TruthOfAngels
quiet! the robots are busy discovering truth
- Location
- Where all the calculators go
Maybe it was Anne Colleton and Harry just never told us. Although she’d have been getting on a bit by then, if not already dead.
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Alternate History General Discussion
- Thread starter Elektronaut
- Start date
Any given society lady who was neither Catholic nor previously married would do fine.
My first thought was Violet Asquith, who in OTL became Mrs. Bonham Carter.
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
Not Violet Elizabeth Bott?
Actually, she's killed in the early stages of the AH WWII, and before that was semi-persona non grata with the Freedom Party; Featherston sends her to France to negotiate a discreet alliance with Action Francaise, which also amounts to temporary exile, and it's the closest she ever gets to England.
TruthOfAngels
quiet! the robots are busy discovering truth
- Location
- Where all the calculators go
Yes, I know, I've read them several times. I just reckoned that with Ted Eight's submissive qualities relationship-wise, they might have been quite the couple.
Might be a stretch, but perhaps one of the Mitford sisters? This would add to the plausibility of Mosley being in gov't in this TL (presuming he still marries Diana), yet could also be unacceptably morganatic.
Yeah...there's an image, LOL
ChrisNuttall
Well-known member
Probably a Russian match, then (unless the Japanese are powerful enough, in this timeline, to convince the British to overlook the racial aspect.)
Before the First World War, it was customary for Royal marriages to be arranged to strengthen ties between the various Royal households in Europe. This sometimes proved awkward: the British royals had strong ties to the German Royals, as did the Russian Royals. Matters shifted slightly as a number of royal families became effectively extinct and/or powerless or exiled and there was less to gain from arranging marriages between such families; the British, at least, try to arrange marriages between the Royals and the aristocracy (Charles and Diana) and later, gave their blessing to matches between Princes like William who suitable commoners like Kate.
In this timeline, I suspect the importance of marrying into other Royal families will have diminished a little, but not as much as in our timeline. Love? Love has nothing to do it.
With the 10 year anniversary of the hiring of Sam Hinkie just a few days ago, and most Sixers fans in extreme doom mood, one POD I do like to think about is if Sam Hinkie, master tanker and old GM of the Sixers during the time of extreme tanking known as "The Process" was allowed to stay as GM.
Don't know much besides surface level details of the time, but keeping Hinkie would at least offer the team stability because he'd been working up quite the war chest when he resigned, and what he could do with it would be interesting.
Don't know much besides surface level details of the time, but keeping Hinkie would at least offer the team stability because he'd been working up quite the war chest when he resigned, and what he could do with it would be interesting.
On a similar note: What if the Sixers score one more point in the Eastern Conference Semifinals of 2019, Leonard's final shot bounces out instead of in, and thanks to skill, luck, and opposing injuries, they win the NBA finals?
Sixers fan hold Adam Silver hostage and force him to allow Sam Hinkie into the championship ceremony.
Also, they elect Sam Hinkie mayor of Philadelphia and build a statue in his honor.
@Time Enough ,@Gorrister ,@Archdeacon of Dunwich,@Walpurgisnacht :
Brainstorming for a Thing involving Airey Neave,can a Conservative Government ban separatist parties (SNP,Plaid Cymru,Sinn Fein,Mebyon Kernow,Wessex Regionalists) using the same arguments one could use to ban the BNP? Would it be constitutional? And would a future Labour government revoke almost all bans once they get in power?
Brainstorming for a Thing involving Airey Neave,can a Conservative Government ban separatist parties (SNP,Plaid Cymru,Sinn Fein,Mebyon Kernow,Wessex Regionalists) using the same arguments one could use to ban the BNP? Would it be constitutional? And would a future Labour government revoke almost all bans once they get in power?
Also another idea is having the DUP,due to loose association with the SNP via loyalist elements,banned as well.
Incidentally are MEP by-elections a thing yet in Britain by 1985?
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
Well, I'm not one of the chosen ones, but I was around at the time of Airey Neave's assassination, and saw a lot of what was going on at the time.
If you're interested in input from someone outside the select few...
The first question is precisely when this is set. Airey Neave was murdered in Nov 1979, right at the start of the Thatcher era. If your POD comes at the point where he is (or maybe isn't) killed, then that has one particular set of dynamics.
If, however, the POD is set before this, then one is in the last throes of the Callaghan government, which has a whole new set of dynamics.
At the time, all the separatist parties save Sinn Fein and the SNP were trivial jokes. In the 1979, Plaid got precisely 2 seats, and Wales was a Labour stronghold. There's no need to ban PC. The SNP had 2 seats, and bar some disturbances in the late 1960s, wasn't really a factor. Nonetheless, they were regarded as mildly significant in a way that PC wasn't. The rest, bar the Shinners, were basically just not important.
Sinn Fein is the big one. It claimed (with a straight face, apparently) not to be associated with the IRA (sure, sure). The IRA were responsible for the murders of: The British Ambassador to Ireland (1976), Mountbatten (1979) and Neave (1979), as well as the murder of IBs in Northern Ireland that led directly to the Peace Marches of 1976.
Banning Sinn Fein is entirely possible. It may be counter-productive, but the temptation to do so could easily be made very strong.
If so, the Republic would probably - at this time - breathe a sigh of relief, as it will be easier for it to start taking effective action against the IRA (and the possibility of allowing Hot Trod by British forces across the border can't be discounted in this case).
Taking the evidence of the Peace Marches of 1976, if SF is linked with the IRA directly and stripping SF of "plausible" (ha!) deniability of a connection between SF and the IRA, then things are going to get awkward for SF in Northern Ireland.
Banning a party isn't easy, constitutionally. Most parties basically simpgoing to ly aren't worth the effort.
That's a bit "out there".
The DUP's fundamental philosophy is: "We're part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we're loyal to this constitutional position."
The SNP's fundamental philosophy is: "We're seeking independence, and we don't want to be a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we want to break up the status quo to get independence."
The two parties basically have political positions that are completely at odds. You're more likely to get an association between the Liberal Party and the National Front. Not going to happen.
Apologies if I'm intruding on a private discussion.
No,not at all.
Don’t want to spoil things too much but basically in this scenario SNP has 33 MPs by 1984 (well 34 if you count Independent Hugh MacDiarmid) and the National Front has 4,with the latter doing a failed uprising/coup and the more sectarian elements of the SNP causing more mass violence and unrest.
The idea is that the DUP are banned by association with fellow sectarian elements of the SNP,which might seem loose but in the heat of it Neave (as interim PM) decides it’s a good enough reason.
Arthur_Phuxache
The Long Good Double Points Friday
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
Airey Neave explicitly wasn't murdered by the Provisional IRA.
The group that murdered him wasn't even illegal in 1979.
Assassination of Airey Neave - Wikipedia
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
God knows how you get to achieve that result.
In OTL, in 1979, SNP got 2 seats. In 1983, SNP got 2 seats.
Changing that such that it gets 30+ seats is - unexpected.
As for the concept of National Front trying a coup/uprising. Yeah, OK.
There was a reported set of enquiries in 1968, by Cecil King (head of IPC) to test the reaction of some people. The responses he got were negative, to put it mildly.
As for the 1974 plot, that was essentially just Wilson's paranoia. When the main source is Peter bloody Wright, you know you're more into fantasy than anything.
I've no idea how you would get that scenario you describe, without having a POD back in the 1960s.
It’s actually way back but yeah.
The SNP was actually really close in 1974 of winning all of the Tory seats in Scotland so it’s not that implausible under the right circumstances.
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
Fair enough. I'll leave you to it.
National Front with 4 seats, with a failed coup attempt. That's far enough out there as to mean anything I might have to add is worthless. It's so far removed from OTL that OTL experience is irrelevant.
National Front with 4 seats, with a failed coup attempt. That's far enough out there as to mean anything I might have to add is worthless. It's so far removed from OTL that OTL experience is irrelevant.