WI - Yucatan Peninsula absorbed into British Honduras / Belize

While it is common to see threads that discuss the Yucatan becoming part of the US as a result of the Caste War, what would the consequences be if the Yucatan Peninsula somehow became and remained part of British Honduras later Belize to the present day?

Edit - Was referring to just the Mexican part of the Yucatan Peninsula, though it is up to you whether to include the whole Yucatan Peninsula (such as Guatemala's Petén Department) or not.
 
Last edited:
I understand that the province of Quintana Roo had considerable British influence via Belize.

However, Britain grabbing all of the Yucatan would probably require a very unstable (possibly balkanised) Mexico.
 
I understand that the province of Quintana Roo had considerable British influence via Belize.

However, Britain grabbing all of the Yucatan would probably require a very unstable (possibly balkanised) Mexico.

Would it help if Mexico suffered catastrophic defeats against the US compared to OTL along with resultant civil wars?
 
Would it help if Mexico suffered catastrophic defeats against the US compared to OTL along with resultant civil wars?
I don't think you can get any more catastrophic than having your capital city occupied and your customs taken over in your ports cities... people don't realize that the US had an Iraq War style occupation of Mexico, not just defeating them and gaining New Mexico and California.
 
This seems relatively straightforward.

When Yucatan was fighting the caste war against the maya in 1847, the British recognised the maya as an independent state and traded with them but didn't recognise either of the breakway governments of Yucatan despite one of them sending diplomats to the Uk to try and join the british empire. So as a result yucatan rejoined mexico in 1848 to get help in fighting the Maya.

Later the Maya attacked british Honduras in 1866 and that led to the british breaking off relations with the maya.

Say that happens instead in 1846. Britain launches an attack on the maya at the same time that yucatan are desperately looking for a non mexican patron to keep them out of the war with the USA. Mexico can't intervene because they'd at war with the Usa. Yucatan is happy to join the empire as the british are the only ones capable of helping them beat back the maya.

You don't need mexico any worse than it actually was. You just need the british to side with the criollos rather than the maya.
 
This seems relatively straightforward.

When Yucatan was fighting the caste war against the maya in 1847, the British recognised the maya as an independent state and traded with them but didn't recognise either of the breakway governments of Yucatan despite one of them sending diplomats to the Uk to try and join the british empire. So as a result yucatan rejoined mexico in 1848 to get help in fighting the Maya.

Later the Maya attacked british Honduras in 1866 and that led to the british breaking off relations with the maya.

Say that happens instead in 1846. Britain launches an attack on the maya at the same time that yucatan are desperately looking for a non mexican patron to keep them out of the war with the USA. Mexico can't intervene because they'd at war with the Usa. Yucatan is happy to join the empire as the british are the only ones capable of helping them beat back the maya.

You don't need mexico any worse than it actually was. You just need the british to side with the criollos rather than the maya.
The problem with this whole idea is that we are assuming the British want Yucatan... only 20 years after coming up with the Monroe Doctrine and convincing Monroe to state it (in a speech that was actually about why the US should stay out of the Greek war of independence). And at the same time the British just averted an American bluff about war over Oregon/Columbia... dont see Britain being that interested in the Yucatan and pissing off friends in the US, a major trading partner and just in 1842 they signed the Ashburton Webster treaty, and along with that with Perry in charge the American navy began be as effective as they ever would in cracking down on the African slave trade, very important to the british. Plus this pisses off any British efforts at trade with Mexico, in return for the expense of another useless colony? No. Britain won't take yucatan. Not ever.
 
The problem with this whole idea is that we are assuming the British want Yucatan... only 20 years after coming up with the Monroe Doctrine and convincing Monroe to state it (in a speech that was actually about why the US should stay out of the Greek war of independence). And at the same time the British just averted an American bluff about war over Oregon/Columbia... dont see Britain being that interested in the Yucatan and pissing off friends in the US, a major trading partner and just in 1842 they signed the Ashburton Webster treaty, and along with that with Perry in charge the American navy began be as effective as they ever would in cracking down on the African slave trade, very important to the british. Plus this pisses off any British efforts at trade with Mexico, in return for the expense of another useless colony? No. Britain won't take yucatan. Not ever.

If there was an independent Yucatan, it may end up as a (de facto) British protectorate, depending on what happens to the rest of Mexico.

In a world where there either is no Monroe Doctrine, or at least where it (or the ATL equivalent) is totally worthless because the UK isn't willing to enforce it for some reason, European powers (e.g. France, Spain) might try to leverage influence there. Alternatively, if New Spain disintegrates further than it did IOTL, there may not even be a unified Mexico.
 
Are you aware that the British came up with Monroe Doctrine and are the ones that enforced it? Why would they break their own rule?
Because it´s obviously not grounded on idealistic motives but geopolitical pragmatic ones. It´s to prevent other Europeans from gaining power and you have example of the British supporting invasions like with Mexico.
 
Top