
No UK is relatively easy Elizabeth has a clear acceptable alternative heir to James VIth, so no union of thrones. Then knockons take care of Northern Ireland as no plantations (unless ITL Scotland does it?). For Wales you probably have to have a more successful Owain Glyndwr.
Alternatively Edward VI lives longer and has an heir?
Ultimately England will still dominate the islands but no UK.

I see. And how will this affect things later on?
 
Wales' last chance came with their rebellion in the 1400s but the French weren't interested in backing them... A united England is going to conquer Wales if it can, you would need a pre-Norman PoD ideally. England/the Normans (who like good vikings really got around, in an adventuring/invasion sense) also had long held a presence in Ireland.
Scotland is a bit easier as if France stays strong and they avoid bankrupting themselves in America.
 
Then knockons take care of Northern Ireland as no plantations (unless ITL Scotland does it?).

There were English plantations of Ireland, too. I don't think that policy would change although I suppose it's possible that there might not be a region of Ireland with a Protestant majority in 1920 ITTL.
 
An interesting idea,

IMO Wales had no chance at independance, you'd need to travel back considerably far and have some very drastic changes for Wales ot gain enough power to resist English control, If Wales became a much stronger and unified country pre-norman times and kept that trend it may stand a chance but as I see it Wales will fall to England.
Scotland however could conceivably remain independent and cause England a lot of issues, It was troublesome enough in the 1600's and that wouldn't go away especially if the religion of the countries split as in OTL, but given it's geographical location it couldn't rise to be the dominant nation of the Isles.
I have no idea what Ireland would do in this situation,

Long term England becomes the power of the Isles, Wales is conquered by them, Scotland manages to resist and border skirmishes and raids ect. persist throughout.
Possible invasion/military involvement in the 1600's as in OTL

No British Empire,(Would the USA still form under England or would the French/Spainish take it? ) which has massive effect on the entire world. Middle East and Northern Ireland probably much more peaceful, but Nazi's win probably win WW2 and possibly successful in invasion.


This is a huge timeline divergence so I've just postulated some of my thoughts on it, with a more specific focus on the effects, and with some time parameters I could probably go further.
I would also say that at some point they'd be bound to unify a little bit, it's hard to see how they'd be kept apart for ever given the inevitable conflicts and alliance that would arise, and the common threats faced later on.
 
No UK is relatively easy Elizabeth has a clear acceptable alternative heir to James VIth, so no union of thrones.
Who could it be, though? Unless she has a child, by the time she becomes queen I don't know if there could be a closer relative as heir.
 
Another way to avoid the union of the English and Scottish crowns is for Francis II of France to live long enough to have children by Mary Queen of Scots. That has the potential to change the history of France considerably too. Unless there was some clause in the marriage contract that meant Mary's children couldn't inherit the crown of France.
 
Woops! I forgot that Mary's child by Francis II can theoretically inherit England as well as France and Scotland. The English would probably not be very happy about that prospect though.
 
Who could it be, though? Unless she has a child, by the time she becomes queen I don't know if there could be a closer relative as heir.

Under Henry VIII's will (as authorized by the Third Succession Act of 1544) the descendants of his elder sister Margaret (including James) were barred from inheriting. Elizabeth left no written instructions and no Act was passed by Parliament during her reign, which meant that the legal heir at the moment of her death was actually Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, senior heir to Henry's younger sister Mary. She had more right to the throne de jure than James of Scotland.

Hence the joke told during the run up to the Scottish independence vote that England would need to find a new Queen if Scotland seceded, since Elizabeth has "greater right" to the Scots throne than the English one.
 
Top