> the origins of European integration—and the reasons why Britain ultimately pulled away Anyone who was around for the UK's going into the then-called CEE (sporting all of 6 members) in the 70s will find little surprise at the current drama ... (There were some Frenchmen worried it was an US submarine ...)
When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
71–80 of 108 posts
Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talking about an alternate history where Britain and France got along opens up any number of possibilities, to the point that it's not really worth speculating on.
Sorry, but I think that's a flippant and lazy reply. The reality is that no other major power had a navy that could rival Britain and France. The Dutch and Spanish might have still helped America, but without French opposition the British navy would have wiped them out.
Navies are big, expensive things to build and maintain, and as such, they are usually designed and planned around various assumptions of potential future war scenarios. Were Britain and France friendly, or even in a union such as the Angevin Empire, their resulting navy would likely be much smaller than the combined sizes of their historical navy, since it would be pointless to maintain a navy of that size if no feasible set of combatants could challenge it.
It is also worth pointing out that large countries that manage to steamroll their opposition and establish an unparalleled hegemony tend to result in the creation of other countries that can challenge their ascendancy: the Mongol Empire creating the Russian Empire in this way is perhaps the best example.
Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#74Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#75Had this happened, it makes you wonder if this UK-France union would have similar issues to what is experienced in Quebec, Canada and to the non-French speaking Canada.
Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#76I thought they meant when the King of England was an actual frenchman and French was the upper-class language of the UK.
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...
Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#77They should have pitched a Franco-British football team. Might have sealed the deal.
Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#78[flagged]
The UK is a country full of hatred, racism and xenophobia. I say this as a Brit. It's not better than France in any way, shape or form. France is not without its issues either though. Both countries need to be better.
As a Johnny foreigner, who has lived across the UK and currently is in the north east, I wholeheartedly disagree.
Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#79Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
> 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?