WI: Berwick upon Tweed the British Capital after 1603/1707

What if Berwick Upon Tweed had been made the capital of Great Britain upon the union of England and Scotland, meaning that King James moves there in 1603 followed by Parliament in 1707? This means that the British do what the Spanish did after the Union of Aragon and Castille and create a capital which favours neither England nor Scotland.
 
What if Berwick Upon Tweed had been made the capital of Great Britain upon the union of England and Scotland, meaning that King James moves there in 1603 followed by Parliament in 1707? This means that the British do what the Spanish did after the Union of Aragon and Castille and create a capital which favours neither England nor Scotland.

I'm pretty sure Madrid falls within the Castilian orbit.

If you wanted a more 'central' capital for Great Britain, perhaps a better choice would have been York. Otherwise, there's no chance. London has centuries of prestige and wealth.
 
Otherwise, there's no chance. London has centuries of prestige and wealth.
Well, if the monarchy wanted to appease the scots, they could, in theory, change the capital.
Berwick-on-Tweed is right on the anglo-scottish border. Other options are available, such as Manchester (England's second largest city) which is roughly in the middle between England, Wales, and Scotland.
 
I'd say york is the best option. It's on the humber, which allows ships from it to reach the north sea, to go to the baltic, channel, etc. Since this situation is already pretty unrealistic, perhaps anglesey? It's pretty much the most central you can get in the british isles.
 
York is the only viable central location. It's got the prestige to be a Capital of the Federal Kingdoms of the British Isles due to been the seat of the Archbishop of York. Berwick is just a town that changes nationality every generation or so.
 
Well, if the monarchy wanted to appease the scots, they could, in theory, change the capital.
Berwick-on-Tweed is right on the anglo-scottish border. Other options are available, such as Manchester (England's second largest city) which is roughly in the middle between England, Wales, and Scotland.
Birmingham is actually the second largest city in the UK and England
 
It's a bit much to say that "capitals" were arbitrarily decided by the King. The King would hold court where convenient, and Parliament would meet where convenient.
This means they tended to occur near strategic or economic places. By the 1600s that meant near London for the English and Edinburgh for the Scottish. I say near because economic hubs tended to be less than safe and healthy places to be inside.
With the personal union of England and Scotland this meant the Stuart kings would hold court most of the time near London, it being more profitable than Edinburgh.
I think the best way to avoid London as the capital of the union as a whole would be to delay political union until the 1800s and include Ireland in the union.
It would then be a good political symbol to have a deliberate union capital away from London even if the current economic market centres there.
Perhaps somewhere Merseyside? This would be fortuitous come the rising Atlantic trade and could be promoted as the centre of the Empire.
 
Top