7 ms·

I thought they meant when the King of England was an actual frenchman and French was the upper-class language of the UK.

• drchewbacca 7y ago
  There were many more claims too, if Henry V had lived longer it might have happened then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_claims_to_the_French_throne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_claims_to_the_French_t...
  • hodgesrm 7y ago
    Indeed. When I saw the headline I thought it was about the Middle Ages. :)
• Merrill 7y ago
  1066? Lucky for us that Britain and France didn't get along or the US War of Independence would not have succeeded.
  • seisvelas 7y ago
    Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's impossible to know what would have been, but it makes me wonder.
    • Merrill 7y ago
      The US would not have developed as fast if it had continued to be a British colony. A major cause of the War of Independence was that when Britain took control of the Ohio after the French and Indian War, the crown claimed the right to all negotiations with the Indian tribes and prevented the colonists from buying and/or seizing Indian land in the Ohio River Valley. Recall that Washington had been to the headwaters of the Ohio. He and others were well aware of the rich lands west of the Appalachian chain. Also, many of the financiers of the war were also land speculators before and after the war. The officers of the war formed the Society of the Cincinnati, and many of them were granted land west of the Appalachians. The net result was the rapid expansion westward from 1790 through the 1800s. This expansion and development of the lands, forests and mines was aided by rapid immigration from many countries in Europe, not just the British Isles. As a British Colony, the US would not have been as available to other Europeans, and development would have been slower. Possibly slavery would have ended more quickly, but Britain also supported the South, rather than the North. The South's cotton fed the British textile factories. After the Civil War, Britain went on to develop cotton plantations in Egypt as a replacement source.
      • carty76ers 7y ago
        > As a British Colony, the US would not have been as available to other Europeans, and development would have been slower. Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that in 1775, the British colonies of America were the fastest growing and most populous of the British empire. So if the war happened, why would this not continue to be the case?
        • simonh 7y ago
          They would have continued to grow rapidly, but almost certainly not as rapidly as they actually did. Also it's unlikely they would have expanded their territory as quickly for the reasons already given. The desire for territorial expansion was a major driver for independence. It's also hard to imagine the Louisiana Purchase occurring under the British crown.
      • ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        Seems to indicate the native Indians would have had suffered much less? Maybe it would be less developed, but I am getting the impression the US history would have less suffering?
        • philwelch 7y ago
          They just would have been colonized by the French or Spanish instead. Smallpox and other infectious diseases would have still been as vicious and deadly. At best some of the more warlike tribes such as the Comanche would have been able to hold effective control of the Great Plains.
    • sbmthakur 7y ago
      Have a look at British rule in India. You will understand the full horrors of colonialism.
      • Merrill 7y ago
        One of the reasons the British decided to cut their losses in America was that they had more important opportunities in India, where they were consolidating power after their victory over the French at Plassey.
      • seisvelas 7y ago
        I think the difference is that the Indians were subjected to colonization, whereas the American rebels were themselves the colonists. It would be more similar to a rebellion of the British governors/Raj in India against the Crown, which very plausibly would have led to even worse and more prolonged abuse of the native people in India.
    • philwelch 7y ago
      Britain was only as eager to renounce slavery because they had no colonies that profited from it after American independence. Also, the rise of fascism in Europe was abated pretty effectively with an independent US anyway.
      • ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        > "was abated pretty effectively" Ah yes, all of Europe occupied by fascists and a war with 60 million dead, nothing to worry about. Do you also consider the black plague "a minor public health issue, promptly addressed?"
        • philwelch 7y ago
          What makes you think it would have gone any better if American independence never happened? First off, British America would have never had the same amount of territory that the US ultimately had; Napoleon would have never sold the Louisiana territory to Great Britain, the Southwest would still be part of Mexico, and at best the Pacific Northwest would have been part of Canada. British America would basically stop at the Appalachians, with Louisiana probably reverting back to the Spanish and becoming either part of a greater Mexico or existing as its own quasi-post-colonial dominion. So while America could be the breadbasket of the Allies in our timeline, that would have been impossible without American independence. Secondly, Britain would have never allowed America to industrialize to the degree that we did, because they wouldn't want that kind of competition for their domestic industry. So not only are we no longer the breadbasket of democracy, but we're not even the arsenal of democracy anymore. Thirdly, you're looking at a scenario where in the First World War, Americans would be drafted and shipped overseas to die pointlessly in the trenches or in failed offensives like Gallipoli. And you think this would make Americans more likely to accept future British demands to be drafted and sent overseas to die in another pointless European war? Since in this scenario British America never even reaches the West Coast, there's absolutely no chance of a Pearl Harbor, either, meaning Americans have absolutely no stake in the Second World War. In other words, British America would be a much weaker country than the United States, with less land, fewer natural resources, less industrialization, less manpower, and much less will to fight. They would have been available two years earlier, but Britain and France just sort of sat around doing fuck-all between September 1939 and May 1940 anyway, and it's not clear that the addition of a small number of Americans to the BEF would have saved France. And it's even worse than that. Without the United States the Pacific theatre would collapse, with Japan likely holding uncontested access to the natural resources of the region and probably even capable of successfully invading Australia. In real life, Britain basically gave up on everything east of Burma. It was the United States who had the resources to engage the Japanese at Guadalcanal, effectively checking their advance and making their position in New Guinea untenable. In such a scenario, Japan would likely be able to more effectively project naval power into the Indian Ocean and concentrate their forces on the China-Burma-India theatre. Finally, compared to the rise of communism in Europe, fascism was abated pretty decisively, with probably fewer overall deaths and in a much shorter period of time.
  • ekianjo 7y ago
    There would have been other allies most probably if it were not for France.
    • walshemj 7y ago
      Well you would have had to have a similar revolution to the French revolution and not sure if any other countries are good candidates. More to the point if George III had wanted to recover the lost colonies as much as he was anti catholic - the war of 1812 might well gone very differently.
      • barry-cotter 7y ago
        The French Revolution post dates the American one and without French support the American Revolution would have failed. The French monarchy spent so much money supporting the Americans it basically bankrupted them and without naval support the Royal Navy would have had a much easier time moving troops. > The expanded French fleet, in combination with the Spanish, outnumbered the British one and was able to temporarily gain sufficient command of the Atlantic to prevent Lord Cornwallis and a large British army, besieged by George Washington and 5,800 French regulars at Yorktown on the Chesapeake Bay in 1781, from being evacuated or reinforced by sea, forcing Cornwallis to surrender. This was the decisive battle of the war that ended with the Peace of Paris in 1783. Washington himself handsomely acknowledged the significance of the French contribution in a letter to Admiral De Grasse in which he said, “You will have observed that whatever efforts are made by the land armies, the navy must have the casting vote in the present contest” (Lloyd 1965, p. 174). The Canadian historian W. J. Eccles (1987, p. 153) is even more explicit: “French initiative, French tactics, French ships, French guns and men achieved that unexpected and decisive victory. The Americans could not have done it on their own.” ... > The war also had very severe consequences for France’s much more disorderly fiscal system, where the finance minister Calonne and his predecessor Necker together borrowed over 900 million livres in the decade from 1777 to 1787 (Doyle 1988, pp. 43– 52). The situation was so bad that Calonne informed Louis XVI that no fiscal remedies could be found without a complete overhaul of the society and administrative system of the ancien régime, leading to the summoning of the Estates-General in 1789 and the outbreak of the French Revolution. Power and Plenty, Ronald Findlay and Kevin H. O’Rourke
• hos234 7y ago
  They are all related. From Niall Ferguson's- The Square and the Tower "The Times noted in 1863, the history of the Saxe-Coburgs showed ‘how much one success leads to another in Princely life’. Augusta of Saxe-Coburg’s grandchildren included not only both Queen Victoria and her husband, Albert, but also Ferdinand, who married the Queen of Portugal, and Leopold’s son, namesake and heir to the Belgian throne. The Saxe-Coburgs were further linked by marriage to the Orléans family and the Habsburgs. Moreover, Victoria and Albert’s eldest child was not the only one to marry royally: all but one of their nine children did. Thus, besides Frederick William of Prussia, Queen Victoria’s sons-in-law included Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein and Henry of Battenberg, whose brother Alexander became prince of Bulgaria, while her daughters-in-law included Princess Alexandra of Denmark and Princess Marie, daughter of Tsar Alexander II and sister of Tsar Alexander III. By the time the future Nicholas II arrived in London for his first visit to England, in 1893, a family reunion had come to resemble an international summit: 'We drew into Charing Cross. There we were met by: Uncle Bertie [the future Edward VII], Aunt Alix [Alexandra of Denmark], Georgie [the future George V], Louise, Victoria and Maud [his sisters, the last of whom would marry Prince Carl of Denmark, later Haakon VII of Norway] … Two hours later Apapa [Christian IX of Denmark], Amama and Uncle Valdemar [of Denmark] arrived. It is wonderful to have so many of our family gathered together … At 4.30 I went to see Aunt Marie [wife of Alfred, duke of Saxe-Coburg] at Clarence House and had tea in the garden with her, Uncle Alfred, and Ducky [their daughter, Victoria Melita].3 When this last married Ernest Louis, heir to the Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt the following year, the guests included an emperor and empress, a future emperor and empress, a queen, a future king and queen, seven princes, ten princesses, two dukes, two duchesses and a marquess. They were all related" "In 1894, Queen Victoria was pleased to be addressed as ‘Granny’ by the future Tsar Nicholas II, after his betrothal to yet another of her granddaughters, Alix of Hesse.6 With ‘Willy’ (her grandson William II of Germany) corresponding cheerfully with his cousins ‘Nicky’ and ‘George’,7 it seemed for a time as if the vision that had inspired Leopold I had been realized: from Athens to Berlin, from Bucharest to Copenhagen, from Darmstadt to London, from Madrid to Oslo, from Stockholm to Sofia and even in St Petersburg, the Saxe-Coburgs ruled."
  • henrikschroder 7y ago
    To say that it's the Saxe-Coburgs who rule all of Europe is... charitable. You could claim it's the other way around, after all, pretty much every single European monarch and royal house is somewhere in the British order of succession. (Norway #73, Yugoslavia #103, Sweden #283, Denmark #321, Greece #565, Spain #699, The Netherlands #1160, Belgium #1345, Luxembourg #1687, Liechtenstein #1916, Romania #4146, etc... There's even a Napoleon in there. And a million German princes.)
• lordleft 7y ago
  It's so interesting to consider the deep, Norman French character of the British Monarchy. From the immense impact of French on English vocabulary, to the French mottos of the British Crown ("Dieu et Mon Droit") and the Order of the Garter...to the fact that British monarchs claimed themselves kings of Frances FOR CENTURIES: https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/English_claims_to_the_French_throne#/British_claims_(1707-1800) https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/English_claims_to_the_French...
  • joaksl 7y ago
    It's even more recent than the norman french from a 1000 years ago. The standard english accent ( King's English ) was intentionally "effeminized" to mimic the french language in the 1800s ( when french was viewed as lingua franca and "cultured"). It's one of the reasons why Standard American accent and Standard British accent diverged. The standard american accent was the way the brits used to speak.
    • learc83 7y ago
      The "Standard American accent" is just vaguely midwestern, and it's not how the British used to speak. There is some support for it being closer than some modern British accents, e.g., they are both rhotic.
      • keiferski 7y ago
        By “standard American accent” I think he meant Southern accent.
        • squiggleblaz 7y ago
          He meant what he said, thinking about the accent you get on contemporary tv and in today's cinema. He's wrong, but the view that American English is a better guide to Early Modern English pronunciation than British pronunciation is widespread. I think there's many holes in the theory, based on a much-too-simple view, but there probably had been some enlightenment to be derived from the theory up till about seventy years ago (I don't mean the old American stage accent - the mid-Atlantic accent - I mean the normal American accent on the street). If you started with RP and then added standard AmE to that, you probably would have felt you made lots of progress to your understanding of EMnE - Americans retain lots of r's and their "a" had probably a more conservative distribution in some sense. Their accent is more strongly influenced by non-rhotic English than rhotic parts of Britain, though. Nowadays, their "o" has innovated and "a" has innovated in many respects too. Americans have kept reducing distinctions before r, so that they say "shirly" instead of "surely" and no distinction is made between long and short vowels before /r/. The length distinction has weakened further, so that the claim often seen "English doesn't have long-short vowels, but tense-lax vowels", though not accurate, is less unfair now than it would have been a century ago. The rounded vowels have caught up with, and in many cases overtaken, the drift forward started earlier in England. (I'm pretty sure America is planning to outdo Greek with the number of sounds that merge as /i/.) No language stands still, especially not in a highly mobile empire. Colonial lag applies to the periphery, but America is now surely the centre of English development.
• SI_Rob 7y ago
  Or, "How William The Bastard became William The Conqueror"
  • peteretep 7y ago
    A more interesting transformation is William of Orange leading "the Dutch invasion of Great Britain" vs "The Glorious Revolution" as we now call it.
    • squiggleblaz 7y ago
      Well I mean, it's some invasion when it starts because Parliament sends you a letter saying "Hey come invade us, and we'll give you the crown". I mean, who's in charge? Is a country just its prince?
      • mcv 7y ago
        From the Dutch perspective, it doesn't exactly feel like we invaded and conquered England. It was more like our Stadhouder emigrating to another country. The big victory over England that we remember was the victory at Chatham[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_the_Medway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_the_Medway
• NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  That didn't exactly bring union, despite Norman French being the language of the ruling elite for hundreds of years. That actual Frenchman (William the Conqueror) had a son (Henry I) whose plans for succession tipped us into The Anarchy that was, in part, the Norman French wars of succession and part 15 year civil war. Not a very unified union. :)
• blaesus 7y ago
  Especially the "Angevin Empire"[0], when Kings of England also ruled large portions of Kingdom of France. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_Empire