Would the English unite without the Viking invasion?

And if this meant unification was impossible, we'd never see anyone unite anything at any point.

Oh undoubtedly, but it's certainly going to mean a permanent triple division in England's psychology and structure, rather than the simple North-South dichotomy. Particularly as a union by marriage is probably more likely than one by conquest.
 
Oh undoubtedly, but it's certainly going to mean a permanent triple division in England's psychology and structure

As someone coming from the Midlands I think the whole North-South is really overplayed. It only really holds true in London and Newcastle/Manchester etc. The West Country and Devonwall, the Midlands both East and West are largely excluded from it and don't really identify with either.
 
As someone coming from the Midlands I think the whole North-South is really overplayed. It only really holds true in London and Newcastle/Manchester etc. The West Country and Devonwall, the Midlands both East and West are largely excluded from it and don't really identify with either.

True. I mean, Birmingham is apparently on the northern side of the divide:eek:.

What I was thinking of though is that that sort of dichotomy is less likely to be so inbuilt into thought on England (because it's odd how much it does occur really.)
 
True. I mean, Birmingham is apparently on the northern side of the divide:eek:.

What I was thinking of though is that that sort of dichotomy is less likely to be so inbuilt into thought on England (because it's odd how much it does occur really.)

You mean that something which doesn't really exist on the ground in OTL but is still talked about will be talked about less in an ATL because they'll be even less of a basis for it?

You have too much faith in human nature and the mental capacity of media commentators.
 
Top