In your opinion, if France and the United Kingdom had merged to form a single country, how powerful would that country have been?

[Julie07]

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Looking at how two different branches of Christianity ruled the political landscape in each country, I wouldn't predict good stuff happening. It looks impossible to me to have Catholics and Protestants united back then. They seem to have, each, created their own path in History.

It's debated but Protestants might have created societies praising free market philosophy, while Catholics brought social market philosophy. Those two philosophies do not blend well at all, even if we both call them "The West", the dissent is real. Even if, now, UK and FR look harmonized enough in political philosophy, this didn't look true when settlers left to form the US and spread free market.

[purplepoppy]

Instead of fighting each other for centuries we could have turned our attention on other countries with more success. There would be no America as we know it as their independence was largely down to the French.

Historically the problem has always been Kings have failed to win over the populace of each country. King William did have a legitimate claim to the English throne. After conquest in 1066 had he embarked on improving lives rather than oppression things would have been different.

Henry VII took the English crown with the help of 2000 French soldiers in 1485 yet failed to build on it. He granted Flemish soldiers land here but not the French ones. Perhaps the gesture would have fostered better relations in the future.

Had Napoleon offered the British public a better life rather than the threat of conquest would they have followed him?

People aren't that different, people tend to want to get on, it's the leaders that fuck things up.

[Screenwriter]

I don't think those two match up at all. UK has awful food and miserable weather. France has great food, even better wine and Paris!

UK is small and crammed. France is big and spread out. I like the ethos of the French people, but I admit I'm prejudiced. My roots are Afro-French-Spanish-carib Indian. France reminds me of the U. S. Big, broad, expansive. England doesn't. Small, insular.

French are a little snooty, but they have reason to be. And when you say you're from New Orleans, they welcome you like you're a distant cousin, which, in essence, I am!

I have Irish, English bits too, but my choice would be to keep those two as separate as they are. Don't think they're a good fit. That channel is more than a physical barrier. It's a cultural one too.

[Syntosi]

Hard to say. Arguably the rivalry between the two nations has benefited both of them to the point of becoming superpowers. I dont think this would be the same if you unite them. Sure, they might have more people, resources and such combined but there are plenty of countries with these kinds of benefits that falls by the wayside.

France and the UK has already done the almost impossible to come out ahead. Going back and giving them another try is probably going to make them fail by itself and without the rivalry to keep both sides on their toes I just dont see it.

[contentious]

William the Bastard invaded England from Normandy and became king. Louis VIII also invaded England and was considered king of England" by some barons but never crowned. So they would be just as powerful as they are today because it already happened to some extent. You even had the two countries under the EU for a period.

[lightbulb27]

Very. think of all the wasted lives and resources fighting.

I think they could ultimately come together if they all agree that Indian food is the best. Otherwise, forget it...

What the heck is going on with the paris air strike and will it clear up soon?

Whom will win the Tour De france? Slovenian rider?

[jshm2]

No more than America, Canada and Mexico should join to form the amero

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_monetary_union

You've no idea how much France and the UK have never got on...

[KostasKouvalis]

They kind of did, it's called Canada.

That being said, back in colonial times, EXTREMELY, but in modern times, not so much. It would be too politically divided like the U. S.

Canada is basically a shining example of what happens when you merge France with England

[Julie07]

No, because the British excluded the French from Canada

[KostasKouvalis]

No they didn't. Quebec and New Brunswick are still French. They kicked out the French government, but not French civilians, language and culture

[Julie07]

It's an extremely minority corner. So it has nothing to do with a Franco-English merger.

[KostasKouvalis]

I've been there and you haven't, so...😂

[Anonymous]

In the 1800s up until the rise of Germany and the US between they were 1st and 2nd most powerful countries in the world with vast rich global empires.

Would the American revolution been successful had the French navy and others not engaged the British on multiple fronts globally and blockaded British ships from bringing reinforcements to the us colonies?

[AviatorTom]

If I remember my history, they were one country for a short time, centuries ago. Rather than fighting each other for dominance, if they could have gotten together, that would have been a very strong and powerful country.

[DeeDeeDeVour]

Yes and you might as well it 'New Canada' since Canada is a "product" of the Brits and the French.

[Julie07]

No, because the British excluded the French from Canada

[douride2]

@julie07 You haven't been Canada or to the province Quebec have you?

[Julie07]

@douride2

Quebec is a French-speaking island in the middle of an English-speaking world

[douride2]

I live here & the French are all over the country.

[Julie07]

Quebecers are Canadian, not French

[RageBabe]

Given how different we are culturally, it would have been a catastrophic disaster. Although this isn't feasible, Sweden is one European nation I could see us merging with.

[andreasderjuengere]

Is the UK a 'single' country, I wonder.

Probably, the arrangement would have been less powerful.

The British -in history- took much benefit from the idea of ''Balance of Power''.

[Massageman]

I just don't see these two getting together and overcoming all their differences, the least of which was giving the US. the Statue of Liberty after the US broke from England.

[FreyaRed]

200 years ago very powerful. Today it's would be powerful as Albania.

[Avicenna]

I can only imagine how many conflicts there would have been over language

[beefcakebradybatson]

Maybe the usually hot French could have prevailed upon the ugly, sometimes smelly Brits to get dental work and bathe and/or shower more often !!!

[exitseven]

They would never be able to get along long enough to be any kind of threat.

[DrPepper12]

As successful as a fratricidal union would be

[Pohjolan]

Might as well speculate on what if Hitler had been accepted into art school?

We have no way of knowing.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

What time period? Most of English power in history comes from intrigue not might.

[Anonymous]

But those two countries don't like each other... it's like saying that China and Japan would merge to form a single country.

[RedInnocent69]

Pretty powerful. They would’ve used Canada to ensure there was no United States

[Anonymous]

It could and would never happen. No one wants to be part of the same country as the French.

[RyanEC]

Pretty powerful but that is hard to imagine.

[Julie07]

Historically, it nearly happened 3 times

[RyanEC]

I know about the 100 years war but what other 2 times.

[Julie07]

1) In 1420, the King of France Charles VI signed with Henry V of England the Treaty of Troyes, thought to put an end to the Hundred Years War: he provided that the English king would marry the Frenchman's daughter, and that their heir would be placed at the head of the two united countries.
Little Henry VI effectively becomes the first ruler of this "double monarchy". He was duly consecrated at Notre-Dame de Paris in 1431, two years after being at Westminster. Only a certain Charles VII, helped by a certain Joan of Arc, was also crowned king of France in Reims in 1429 and, on the strength of his military victories, he succeeded in sending the boy back to his island.

2) The second attempt took place at the time of the total collapse of 1940. On June 16, to prevent the country on its knees from yielding to Hitler, Churchill endorsed an idea of Jean Monnet, and asked de Gaulle to submit it to Paul Reynaud, President of the Council: the Franco-British union, that is to say the total merger of the two countries into one, army, Parliament, natural resources. Reynaud has resigned. Pétain is already in the process of going to the armistice. The proposal falls in the Channel.

😌 The third, finally, was only revealed by the BBC in 2007, on the basis of declassified documents, and would have taken place in September 1956, when the two countries were preparing to intervene in Suez against Nasser. This time it was Guy Mollet, head of government in Paris, who allegedly proposed marriage to his counterpart Anthony Eden. He would have refused, but in return proposed that France join the Commonwealth. This would have made Elizabeth II the sovereign of our Republic.

[RyanEC]

I see, I didn’t know that.

[AngryCarl2]

Isn't that what happened in 1066?

[Asgard356]

It actually used to be united until Henry V?

[Twalli]

At what point?

[wolverin38]

Good post