Re: The Federated Kingdoms

[raybrown@macline.co.uk (Raymond A. Brown)]

At 14:10 15/4/98, John Cowan wrote:
>Andrew Ferreir yscrifef:
>
>> There are certain differences in the prehistory of the of the FK.  I don't
>> know what role the Kemrese played in the English War of the Roses.  If
>> they did not intervene then at the time of the Reformation then a
>> Plantagenet monarch still rules in London.
>
>Well, either a Yorkist or a Lancastrian one, but in either case an
>heir to the Plantagenet line, true enough.

When I read of Andrew's Platagenet monarch in London still ruling in London
I almost turned monarchist again!  But then sanity crept back in.  If the
Platagenets were still there at the end of War of the Roses, wouldn't they
have followed the same route to absolutism as the French monarchs did?

>But for the personal union between England and Scotland that
>I described, the Stuarts have to come to power somehow.
>Perhaps we skip the Tudors altogether (they would be Kemrese, after all)
>and see a direct union between Plantagenet and Stuart somewhere.

If only the Tudors had been skipped! But I suspect another another dynasty
would've have been just as bloodthirsty.  I'm afraid I have no great regard
for either Tudors or Stuarts, but they did help (although certainly quite
unintentionally!) prevent Britain following the French absolutist monarchy
pattern.

[....]
>I incline to the replacement of Stuarts by Hanoverians but I'm not
>wedded to it.

Hardly an improvement - leave them in Hanover, please.

>Furthermore, I suspect that Scotland would still go Calvinist/Knoxist,
>even if England remained Roman Catholic.

Almost certainly the lowland, English speaking Scots would've gone
Calvinist/Knoxist; but the Gaelic Highlands remained Catholic.  If they
hadn't sided with the Stuarts after the so-called "Glorious Revolution"
which brough William of Orange over here, they might not have been
slaughtered in such numbers with the subsequent depopulation of the
Highlands.

I suspect the canny Scots, left to themselves, would've learnt to
accommodate the two cultures & that they'd have gone republican, following
the French Revolution and set up their own secular republic with the
Catholic Gaels & Calvinist Anglo-Scots continuing their traditions & both
represented in the colors of the Scots tricolor!

>> Without the dilemma of
>> providing an heir to Henry VIII the Plantagenet monarch chooses not to
>> nationalise the monasteries and remains Catholic.  Successive monarchs
>> marry into the dynasties of France and Spain creating a strong alliance
>> that stems the impact of Protestantism.  The Stuarts remain in Edinburgh,
>> possibly permitting the existence of an episcopal reformed church in
>> Scotland.  Conversion to Protestantism spreads creates a influential
>> minority, after a period of savage conflicts a sustantial number choose
>> emmigrantion to the New World as the only peaceful alternative...
>
>Now this sounds good.  So drop the Anglican church, but keep the Roman vs.
>Uniate vs. Calvinist-Episcopal disagreement that blocks the total merger of the
>three Kingdoms.

Umm - I don't think a Roman ~ Uniate difference would be enough to block
merger in itself.  But in any case, the above scenario would surely have
led to the development of absolute monarchy like the French monarchy.  Then
the question would be whether the English or the French would've have been
the first to overthrow their monarchs & follow the republican route.  Then
we'd be talking, I suppose, about the Federated Republics  ;-)

Ray.

==========================================================
Written in Net English        Humor not necessarily marked

==========================================================