WI: Bigger England

Thats right. I said England.
Some people always make the mistake of calling Britain England- in many languages its the accepted word.... So WI Britain actually did equate to England?

WI the English followed the French lead and decided that dealing with lesser partners as equals wasn't the way to go and instead they should be English- and how could this be done in such a way that it works?
 

Thande

Donor
It might be possible to anglicise the Scottish Lowlands (after all, Scots is a dialect of English anyway) and the south of Wales, but the problem is that the Scottish Highlands and the Welsh mountains are too isolated and remote to impose much cultural domination upon, at least until the advent of mass communication. Brittany by comparison...

It's also worth pointing out that France didn't really try to do this until after their Revolution. A good POD for this might be a surviving Cromwellian commonwealth, given that there was emphasis on subjugating Scotland there. Or, if you want to go earlier, how about a populist monarchy installed by a successful Peasants' Revolt (a bit unlikely, I know), the Lollards or the Pilgrimage of Grace?
 

wormyguy

Banned
If the Romans conquered all of Britannia, then there would probably be little difference between England and Scotland, if there is even a distinction.
 
Or, if you want to go earlier, how about a populist monarchy installed by a successful Peasants' Revolt (a bit unlikely, I know), the Lollards or the Pilgrimage of Grace?

The Pilgrimage of Grace didn't want to affect the monarchy - in fact it made quite clear at every stage that it was revolting for the protection of the King against troublesome ministers. Very few rebellions in this period were about dethroning or affecting the powers of monarchs, they were generally about removing their sovereign from "corrupt advisors" (read: unpopular nobles or government figures in the King's good books). IIRC the Pilgrimage of Grace sought a few goals: the protection of Catholicism in the North, the removal of new taxes and the creation of a Parliament of the North to be held in York. The last term is injurious to the centralisation which is generally these days seen as optimal to good government but it might actually help in this situation. If we move the POD back before 1536 to engineer greater tensions between Scotland and England it's possible that with a Parliament of the North that a campaign against Scotland *might* be better-funded, since counties generally objected to paying for wars which they didn't believe they had an interest in, leading to a patchwork of counties actually paying taxes. I believe with the rolling border with Scotland and the history of the previous wars that I read somewhere that there was some interest in annexing about half of the lowland areas of Scotland to England (the bottom half, roughly from Berwick to Ayrshire without touching Lothian). The English also had a running ideal of conquering Scotland by capturing the most important castles and stationing permanent English garrisons there. I don't think it wouldn't be too ASB to suggest that Scotland could run a disastrous war that sees them lose the lowlands and recieve the obligatory English garrisons and end up closer into the English orbit than they had been since the days of Robert the Bruce and John Balliol.

Is it then possible, perhaps, that a loyal vassalship (or at least, a quiet vassalship) durign Elizabeth's reign could lead to Elizabeth still agreeing to James VI being her heir, and him or a (close-ish) descendant of his deciding that Scotland is too weak to be an equal partner in an English-Scottish Union? Perhaps he could announce some form of merger of the crowns, recieving the Highland Scots' homage as vassals of the English Crown (where English Crown comes to represent British Crown, in the same way that 200 years ago England was used all over the world to refer to UK and the whole British Empire even, sometimes), with the Scottish Parliament being subordinated to the London Parliament with some autonomy using the (York) Parliament of the North as a precedent?
 
If the Romans conquered all of Britannia, then there would probably be little difference between England and Scotland, if there is even a distinction.

Unlikely.
Assuming history going on schedule it'd make little difference if the Scottish Britons and Picts were more Romanised, the Gaels and Angles would still conquer them.

Forthisyoureallyneedsomethingpost1100orsowhenthereactuallywasarealscotlandandengland.
 
There are lots of early middle age PoDs that could easily see the border of England lie between the Forth and the Clyde. Once this occurs, rump "Scotland" lacks the strength to resist the English, and once they become sufficiently troublesome as bandits they'll be suppressed.
 
There are lots of early middle age PoDs that could easily see the border of England lie between the Forth and the Clyde. Once this occurs, rump "Scotland" lacks the strength to resist the English, and once they become sufficiently troublesome as bandits they'll be suppressed.

That's what I would say. If Scotland never got Lothian and even if the Normans still came in you would have a larger England and a distinctly smaller Scotland. Also if you avoid the Norman conquest you don't get the same entanglement with France, distracting English power and also giving the Scots a vital ally.

Avoid those but make the English a bit more aggressive, [i.e. with a kingdom a bit more like the Norman one] then you could probably fairly easily force both Scotland and Wales into distinct and pretty continuous satalite status. [Possibly also some deal with Norway to distract the Scotish further]. If you have some relationship compared with the French one with Brittany then when a modern technological culture comes around with mass education it might well be that you get a complete overwhelming of both Scotish and Welsh identity.

Steve
 
I don't see why not - IOTL, Wales got outright conquered by England, Ireland got (effectively) conquered by the mid-1600s, and Scotland was distinctly weaker than England. I can definitely see England conquering them all and not bothering with any UK stuff - just the large Kingdom of England.
 
I have a hard time seeing this, precisely because it hasn't happened historically. Wales was conquered, after all, but it's still around.
 
I have a hard time seeing this, precisely because it hasn't happened historically. Wales was conquered, after all, but it's still around.

Only since the 1950s.
And assimilation wasn't at all high on England's list of priorities.
 
While whe are enlarging England, by conquering the Celtic Britains -- ?Can whe add in Celtic Brittany?

DuQuense

Highly unlikely as that would mean clashing with whoever ruled the French northern plains. Far less butterflies if 'greater England' is not entangled in conflicts on the continent, at least not until it has fully absorbed the Scots and Welsh.

Steve
 
We were financially screwed,yes bu any English attempt at invasion would be rebuffed as Scotland had a decent military,an alliance with France and a strong anti-english sentiment.

The Red

At times. At times it lacked some or all of the above. Also what's being suggested sees Scotland never gain what became its richest lands and have no overseas allies. Under those circumstances it would have very little chance of sustaining political independence.

Steve
 
Top