|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 8, 2021 4:12:12 GMT
There has been several alternate history scenarios where there is a personal or dynastic union involving England, but unsure if England was the dominant or junior partner.
So which of the countries listed in the poll would have the most realistic chance of falling under a personal union with England acting as the dominant partner?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 8, 2021 20:02:53 GMT
I would say the obvious option on the list would be Scotland because of the relative demographic size and geography. Its always difficult to maintain a subordinate possession across water, especially if the possession is part of a very large continent with a lot of powerful states that could take it over.
For instance, with the other option voted on so far, the Netherlands, I think it faces two problems. That at the time the Netherlands were probably substantially richer and more populous that England - even with the latter's possessions of Ireland [intermittently] and Wales and also that its more likely to end up either independent or controlled by a neighbouring great power. You need a much bigger power base than England or even the UK as a whole to control for any length of time against the probable opposition, both locally and further afield.
If the Hundred Year's War had gone differently the Plantagenet's might well have ended up as internationally recognised monarchs of France but in a generation or two it would be basically a French dominated union with probably England seeking to escape the union.
A smaller state such as Navarre might end up as a common possession of the English crown, with England being the predominant part but its always going to be difficult to hold it as large neighbouring states have geographic advantages. Similarly with say Gascony or Brittany as an English possession once France formed a unified state.
Of the other states listed possibly Denmark as a relatively wealthy but smaller that has a relatively short and hence defensible land border to the south, especially given Germany's long history of division and also historical links with England via the Vikings. Even then it would need the earlier emergence of a powerful navy to defend the region and contact with it against naval threats. Possibly this could be mitigated if whatever events leading to an Anglo-Danish union also saw the union control say neighbouring areas of Norway and Sweden - which Denmark did for many years. Although if this was too successful, at least until industrial times, you could end up with the Scandinavian regions increasingly dominant. Plus any such latter state would dominate access to the Baltic which would give it a lot of enemies.
Anyway trying to give some background to my decision and viewpoint.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 9, 2021 2:45:59 GMT
Regarding Scotland, it's almost basically the default personal union in this case, which explained why France and Scotland had good diplomatic relations. Agreed on the Netherlands as well, and while Anglo-Portuguese relations were historically warm, it would have been impossible for a single king to rule both England and Portugal. Ditto with Castile/Spain in this case
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Dec 9, 2021 14:58:12 GMT
There has been several alternate history scenarios where there is a personal or dynastic union involving England, but unsure if England was the dominant or junior partner. So which of the countries listed in the poll would have the most realistic chance of falling under a personal union with England acting as the dominant partner? Not sure I understand the question... Isn't Scotland already in a personal union with England? Or do I not understand what's been going on with Scotland politically for the last several hundred years? Belushi TD |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 9, 2021 16:03:48 GMT
There has been several alternate history scenarios where there is a personal or dynastic union involving England, but unsure if England was the dominant or junior partner. So which of the countries listed in the poll would have the most realistic chance of falling under a personal union with England acting as the dominant partner? Not sure I understand the question... Isn't Scotland already in a personal union with England? Or do I not understand what's been going on with Scotland politically for the last several hundred years? Belushi TD
Good point. In a discussion elsewhere TRS has talked about a possible different path of events from the Wars of the Roses with a couple of points being discussed. I think therefore he's talking about from the 15thC. Didn't occur to me earlier that he didn't specify a date in the OP.  However pretty certain that's the case from the mention of some of the states, such as Navarre and Burgundy which ceased to exist as independent states towards the tail end of that century while Aragon and Castile were under a personal union that over time became a single state. Mind you the Netherlands only really existed as a separate entity after the fall of Burgundy and obtained its current form after the war of independence from Spain, losing the southern Netherlands which are now Belgium and parts of NE France.
Steve
PS Technically its a political union rather than a personal union as that would suggest that England and Scotland were independent nations, just with a common monarch.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 10, 2021 6:05:12 GMT
The reason why I didn't post any date on it is because there were many possible scenarios for those certain kinds of personal unions to occur. Although it may be impossible, there is also a hidden potential for a personal union between England and Burgundy, due to their common animosity towards France, until the end of the Hundred Years' War.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 10, 2021 6:44:15 GMT
There has been several alternate history scenarios where there is a personal or dynastic union involving England, but unsure if England was the dominant or junior partner. So which of the countries listed in the poll would have the most realistic chance of falling under a personal union with England acting as the dominant partner? One has the historic trends with Holland, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, but then one ignores the Viking incursions and settlements? One can see a British and Norwegian fusion as almost as viable as a Viking Russian one? |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 10, 2021 6:49:34 GMT
There has been several alternate history scenarios where there is a personal or dynastic union involving England, but unsure if England was the dominant or junior partner. So which of the countries listed in the poll would have the most realistic chance of falling under a personal union with England acting as the dominant partner? One has the historic trends with Holland, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, but then one ignores the Viking incursions and settlements? One can see a British and Norwegian fusion as almost as viable as a Viking Russian one? I did include Denmark and Norway as several choices. Only thing is, it would have been Norway that is more likely to fall under a personal union with England, as a junior partner than Denmark, despite the territorial size. However, one good PoD for an Anglo-Danish Union where Denmark is the junior partner would be around when Karl VIII Bonde becomes King of Sweden and Norway. Have him attempt to reunite the Kalmar Union under a Swedish king, and it will be Denmark that tries to gain independence. Alternatively, the North Sea Empire surviving might also work, although there might be an issue of Harald Hardrada trying to get the Norwegian crown. Or maybe Sweyn is successful in the reconquest of England while fighting William the Conqueror. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 10, 2021 13:40:36 GMT
The reason why I didn't post any date on it is because there were many possible scenarios for those certain kinds of personal unions to occur. Although it may be impossible, there is also a hidden potential for a personal union between England and Burgundy, due to their common animosity towards France, until the end of the Hundred Years' War.
On the last point an alliance definitely occurred. Don't know enough about an actual union, presumably by marriage but if England won, or at least failed to lose the final stages of war that badly it could be a powerful combination. Especially if Burgundy achieved its OTL later expansion into what's now the Netherlands. However as long as France is a significant power its going to be vulnerable to being caught between France and the HRE. Which an alliance between a greater 'England' i.e. with significant continental possessions of its own and an expanding Burgundy might make it look a big enough threat that France, the HRE and possibly others feel they need to reduce it.
Of course again if such a union existed would 'England' be the dominant power of the two?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 11, 2021 5:46:38 GMT
Of course again if such a union existed would 'England' be the dominant power of the two? That might be a good question, since both England and Burgundy may be equal in terms of political and economic power. I'm guessing that such a scenario would have been why either France or the HRE would try to stop such a potential union from happening. Another possible union where England would surely become a dominant partner would involve Brittany, as it was the last entity in what is now France that was integrated directly into the French crown. |
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Dec 12, 2021 1:35:21 GMT
Not sure I understand the question... Isn't Scotland already in a personal union with England? Or do I not understand what's been going on with Scotland politically for the last several hundred years? Belushi TD
Good point. In a discussion elsewhere TRS has talked about a possible different path of events from the Wars of the Roses with a couple of points being discussed. I think therefore he's talking about from the 15thC. Didn't occur to me earlier that he didn't specify a date in the OP. However pretty certain that's the case from the mention of some of the states, such as Navarre and Burgundy which ceased to exist as independent states towards the tail end of that century while Aragon and Castile were under a personal union that over time became a single state. Mind you the Netherlands only really existed as a separate entity after the fall of Burgundy and obtained its current form after the war of independence from Spain, losing the southern Netherlands which are now Belgium and parts of NE France.
Steve
PS Technically its a political union rather than a personal union as that would suggest that England and Scotland were independent nations, just with a common monarch.
Isn't the England/Scotland relationship both a personal union AND a political union? As I understand it, Queen Elizabeth is the queen of both England and Scotland, isn't she? Also Wales and North Ireland? She's also the queen of the United Kingdom as well, but isn't she also the monarch of all four of those states? Belushi TD |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 12, 2021 3:27:46 GMT
Queen Elizabeth's official title is Queen of the United Kingdom. The title of Prince of Wales is conferred to the Crown Prince, and there isn't a title called the Duke of Ulster. But yeah, I agree in part.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 12, 2021 15:01:24 GMT
Good point. In a discussion elsewhere TRS has talked about a possible different path of events from the Wars of the Roses with a couple of points being discussed. I think therefore he's talking about from the 15thC. Didn't occur to me earlier that he didn't specify a date in the OP. However pretty certain that's the case from the mention of some of the states, such as Navarre and Burgundy which ceased to exist as independent states towards the tail end of that century while Aragon and Castile were under a personal union that over time became a single state. Mind you the Netherlands only really existed as a separate entity after the fall of Burgundy and obtained its current form after the war of independence from Spain, losing the southern Netherlands which are now Belgium and parts of NE France.
Steve
PS Technically its a political union rather than a personal union as that would suggest that England and Scotland were independent nations, just with a common monarch.
Isn't the England/Scotland relationship both a personal union AND a political union? As I understand it, Queen Elizabeth is the queen of both England and Scotland, isn't she? Also Wales and North Ireland? She's also the queen of the United Kingdom as well, but isn't she also the monarch of all four of those states? Belushi TD
Its both but the key part is that its a political union. Technically the queen is also the monarch of a large part of the Commonwealth. However she has no real power there. Similarly a personal union can be easily ended, a political one is generally hard to do so without agreement from both sides. Furthermore a personal union doesn't mean that the components are on the same wavelength as they could well have diverging interests.
For instance the Hapsburg empire was always a personal union although it obtained some political elements near the end of its life. Even then there was often disputes between its German and Hungarian factions. Similarly with Britain proper to the union of England and Scotland only became a full political one in 1707 when the Scottish Parliament was abolished and its members became part of a British one based in London. Before that not only were the establishments of the two nations sometimes on different paths but the union could have been ended by each nation say taking a different monarch.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Dec 12, 2021 17:52:33 GMT
Burgundy because I like a good Pinot noir and why should our UK friends be denied the same pleasure? 
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 12, 2021 17:55:29 GMT
Burgundy because I like a good Pinot noir and why shouldn't our UK friends be denied the same pleasure? Burgundy and Scottish whiskey, they will rule the world. Dam you got me again Senior Chief, i am so sorry regarding me, you and the mention of strong drinks. |
|
However pretty certain that's the case from the mention of some of the states, such as Navarre and Burgundy which ceased to exist as independent states towards the tail end of that century while Aragon and Castile were under a personal union that over time became a single state. Mind you the Netherlands only really existed as a separate entity after the fall of Burgundy and obtained its current form after the war of independence from Spain, losing the southern Netherlands which are now Belgium and parts of NE France.
