WI: Britain annexes Iceland?

TheNordicBrit

Hey Guys,

According to Wikipedia, Britain was offered Iceland by Denmark in return for 'Crab Island' (now Vieques) in the 1780's. What if, instead of keeping a hold on this island, Britain did relinquish it to the Danish in return for Iceland? What would the affects be on Iceland, North Sea development over the centuries, any form of a 'Viking Revival' in Britain, and of course mainly Britain.

Of course in the 1700's around a third of the population was killed by smallpox, then in 1783 a quarter of the population were killed by the volcano erupting and over half the livestock on the island dying off. But let's say that even with these disasters Britain still annexes Iceland, let's say with a little bit of a hand-wave or something the British still take it.

Could we see Iceland being annexed into the UK? Or is that just ASBish? Could we see a large number of Scots, Welsh and possibly Englishmen moving to Iceland? If so would we see some kind of Scando-British development come up?
 

Major Major

Why, they can move the Icelandic population down to Southern Africa, where they can for no discernible reason whatsoever discard their religion, their culture, their customs, and begin building a super-scientific authoritarian society where only the strong surviv--- *SLAP*

Sorry about that, a sterling virus infiltrated.
 

I Blame Communism

Banned
I can't imagine you'd see any large British settlement: there are many parts of the globe under British rule that are a much more attractive prospect.
 
iori

iori

Hm, ya know, the previous population being decimated might actually be a positive for the British, they don't have to deal with any possible rebellion or major problems from a large local population.

It would likely become a major stopping point for the British between Europe and Canada, resulting in its population growing.

I do wonder if it would eventually be made an integral part of the UK or added on to Canada eventually.
 

I Blame Communism

Banned
Why should it become a "stopping point" just because it's there? The passage to Canada was never particularly difficult. Also note that very large numbers of Icelandic people went to Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which if anything seems even more probable if they're technicallt subjects already. I don't see why iceland's population should be any bigger.
 

Umbral

Might the Icelandic be better off under Britain?

I believe there was a bigger merchant fleet, and since Britain had more naval intrests and conflicts, might the place have gotten more attention?

I don't know much about it, but Iceland seem to have had a probelm with food shortages while having some of the worlds richest fishing grounds It is easy to see a connection with Iceland beeing poor in materials for building fishing vessels. How were the comercial policies of Britain compared to those of Denmark at the time? Anyone know?
 
iori

iori

I Blame Communism said:
Why should it become a "stopping point" just because it's there? The passage to Canada was never particularly difficult. Also note that very large numbers of Icelandic people went to Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which if anything seems even more probable if they're technicallt subjects already. I don't see why iceland's population should be any bigger.
Click to expand...

Because having a major pory half way through the jorney makes the trips easier and cheaper overall, instead of having to say buy a large
ship capable of continuous oceanic voyages with a large hold to hold all the supplies for the entire voyage, you'd only need a ship capable
of trips half the length and not need to be large enough to carry tons of supplies.

It would also shorten the overall trip some to.


As for why it would grow, well any major port grows, and a major port that was part of the British Empire situated between the Home Islands
and one of its most important colonies/dominions would definately see more than just 'port growth'.
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

Umbral said:
Might the Icelandic be better off under Britain?

I believe there was a bigger merchant fleet, and since Britain had more naval intrests and conflicts, might the place have gotten more attention?
Click to expand...

At least more so than Newfoundland, of which the British actively tried to discourage settlement of (but which people still came to settle, particularly people from Ireland, and eventually the British gave up and effectively allowed people to settle there). If Iceland becomes British, potentially it could also allow Newfoundland to get more attention than OTL.
 

usertron2020

Donor
Actually, IIRC, Iceland lost her entire economy to Bernie Madoff. So doing this TODAY would be a HUGE favor for Iceland. But for the UK?:confused:
 

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
TheNordicBrit said:
If there is a large-ish migration from the British Isles to Iceland, what would be the long term affects of this?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone move to Iceland? I would rather expect Icelanders to move to the British Isles (Ulster, the Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, maybe the Scottish Highlands), though not as many as those moving to North America.
 

TheNordicBrit

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy said:
Why would anyone move to Iceland? I would rather expect Icelanders to move to the British Isles (Ulster, the Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, maybe the Scottish Highlands), though not as many as those moving to North America.
Click to expand...

Same could be said of Newfoundland, which had poor weather itself and isn't particularly great to live in.

As said above, there would be growth around ports seeing as it's a stop-off point between the Isles and Canada. Also marvelous fishing grounds around Iceland.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Umbral said:
Might the Icelandic be better off under Britain?
Click to expand...

I really really doubt it, while being a Danish colony wasn't the nicest thing in the world, Danish policies toward Iceland was to keep the Icelandic language alive (it was seen as the orginal Danish), avoiding the country side being depopulated and to build up a native "industry" up.

I believe there was a bigger merchant fleet, and since Britain had more naval intrests and conflicts, might the place have gotten more attention?
Click to expand...

I really doubt it Icelanders in Denmark often got access to the king and he often invested in their pet project. In a oligarchy like UK it would have been a lot harder to get access to the central adminstration, and it would likely have cared much less for developing Iceland, a British Iceland would likely had ended up a somewhat heavier populated Falklands, but a lot thinner populated than Iceland in OTL.

I don't know much about it, but Iceland seem to have had a probelm with food shortages while having some of the worlds richest fishing grounds It is easy to see a connection with Iceland beeing poor in materials for building fishing vessels. How were the comercial policies of Britain compared to those of Denmark at the time? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Irish Famine. While Denmark have a bad reputation for the cereal monopol to Norway and Iceland, it doesn't really compare to the British policies in Ireland, and the monopol was stopped before 1783, where we see the major dieout on Iceland.
 
Dan

Dan

Probably the only differences between Iceland today and Iceland ITTL is that instead of the Euro they'd have the pound, and Icelandic would be similar to Gaelic, Welsh and Scots Gaelic with an oddly accented English as their main language.
The route to get there would be slightly odd, I think they would have had better trading support* and made their money as a trading stop off port as has already been suggested.

In the event of a famine though as per Ireland potato famine, they'd be pretty stuffed if they were as rebellious as the Irish, if not, they'd get some small measure of help but not much, and probably not as much as Denmark would have given.
 

I Blame Communism

Banned
Dan said:
In the event of a famine though as per Ireland potato famine, they'd be pretty stuffed if they were as rebellious as the Irish, if not, they'd get some small measure of help but not much, and probably not as much as Denmark would have given.
Click to expand...

Help was not denied to the Irish people in the Famine because they were rebellious. The last serious rebellion had been the United Irishmen and, although many of its footsoldiers were the disenfranchised Catholic peasants, that was organised by Protestant Belfast weaving types (precisely those who didn't go hungry during the Famine); then there was the Tithe War, but the Irish resistance there was very passive (O'Conell made sure of that) and they won a partial victory. Young Ireland happened because of the Famine and was in any case a damp squib.

The Irish peasants were denied help because they were poor and helpless and allowing them to starve without much reform was more profitable and less troublesome. There in fact was some ineffectual, distinctly patronising attempt at philanthropy - which is what all the wretched of Dickensian Britain got, Irish, English, Scots, Protestant, Catholic...
 
Last edited:

Falastur

Dan said:
Probably the only differences between Iceland today and Iceland ITTL is that instead of the Euro they'd have the pound, and Icelandic would be similar to Gaelic, Welsh and Scots Gaelic with an oddly accented English as their main language.
Click to expand...

Highly, highly unlikely about the language. They would continue speaking Icelandic due to a virtually negligible Anglophone settlement rate and a total lack of land border, which otherwise might allow the lower classes to see English infiltrate their ranks over time.
 

Coyote Knight

Just an FYI, Canada is already home to the largest number of Icelanders living outside of Iceland. This corresponds to well over 88,000. Also, why would the Icelanders settle in England or Atlantic Canada at the time? The industrial revolution left many in Europe crowded and jobless. Combined with the terrible conditions in Iceland at the time and the vast swaths of unsettled land in western Canada, many Icelanders settled out west. That's why Manitoba of all places has most of Canada's Icelandic heritage population.
 

False Dmitri

I think there's no denying that Iceland would have become valuable as a port. It would have, as Iori says, have made the transatlantic voyage cheaper and easier. This would mean an urban British population of a certain size, and probably a noticeably British flavour to the port city.

OTOH, there is no conceivable reason for someone from the British Isles to settle in Iceland's countryside. Iceland is not Ireland or Wales, nor is it Canada. It is not exactly an agricultural powerhouse. I suppose I could imagine enterprising Brits settling in fishing villages along the coast, but not in large enough numbers to make a difference.

As others have said, though, Icelanders would now have an easy shot at moving out to Canada, and would likely do so in greater numbers. Might that prompt the aforementioned British fishermen to take their place?

Iceland might prove an attractive destination for well-to-do British aristocrats looking to get away from it all. Imagine what Byron could do with the sagas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top