The British Empire

[John Cowan <cowan>]

Padrig Bryn yscrifef:

> > We already know that the E.U. exists *There*, and that's a whole lot more
> 
> Napoleon's grand empire, or someone else's?

Say what?  I meant the modern European Union as it is today, except with
England, Scotland, and Cambria as members rather than the U.K.

> Basically, different world --> different circumstances.

Sure, but I've been trying to keep it as similar as possible.  E.g., since
Kemr is (Uniate) Catholic, there couldn't have been Catholic Emancipation
in Ireland in 1822; instead, I made that date Goedelic Emancipation,
led by the famous Goedelic politician Daniel Ui Chonaill.

> I would argue that there _is_ no USA (as it exists *Here*, at any rate); 
> for the simple fact that England *There* just isn't what it was *Here*!  A
> different England must lead to different circumstances in North America. 
> If there are NA colonies, then we would have to add Brithenig to the
> French/Dutch/English mix already there *Here* ;-) .

Just so, and don't forget German, the majority language in Pennsylvania at the
time.  But unless Brithenig-speaking (including Cambrio-Irish) settlement
was *really* pervasive, English would still become the dominant (though
not sole official) language.

> So many little things
> from the sixth century to the 18th must be added _in just the right
> amounts_ in order for anything like what happened in Philidelphia, etc. to
> happen again.

But that's The Game, IMHO: to determine what could have happened that
would be consistent with the patterns already laid down, and yet
produce something with a (twisted) resemblance to what happened *Here*.
E.g., if the Great American Rebellion had failed, would Richard M. Nixon
really have become a California used car salesman?  In all probability, he
wouldn't have been born at all --- but that's not The Game.

> I just don't think it's likely.  Something will get botched
> somewhere.  Some other kind of NA federation -- that may be possible; just
> _not_ the USA.

Not the USA as we know it, true, but what are the minimum differences
that *must* exist based on the Brithenig assumption?

> Besides, why _must_ the Brithenig and Scottish colonists rebel, if the
> Saxon colonists rebel?

Now there's a fair question.  To know that, we have to figure out which
colonies are planted by which Kingdom, and to know *that*, we need information
on sources of population in the various colonies.  New England is mixed
(some Kerno, some East Anglians) with English dominant; Georgia is totally
scrambled up.  Pennsylvania would be mostly Scots (and the aforementioned
Germans).

Independence surely would have come, on constitutional grounds:
the defect of the parliamentary system is that it makes the government of
dependencies illogical and indeed almost imposssible.  Canada damn near rebelled
in 1837 for the same reasons.

> Also remember that much of what the US (and indeed
> Canada) is now is derived from certain events that occurred *Here* in
> those days gone by.  Scotland *There* can not be cleared the way it was
> *Here*, therefore so many wouldbe Canadians and Merkins remain Scottish. 

Not so clear.  If James II/VII loses power and the Hanoverians take over,
then we see the 'Fifteen, the 'Forty-five, and the Clearance essentially
unchanged.

> If Kemr has such a "hands-off" approach to Ireland, there is no reason to
> presume the Starving Time, and therefore no mass emmigration.

Again, not open and shut.  The Famine was serious because the non-potato
food that could have saved Ireland was shipped to England under contract.
Kemrese law (tracking Welsh law) permits the taking of food without penalty
by one who has starved for three days, provided he is willing to repay, but the
absentee landlord could have argued in court that the Goedels *could* not repay.
This is the era of *laissez-faire*, after all.

> Even if the US comes about at all, it must
> therefore be about as different from the one *Here* as the Brittish Isles
> are *There*. 

That's what I suppose: different and yet the same.  Having accepted
multilingual/multicultural existence from the start would have made
us a good deal more accepting of Spanish, Natives, etc., I think.

> Who gets India?  If anyone.

England, I think, pretty much as before.  Scots and Cambrians do a good
deal of work there, but their governments aren't directly concerned.

> I think most of those canyons will be right in the middle of whatever
> England had touched *Here*; meaning that it probably will not exist
> *There* or will exist in a radically different way.

Yes.

> fal mag; ffew yn mellt?  ffageth a ysplicharlla.

Translation, please?

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.