WI: England keeps the Pale de Calais?

I think the main question about the Pale being turned over to France is what is it like at the time? I mean is the Pale de Calais an French dominated territory that happens to be ruled by England or is it an Enclave of England, that happens to border and be a former part of France? If its mainly English I can't see Parliament or the King turning it over to France, if the reverse I can't see much of a fight besides a point of honor.
 
Yeah. Rupert's plans were very highly flawed. I could see the Repulicans making moves to take back Calais once things on settled on the Isles (Scotland pacified, along with the Irish Confederates) but not before then. Yeah, it's important strategically speaking, but Cromwell would want his house in order.

IMO though, taking an anti-French foreign policy is asking for trouble. As I already stated, the French housed the exiles of the royal family, and although Charles II eventually left due to lack of aid (seemingly because Mazarin had no desire to get entangled) things would be much different if Cromwell pursues a policy against France. I don't see an earlier restoration coming out of it, but it would definitely have implications for Anglo-French relations down the line.
Oh true, just as IOTL they wouldn't go outside the British Isles until they've settled, but once they do they'd take Calais fairly quickly.

He left to go to Spain, and IOTL Cromwell took an anti-Spanish policy. Now I do think that, even with Calais being British, Cromwell would still go against Spain, but it's an interesting prospect if Lambert can get Cromwell's ear and get him to swing against France. If we do see Lambert getting his ear then we could actually see a wholly different 1658 and potentially the survival of the Republic.
 
Regarding the extent of the Pale of Calais I dug up a link I'd saved to an old thread over on soc.history.what-if that talks about this.


David Tenner said:
[QUOTE="Allen W. McDonnell]How much territory was included with Calais?
20 miles by 6 miles, according to http://web.archive.org/web/20080906143642/http://lindaporter.net/lloydslistreview.htm which suggests an interesting scenario for retaining Calais:

"But a new biography of Mary suggests that part of the reason for the loss of Calais was due to a wish not to spoil the beer brewed in an enclave just 20 miles by 6 miles.

"Author Linda Porter explains in detail how the French forces, numbering 20,000, surprised the English occupiers by advancing over the frozen marshes when military activity was not expected during the winter months.

Winter was not the time for warfare.

"The English defenders made the fatal mistake of not deploying their most important weapon - the ability to flood the marshes that completely surrounded the town.

"Mary held an inquest after the fall of Calais and one of the reasons for not flooding put forward by the English commander was his fear of contaminating the town's water supply.

"The defeated commander wrote to Mary: 'If I had flooded the marshes I would also take in the salt water about the town, but I cannot do it, by reason I should also infect our own water, wherewith we brew: and notwithstanding all I can do, our brewers be so behindhand in grinding and otherwise, as we shall find that one of our greatest lacks.' "

According to a 1908 book by G. A. C. Sandeman, *Calais Under English Rule*, p. 114:

"The boundaries of the Pale of Calais are difficult to define at any given period. Roughly, the Pale comprised some twenty square miles, stretching from Gravelines nearly to Wissant along the coast, and from six to nine miles inland. But this boundary continually changed. On the south-west especially the French were always annexing small pieces of territory, and this 'Picardy encroachment' is often mentioned in State documents.

Frequent Commissions were appointed to determine the proper boundary, but the surrender in 1550 of the territory around Boulogne increased rather than diminished the vagueness of delineation."

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oy5LAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA114&redir_esc=y [/QUOTE]
 
But let's say it does survive into the 18th century. Calais would be the scene of huge sieges and constant bargaining in treaties. What would the English give up to get Calais back at Utrecht, Paris 1763, Paris 1783, or Vienna? Would they get more involved in the Belgian war of independence in the 1830's if they shared a land border with the Kingdom of the Netherlands? What about the First World War? Would the Kaiser and co. have taken the threat of British intervention more seriously if it was obvious that any threat to Belgium was a threat to Calais?

And what even of the attitude in Britain to MPs from across the seas. With Calais represented in parliament, would that make them more open to the idea of MPs from the American colonies?
 
A small version of the Pale was revived from 1658-62, when Dunkirk was held by England. It had been captured from Spain by a French army with Cromwellian England support, and was awarded to England at the end of hostilities. James, Duke of York was there too, but on the other side with a relief army sent by Spain.

After the restoration, Charles II sold Dunkirk to France which suggests that England was no longer all that interested in keeping territory in that area any more.
 
But let's say it does survive into the 18th century. Calais would be the scene of huge sieges and constant bargaining in treaties. What would the English give up to get Calais back at Utrecht, Paris 1763, Paris 1783, or Vienna? Would they get more involved in the Belgian war of independence in the 1830's if they shared a land border with the Kingdom of the Netherlands? What about the First World War? Would the Kaiser and co. have taken the threat of British intervention more seriously if it was obvious that any threat to Belgium was a threat to Calais?

And what even of the attitude in Britain to MPs from across the seas. With Calais represented in parliament, would that make them more open to the idea of MPs from the American colonies?

There's a strong argument to say that by the 18th century, military technology, even excepting for the new age of Vauban fortresses, had become advanced enough that Calais would be far more of a liability than it ever had during the period OTL that it was English. The French would target it in every single war they fought against England, and unlike the medieval era, by the 18th century it would probably fall to the French over and over again. When you have a liability like that it just becomes a financial drain - and it barely even serves any military purpose, nor an economic one once English merchants have become really quite good at trading with most of Europe. In the end it's just a matter of time before Parliament decides to jettison it.

On the other hand, so long as France isn't occupying it at the time of asking, it was always treated as an actual portion of England and therefore would be regarded as a completely different matter compared to the Colonies vis a vis sending MPs to Parliament. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't change a thing.
 
And what even of the attitude in Britain to MPs from across the seas. With Calais represented in parliament, would that make them more open to the idea of MPs from the American colonies?
For that matter, was Calais ever represented in Parliament? Would it be?
 
Just a thought but would Calais end up being a sort of early Gibraltar? A key fortress that England would never abandon? Cause I could see something like that happening. Personally I don't understand why everyone thinks Calais would fall so easily. I mean its right across from England so its easily re-enforceable.
 
Just a thought but would Calais end up being a sort of early Gibraltar? A key fortress that England would never abandon? Cause I could see something like that happening. Personally I don't understand why everyone thinks Calais would fall so easily. I mean its right across from England so its easily re-enforceable.

So is Normandy, but that fell easily to the French royal armies twice (John, Henry VI).
 
In my (possibly not abandoned) timeline I had the idea of Britain keeping Dunkirk, which was than turned by the Dutch into one of the Barriercity; a line of cities in the Austrian Netherlands which were defended by Dutch troops to stop any potential French threat. This could happen with Calais (assuming the Netherlands or the Barier Treaty isn't butterflied away). It remains English/British but is defended (at least partialy) by Dutch troops.
 
It's extremely unlikely that Calais becomes a Gibraltar of any sort; which is incidentally also the reason why it's fall is more or less inevitable once England has completely lost any chance of dominating large swathes of France.

The Pale is simply not defensible in the slightest; it's value stems only from its geographical location relative to England. IIRC, the land surrounding the pale is all flat swampland or something, with no natural defenses. If it is to be defended, all the defenses have to be man-made, and its defenses were already phenomenally expensive OTL.
 
Just a thought but would Calais end up being a sort of early Gibraltar? A key fortress that England would never abandon? Cause I could see something like that happening. Personally I don't understand why everyone thinks Calais would fall so easily. I mean its right across from England so its easily re-enforceable.
Unlikely with Dover only 25 miles or so away and protected by the Channel from foreign armies. The whole reason Gibraltar is so important is that it's on a vital naval chokepoint with no other English territory near by able to take its place.


The Pale is simply not defensible in the slightest; it's value stems only from its geographical location relative to England. IIRC, the land surrounding the pale is all flat swampland or something, with no natural defenses. If it is to be defended, all the defenses have to be man-made, and its defenses were already phenomenally expensive OTL.
Well there's the low lying land you mention around Calais itself that can be flooded to improve its defensive position but that doesn't work for the rest of the Pale, and as already said without the Pale Calais isn't much use. On the cost of defences I was under the impression that the Staple actually brought in rather large amounts of tax revenue for the Crown and that in comparison the sums spent defending the Pale were quite stingy, or was I mistaken? Either way to be viable it really needs to be able to maintain a land border with Flanders and then the various states that incorporated it. Perhaps when agreeing the borders in one of the treaties it simply says something along the lines of it running from Cap Gris Nez to somewhere roughly south of Guisnes as it did in our timeline but then going east or north-east to the border, that way if the border moves the English have at least half an argument, however flimsy it might be, to keep from being surround by France but maintain a border with the Spanish Netherlands.
 
Random thought but even if the English/British do lose it at some point provided that they don't renounce the claim there's always the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars to reclaim it providing it hasn't been too long. Although that would mean having to pick up the full amount for the Channel Tunnel bill... so possibly not the best idea ever. :)

I don't think that'd have been likely. The Congress of Vienna did not make France give up any of its pre-1789 European territory, and even allowed France to hang on to two small conquests of the 1790s (Mulhouse and the Comtat Venaissin). Giving Calais to Britain would have seemed like a needlessly provocative gesture at a time when they hoped to have a lasting peace.
 
Top