Iceland as an 'integrated' part of GB/UK

Just a brief AH-bunny inspired by the recent volcanic activity and some idle doodling with a map of Europe.

There appears to be a mildly popular trope on here regarding Iceland becoming part of the British Empire. It's not hard to see why; after all, Iceland is much closer to Britain than... well, pretty much any part of the Empire or Commonwealth, really. Furthermore, Iceland spent nearly 700 years ruled by a foreign power (Norway, then Denmark); it's not too great a stretch of most people's plausibility to have it end up under the British crown during the 18th or 19th centuries, by means of war or peace.

Thing is, in a lot of those situations Iceland ends up being a colony, a dominion, a realm in personal union, tacked on to whatever form British North America has mutated into in the chosen TL - in any case, in a position whereby it is clearly under the dominance of another nation. What I'm interested in is the idea of Iceland being 'integrated' into Britain/the UK itself - that is, gaining representation at Westminster, and particularly the following factors:

*How might it come about?
*What kind of objections might such a union face?
*How would Iceland be represented in Parliament?
*How would British foreign and internal policies be affected?
*How would this affect Ireland - either as a state remaining in personal union with GB, or as a fellow constituent of the *UK?
*What effect will this have on Iceland itself in terms of cultural perception, economic prosperity, industrial development etc, and will there be the kind internal dislocation that wracked Ireland as a result of Union?

On the other side of the scale, there are going to have to be some factors which are likely going to be required for this to happen:

*English becoming widely-spoken amongst Iceland's political class
*A desire within that political class for a union with Westminster
*A 'sweetener' for the rest of Icelandic society to make the union desirable

...And probably a few more things that I can't remember due to needing sleep.

I have no idea how plausible this idea is - that's part of the reason why I'm putting it out there for discussion. In any case, I'm not interested so much in how it happens as what changes after it happens; how this would affect the constitutional make-up of the UK, the wars in America, the development of the Industrial Revolution, the national/regional identity of the Faroese Islanders... I could go on, but you get the idea, yeah?

One more thing - note I put inverted commas round 'integrated' in the title. That's because I:
a) Couldn't think of a better term;
b) Didn't want to give the impression this was about making Iceland a Valued Contributor to the Eternal Universal Happy Shiny Democratic Socialist People's United Kingdom of Britwank (Gawd Bless Her Majesty). I'm interested in all possible outcomes, and one of the things I like about this idea is that it could result in brilliance or bloodbaths.

...Okay, one more other thing - I was thinking of a PoD sometime in the first half of the eighteenth century, but that's just supposition - if you want to go earlier or later, it's up to you.

Right, this is geting into tl;dr territory, so I'll stop waffling and leave this for you to mull over/ignore/mock [delete as appropriate]. I'm off to find a cold compress for the spoon I've just jabbed in my eye.
 
I think it'd probably have a dissolved parliament like Scotland.

Also, wouldn't I imagine we'd get Greenland too, thought that could go to Canada.
 
I think it'd probably have a dissolved parliament like Scotland.

Also, wouldn't I imagine we'd get Greenland too, thought that could go to Canada.
Dissolved or devolved? The first implies they are ruled from Westminster like Scotland was between 1707 and 1998. The latter, that they are ruled in part from Reykjavik like Scotland is from Holyrood today. While it doesn't fufill the OP I think the latter is more likely due to the cultural and linguistic differences.
 
The most common way for territory like this is -- War --

So post Viking era -- ?When was the best chance for a British -Denmark or Norway war.?
 
One way to do it would be for Scotland to grab Iceland. For that to work I think England and Denmark have to be busy elsewhere tho.
 
The most common way for territory like this is -- War --

So post Viking era -- ?When was the best chance for a British -Denmark or Norway war.?

Denmark sides with France for some reason in one of the numerous wars in the 17th or 18th Century ? Perhaps a Seven Years War where Denmark is allied with France could make it possible.
 
Thande's LTTW has Britain purchase Iceland, the Faroes and Greenland from Denmark-Norway (which has Sweden), since the Oldenburgs aren't interested in oversees expansion or colonies (except for in India)...
 
The only major flaw I see here is that in the 18th century there's really no gain to be had from controlling Iceland (and/without Greenland). Even in that era IIRC it was quite stubbornly isolationist - it had no interest in being governed from Copenhagen and Copenhagen didn't really care much for it, but it didn't have the resources to push for greater independence - and I find it hard to believe it was a profitable, contributing member of the greater European economy. It would be a money drain for the British, and the Danish would probably not shed a tear to see it go. It confers no strategic advantage to the British seeing as there's nothing to do so far north and they already have plenty of North Atlantic bases for the Navy.

Far more likely a scenario as mentioned earlier - it's taken, probably by Scotland rather than England if ever they could get strong enough - as part of a war in the 16 century or before, when it really would be a prestige hit to Denmark to lose it and a gain to Scotland.
 
Ed Costello

Only thing I can think of is that at some point France [most likely] seeks to use Iceland as a naval base - which may or may not be practical - and Britain takes it to prevent that. Then for whatever reason keeps it at the peace. Possibly initially as a colony under some sort of governor general but with growing links meaning it gets considered for membership of the union. Although not sure why this would be? The fisheries were important but I don't that that important given others available to Britain. It was useful in WWII but that's really too late unless you get something like the suggestion for Malta joining the UK post-war but successful.

In terms of an initial British occupation probably the Napoleonic wars is the most likely as Denmark was a French ally for much of the time. However might possibly be an earlier case.

Not sure why Iceland wasn't a possibly naval base for someone during the 17th-19thC. Possibly a lack of suitable ports and population to support a major fleet. Or a lack of sufficient traffic that far north to be significant, although possibly it could be a privateer base?

Steve
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iceland

How about a more Northern Route to the Americas from the Baltic?

The English/British would lose out on trade through the channel, and so look to grab Iceland.

The Cod Wars were a series of conflicts between Iceland and the United Kingdom from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s.

The UK could invade here.

Iceland deployed a total of eight ships: six Coast Guard vessels and two Polish-built stern trawlers, to enforce her control over fishing rights. In response, Great Britain deployed a total of twenty-two frigates, seven supply ships, nine tug-boats and three auxiliary ships to protect its 40 fishing trawlers.
 
The only thing Iceland has going for it is the cold war gap.
The only reason BBritain might want it is to stop Russian/German/Polish/Whoever ships from escaping their boxed in little European area and getting into the Atlantic.


Maybe if we take the Napoleonic Wars. No battle of Copenhagen and Denmark ends up French alligned. From bases in Iceland its ships prove to a major pain in the bum for the Brits. They invade and occupy Iceland and decide to take it (and Greenland) as spoils of war to punish the Danes.
Perhaps even the Icelanders could do a Malta and ask to be kept by the British after the war. Maybe they don't like the Danish moves to impose Danish on them or they like the favorable access to British markets or...whatever.
 
Only thing I can think of is that at some point France [most likely] seeks to use Iceland as a naval base - which may or may not be practical - and Britain takes it to prevent that. Then for whatever reason keeps it at the peace. Possibly initially as a colony under some sort of governor general but with growing links meaning it gets considered for membership of the union. Although not sure why this would be? The fisheries were important but I don't that that important given others available to Britain. It was useful in WWII but that's really too late unless you get something like the suggestion for Malta joining the UK post-war but successful.

In terms of an initial British occupation probably the Napoleonic wars is the most likely as Denmark was a French ally for much of the time. However might possibly be an earlier case.

Not sure why Iceland wasn't a possibly naval base for someone during the 17th-19thC. Possibly a lack of suitable ports and population to support a major fleet. Or a lack of sufficient traffic that far north to be significant, although possibly it could be a privateer base?

Steve

Hmm...not quite. Denmark was a reluctant ally of France, it knew it would be invaded and forced to support the French so it gave token support but for most of the Napoleonic Wars the Danish were just polite neutrals. Case in point the Battle of Copenhagen when the British were forced to bomb Copenhagen to seize or destroy the Danish fleet, because Napoleon was already going ahead with a plan to invade Denmark to steal the very same fleet.

As for why Iceland was never used - because it doesn't make strategic sense. The French had two fleets, which were based in Brest (for North Sea/Channel/Atlantic Sea business) and one in Toulon/Marseilles for the Med. Those fleets spent most of the war up to 1805 either leading the British on a merry chase or holed up in base with the Royal Navy waiting to ambush them. After 1805 when the fleets united and were destroyed at Trafalgar, the French naval contribution to the war was by nature negligible as they didn't have the ships to contend with the RN - hence why the French tried to invade Denmark, as referenced above. There were scant chances for the French to move their fleets out from under the British nose to Iceland, but when they had the chance it would have been pointless to do so.

For a start, it would leave the respective coast they had left entirely to the British mercy, which was not a clever idea as the British had blockade tactics down pat - at least by sitting in harbour in France the RN was forced to spend a lot of ships guarding them and a number of ships which would have patrolled the coast to intercept merchants were forced to keep their distance as with a nearby fleet, there was always a chance that the French navy could escape port as it did a few times and destroy them before they could summon their backup.

The other reason is there was no reason to go to Iceland. They couldn't launch an invasion from there as it would take far too long to transport the men onto the ships in France and then take them to Iceland, then do exactly the same thing to board and sail from Iceland to invade Scotland. The British would know if there was an invasion force being planned and if they went to Iceland they were just doubling the number of chances the British had to intercept them leaving port (France then Iceland). With the fleet out of France the RN wouldn't even need to divide its strength by leaving a sitting force to watch for the French. If they wanted to invade England it had to be by surprise - hence why the entire Grande Armee sat in Normandy for ages waiting for a chance to cross the Channel which might only take a few hours. If they were to send troops to Iceland they would have to transport them by the Ships of the Line rather than in little barges (as they wanted to do in the Channel) as the barges would never survive the Atlantic crossing and were fearfully slow, which would restrict the invasion force to maybe 10,000 men, 15k tops. This may sound ample but it wasn't. The British actually had 130,000 militia troops in the British Isles - part time soldiers who by word of law could only be used in defense of the British Isles. Historically the militia barely saw a day of action, but in this case they may have been poorly trained but they would be fine. An invasion from Iceland would have to come in via Scotland and this would give them all the time in the world to assemble. The French could have sent the Imperial Guard to Scotland as an elite invasion but if they were outnumbered 5 to 1 or higher in a battle they would still be annihilated. The reason the British Isles were seen as such an easy target if troops could be landed was because London was so close to the Channel (two day's march at a forced pace) and had no fortifications. From Scotland the journey would take at least two weeks and that would be all the preparation the British would need - not to mention that the British were unengaged in Europe pre-Trafalgar and would have all their regulars in the south of England to utilise too. It would be a massacre.

As for privateers - well, most privateers were actually merchant ships who had bought the right to plunder foreign shipping, not navy ships. In fact, Ships of the Line were terrible at privateering anyway, they weren't manoeuvreable enough to catch the smaller ships and would just chase them ineffectually for days, or until they escaped. Privateering was done by one-deck sloops and occasionally by smaller frigates, and these ships had no need to base themselves in Iceland. They could last months without resupplying and could easily sneak into a port in France or elsewhere to stock up and return to the fight. Iceland was just an unnecessary luxury, which was why it was never used.

<referencing the Cod Wars>

The UK could invade here.

Not really. The Cod Wars were a phony war, the only conflict was ramming which was more a gesture like two drunk lads at a pub sizing up to each other trying to provoke the other to start a fight. Actually turning it into a war would be a catastrophic for British foreign policy - NATO would suddenly go mental and the British would probably be faced with at best a massive embargo, at worst a brief war with the United States to force them to back down. A far better scenario would be WW2, when Iceland and Greenland were taken by the Allies in 1942(?) to use as a mid-way point in crossing supplies over the Atlantic - control of Greenland was given to the US and the UK took control of Iceland. History shows that Iceland used the end of the war to retain their freedom from Denmark, if the British pushed their luck and the Icelandic conspicuously refused to protest in a meaningful way (somehow, it's not very likely) then Britain could retain control and odds on would be the integration of Iceland into the state. But this is post-1900s talk and this is pre-1900.
 
As for privateers - well, most privateers were actually merchant ships who had bought the right to plunder foreign shipping, not navy ships. In fact, Ships of the Line were terrible at privateering anyway, they weren't manoeuvreable enough to catch the smaller ships and would just chase them ineffectually for days, or until they escaped. Privateering was done by one-deck sloops and occasionally by smaller frigates, and these ships had no need to base themselves in Iceland. They could last months without resupplying and could easily sneak into a port in France or elsewhere to stock up and return to the fight. Iceland was just an unnecessary luxury, which was why it was never used.

That's why I suggested privateers rather than SOL forces. The latter would be unsuitable for the reasons you mention and given Iceland's limited population and economy it would probably be pretty much impossible basing any sizeable forces there. However privateers could possibly use it to get rid of prizes and pick up food and other supplies rather than having to work their way back through the blockade to France. [Actually might just need the fact that the British think the French are using Iceland to persuade them to intervene]. Not saying they would do it but might be a possibility.

Steve
 
IIRC, the Stuarts and the Danish royal house became related through the marriage of James VI to Anne (?) of Denmark (I don't think James was King of England yet when the marriage occurred). Is there any way that their descendents could become rulers of Denmark? If so, Iceland would become a territory of the Stuart crown too.

Of course, this would require James and Anne's descendents to avoid a whole bunch of other pitfalls, including losing the Civil War and getting beheaded and converting to Catholicism.
 
The most common way for territory like this is -- War --


War or marriage.

Iceland could have been part of a Norwegian or Danish princess' dowry. It's pretty clear that neither Norway or Denmark thought much of the place, so it's plausible that the island and it's inhabitants could have been bundled into a marriage contract. The groom's nation gets some additional territory in lieu of cash and the bride's nation hands over a distant province that has never really mattered much.

The Scots' royal houses married Scandinavian royalty slightly more often than the English did, so let's have a Danish princess marry a Scots prince sometime after the Kalmar Union of 1380 but before it's break up in the 1530s. Denmark needed the trade from Icelandic fisheries even less than Norway did so contacts dwindled so much that the Greenland settlements died out and years would pass without Danish ships bothering to visit Iceland itself.

While the Kalmar Union is still limping along, dynastic politics make a Scots marriage particularly attractive to Denmark for whatever reasons. The usual shenanigans occur during the marriage negotiations and Iceland is thrown into the dowry as a sweetener. The contracts are inked, the marriage performed, the cash and lands transferred, and nothing especially important occurs as a result. No children result, no wars or other diplomatic support arise, and nothing to substantially change history.

Time moves on in a greased groove with Iceland as part of the Scots crown. The Scots are marginally more interested in Icelandic fisheries if only as a way to create more cash in a perennially poor nation so contacts between Iceland and her now overlords remain somewhat constant and somewhat cordial. The Reformation plays out much the same way with Calvinism being imposed on Iceland instead of Lutheranism, in 1603 possession of Iceland comes south with James I/VI, and in 1707 the Act of Union made Iceland part of the United Kingdom.


Bill
 
Top