WI The house of Lancaster had made The Wirral their capital?

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
What If... The house of Lancaster had made The Wirral their capital? With interests in the area including Ireland and Wales, The Wirral sits at the heart of the British Isles. Is it beyond possibility that the son of John of Gaunt would want to live and work closer to Bolingbroke and his family's holdings, while having a safe port to 'commute' to London from?

Maybe Lancaster Castle would be the official court palace. Looking at the position of the Wirral Peninsula, I would build there. A city with docks either side for the Dee and the Mersey, walled right across the base of the peninsula. Chester Castle would control the land approach to the capital and so would need 'beefing up'.

Wirral_map.JPG
 
Last edited:
Conquest and control over Ireland and Wales would be easier and the grip over them would be harder..... Perhaps Ireland would not regain its independent in the early 20th century.....

William III would not have invaded England so easily... He would have to either march overland to reach the Wirral, or to sail into a more carefully guarded Irish Sea. There are more opportunities for James II to resist William. James might choose to flee to Ireland, which is predominantly Catholic, and continue to pose a threat to William...
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
It's a whole new country isn't it? I was surprised as to how much of a difference a shift of capitol city makes to the history of a country. Would a monarch based in Wirral be so out of touch with an American colony?
 
Abandoning London would be a big hit against the legitimacy of the Lancasters. London was the capital of England. I think that was basically the end of the story.

If another claimant got a hold of London, they would have command the rich southeast, which is the area that one needs to control in the event of a drawn out civil war.

So while The Wirral might be a cool move, I don't see the Lancasters, who are involved in a long-term dynastic struggle with the Yorkists, giving their enemies a chance to take the traditional capital and all the legitimacy that goes with it.
 
The Wirral has always been wild and wooded, and until relatively recently it was pretty isolated. Getting to it by land involved either a lengthy detour along by the Mersey by way of Helsby and the Gap, or following the treacherous Dee from Chester; by boat, either the steep shores of Snowdonia or the long, slow crossing of the Mersey Estuary stood in your way. It has always been comparatively underpopulated, and lacks any natural harbour as good as that found in Liverpool. It was also a land of mystery and magic, rumoured as the resting place of the Holy Grail and other matters of Arthurian legend. More importantly, Lancaster had no claim to it - it was part of the County Palatine of Cheshire, one of England's more autonomous counties, and the local rulers would not have taken kindly to the Duchy of Lancaster to their North - or, worse, the Barbarous Celts (if we're talking about the Tudors) - taking a large chunk of their land from them and keeping an eye on them. The largest settlement on the peninsula, Birkenhead, is also under the control of the monks of Birkenhead Priory, who ain't gonna be happy with some upstart lord muscling in on their turf. And the Lancastrians are going to be furious at their King leaving London behind and not bringing his capital to the great citadel of Lancaster.

One more thing - the Wirral is a region in itself, not one settlement. Where the hell will this capital be?!

So, in other words, it's a nice idea, but it is, I'm afraid, badly flawed. Moving the capital to Lancaster would be more plausible, and probably more interesting, unless you want to go the whole way and make the Wirral into St. Georgestown...
 
Perhaps some kind of military reason for the move?

Like how the Romans moved the capital (Mediolanum, Ravenna, etc.) closer to the areas of barbarian incursions to better facilitate command and control. Maybe some kind of long war with a united Scotland and Ireland necessitating a King be closer to where the fighting is. So nominally London is still the capital of the realm but needs have placed the court/actual center of government at this location.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Perhaps some kind of military reason for the move?

Like how the Romans moved the capital (Mediolanum, Ravenna, etc.) closer to the areas of barbarian incursions to better facilitate command and control. Maybe some kind of long war with a united Scotland and Ireland necessitating a King be closer to where the fighting is. So nominally London is still the capital of the realm but needs have placed the court/actual center of government at this location.

Subjugating Cheshire, Lancashire and Wales?
 
As said, abandoning London as the official capital of the country could lessen his legitimacy. As London was the traditional capital of England for centuries.

Perhaps label The Wirral as their "summer residence" and have that as the de facto centre of government. But without it being the official "new capital" or England.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Go south for the winter? I like it. The Wirral would be safe outside the campaign season, but London would need a strong and trusted garrison.
 
Top