Main Page

From Alternate Britain Wiki

British Wars

The following wars involving England/Britain never happened or never get involved in:[edit | edit source]

  • Anglo-Scottish Wars (1377–1575)
  • The 3rd and 4th Anglo-Dutch Wars
  • The War of Jenkins' Ear
  • Dummer's War
  • Anglo-Cherokee War (Attakullakulla still becomes Cherokee leader)
  • Tacky's War
  • Pontiac's Rebellion
  • 1st and 2nd Anglo-Mysore War
  • Anglo-French War (1778–83)
  • Maroon Wars
  • Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars
  • Irish Rebellion of 1798
  • Emmet's Insurrection
  • Anglo-Turkish War (1807–1809)
  • Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)
  • Xhosa Wars
  • Baptist War (1831–1832)
  • New Zealand Wars
  • First Boer War
  • Irish War of Independence
  • Irish Civil War
  • 6th Anglo-Spanish War
  • 2nd Anglo-Dutch War
  • Franco-Dutch War

What if Harold Godwinson wins in the Battle of Hastings?[edit | edit source]

  • Aftermath
  • Family tree
  • Language-wise, English doesn’t import lots of French and Latin vocab on top of a Germanic base. Instead, the Germanic vocab largely remains. However the shift from Old English to the simplified Middle English was already occurring by 1066 so even without the Norman conquest, Englishas a language drops most of its inflected endings and its case system. English still becomes the analytic language that it is today albeit with far more Germanic vocab.
  • King David's Rebellion also the English need total control of Britain to prevent Scotland aiding foreign enemies from the Continent.
  • Culturally, Harold II was firmly against the growing presence of Normans in Anglo-Saxon places of authority. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that England adopts the Norman feudal system under Harold or builds castles or adopts French as the language of the aristocracy. Instead, Englandkeeps its less rigid class structure from pre-1066 and remains as the most efficient economy in Europe (Despite popular belief, William the Conqueror did not bring Anglo-Saxon England economically to Europe’s level. Like Canute before him, William used the existing systems in place to maintain England’s prosperous economy and to organise it further.).
  • England joins the North Sea trade and later joins the Hanseatic League
  • Long term, England politically never aligns with the French sphere of influence as it does IRL, and despite 2 invasion attempts, stays connected to Scandinavia. As Scandinavia’s importance decreases over time, England’s economy becomes more entwined with the Low Countries and the German States on the North Sea coast, maintaining their linguistic links far more than in our timeline. The wool trade would exist in this timeline, keeping relations between England and the Low Countries extremely friendly.
  • England's trading links might have led to the later East India trade (a reaction to the duopoly of Spain and Portugal on trade with Asia) having been a collaboration with the Dutch East India companies (that combined to form the VOC) rather than in competition.
  • Would have intermarried with Nordic princesses, rather than French heiresses like Eleanor of Aquitaine and her ilk
  • Naval strength would be important to safeguard the North Sea trade.
  • In the British Isles, Wales would become subjugated as there are signs of increasing action being taken against the Welsh by the Anglo-Saxons before 1066.
  • However Wales would most likely have a stronger culture and Welsh more widely spoken. The Normans were quick to suppress the Welsh after conquering England
  • As the Anglo-Saxons were less militaristic than the Normans, there is no invasion of Ireland. Instead a total union between the British Isles, would be achieved by marriage between kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.
  • The Anglo-Saxons maintained a more egalitarian society where powerful nobles on the Witan council were kingmakers. This system of governance could lead to conflict over time similar to the power struggle that happened in the Holy Roman Empire between the King, Prince-Electors and the Pope, with English royalty and Witan members feuding for control
  • A series of political circumstances could bring about civil war. Unlike in our timeline where Celtic culture is driven to the extremities of the British Isles, Celtic culture remains more widespread and is able to fuse much more with the Anglo-Saxon and Viking cultures that also exist.
  • In IRL, the Anglo-Saxon Church was not that close to the Papacy, but the Normans brought the English Church under more Papacy influence. As the Anglo-Saxon Church is not fully brought under the Pope’s sphere of influence, the English Church never gains the influence to dominate medieval life. As a result, the Church never gains the power to play the role of Kingmaker as the Pope did with the Holy Roman Empire, and therefore there is less conflict between the monarchy and the English Church. Therefore, the Reformation, originally a power struggle between the German Kings and the Pope, doesn’t gain the traction that it does in this alternate timeline, unless the Pope had managed to take far more control of the English Catholic Church by the 15th Century. In this scenario, the Reformation suddenly becomes quite likely to have originated in England as the Pope is likely to want far more control over religious practices than the Anglo-Saxon Church would have, impinging on the religious freedoms of followers in England. Due to be less involved with the Pope, it is almost certain that England takes far less of a role in the Crusades in the Middle East. However, it is possible that England takes part in Northern Crusades such as the Wendish Crusade, due to the trade potential of the Baltics and to support England's natural allies (Denmark and the Holy Roman Empire).
  • If Harold had won we would have seen an easier separation from the Catholic Church, similar to the Scandinavians. This would have meant less persecution in England, and less destruction of the English Church
  • Many castles (would later be built) and other properties would look something like Dutch or Danish models
  • Without the English Corn Laws we would not have had the Potato famine, for instance, and far fewer Irish in other parts of the World. Irish would have remained stronger as a language so fewer of its songs might have ended up with completely unrelated English words in faraway countries
  • The Hundred Years War (actually a series of disputes lasting well over a hundred years) wouldn’t have happened
  • Kings descended from Harold would have had no claim to French Duchies and therefore no reason to invade France. The English kings would not have claimed the throne of France.
  • No Domesday Book
  • If Richard is born he grows up exclusively in France. His brother John is therefore never King
  • No Magna Carta.
  • Surnames are still introduced
  • Surnames such as 'Gascoigne' and 'Chamberlain' do not exist.
  • England would never have become engaged in French matters, and would probably have had a much better relationship with the French.
  • If Harold had retained his throne after Hastings, it is likely he would have had to regroup quickly and see off the Danes as he had done so the Norse.
  • What If Harold won at Hastings?
  • https://www.pressreader.com/uk/all-about-history/20181031/282737702833846

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Norway_(872%E2%80%931397)

How would the battle have gone down?[edit | edit source]

Harold II would have been fighting alongside his personal bodyguard, the Huscarls. Huscarls were a throwback to Danish rule over England and they were professional soldiers picked for their size and capability. A Huscarl was capable of cleaving clean through a man and horse with one blow from his Danish Battleaxe. Had William made one misstep, if a single man had been looking a different way, or if someone had thrown themselves in front of their lord, Harold could have lived and William died on the field of Hastings. If William fell the Norman army would have been shattered and the English would have routed them.

V2[edit | edit source]

In this AH, the Bretons are not rallied, although William is able to hold his centre and right firm. Gyrth and Leofwine Godwinsson (more brothers of Harold (seemingly Earl Godwin and Gytha didn't have television to distract them at night - Svein, the eldest son, had already died after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem)) were with the advanced right flank of the Saxon army, while Harold was with the centre.

William was now in a tricky spot, with his left flank open. He launched a fierce assault on the Saxon right flank, which did not have the slope advantage. Heavy fighting followed as William tried to eliminate this flank threat. Gyrth and Leofwin both fell, but a very heavy toll was taken of both sides. When both sides were fully committed to this fight, Harold advanced down the slope, sweeping aside the Norman infantry on the left, and William's centre broke.

Military historians have long pondered why it was that Harold took so long to advance. Some say it was caution over abandoning a strong defensive site, and hindsight is a good thing, but it wasn't clear to Harold that such a move would win so effectively. Others have suggested unscrupulous motives - the memory of betrayal by his brother Tostig may have been in his mind, and now the last two brothers had paid the ultimate price to prove their loyalty.

The Norman cavalry was able to escape; William survived. The riders didn't draw rein before reaching the stockade at Hastings. William was in a quandry. He could embark and return to Normandy - safe, but with his tail thoroughly between his legs. Or he could stay and force Harold to attack him in this strong defensive site. Luckily, he had time to think it through, and let his troops and horses catch their breath. Cavalry travel faster than infantry.

He wasn't the first to underestimate the strategic marching power of the huscarls, however. William had taken half a day to decide to withdraw, and his troops were embarking, when the hard-marching huscarls approached the beach. It wasn't a battle. King William of Normandy received the same deal as Harald Hardrada, and Harold had kept the English throne secure.

Denmark Invasion[edit | edit source]

However, he still has 1 enemy to defeat - Sweyn of Denmark had decided not to invade England in 1066 because he had accepted that Harold Hardrada’s claim to the throne was better than his own. As Harold still sits on the throne, in this timeline, Sweyn invades probably using the North of England as his preferred starting point. In our timeline, Sweyn assisted in the Northern Revolt in 1068/1069, so a Danish invasion is definitely possible in this scenario. However, Sweyn is unsuccessful with his invasion attempt, as King Harold has great rapport with the northern nobility and has had time to refresh his military, despite the obvious shared connection between inhabitants of the Danelaw and Denmark. Therefore, Harold is able to consolidate Anglo-Saxon England by 1070. By 1066, Harold already had 3 sons, with the eldest believed to be Godwin so Anglo-Saxon England is secured dynastically for at least 1 more generation. There is still the problem of Edgar the Atheling for the Godwinson dynasty but if the Witan is convinced that the future will be bright under Godwinson rule then Edgar doesn’t manifest as a problem down the line even if he outlives Harold.

Other[edit | edit source]

Harold Godwinson would have became a legendary historical figure, the King who defeated Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge and William the Bastard at Hastings, in a matter of weeks.

The thing is, people generally boil the Battle of Hastings down to the Normans steamrolling the Anglo-Saxons, few people understand how close the battle really was, Harold Godwinson and his indomitable Housecarls were by all accounts winning the battle, and fairly decisively.

The core of the Anglo-Saxon army at Hastings was formed of arguably the finest heavy infantry of the age, 3,000 elite English Housecarls.

‘Anglo-Saxon Housecarls are the forgotten warriors of medieval history. The glorious last stand of the English Housecarls at the Battle of Hastings lasted 9 hours, while much of the Fyrd fled or were cut down by mounted Norman Knights in the open, the Housecarls maintained their fabled discipline and held their shield wall on that hill, these elite warriors fought together long after their king had fallen, surrounded by Normans, they refused to break.’ — Henrey Bradley's Did the Anglo-Saxons have knights?

The Norman heavy cavalry was indeed ahead of its time, early mounted Knights that would go on to dominate the medieval battlefields of Europe in the following centuries.

What the Normans faced as Hastings was a disciplined veteran force of professional soldiers, household retinues of career soldiers, equipped with heavy mail armour the equal of the Norman Knights and deadly two-handed Dane axes, that were used to brutal effect. The Norman assaults were thrown back multiple times, the Housecarls were rooted to the ground, undaunted and unbreakable.

So, what if the Anglo-Saxons had won, what if the less disciplined but more numerous Fyrd had never broken ranks and charged the Normans.

Now, this is where the really interesting history comes into play, because the Norman conquest was followed by many grand building projects across Britain and wealthier regions of Europe.

Case in point being the grand Lincoln Cathedral, the construction of which began in 1072, just six years after the battle of Hastings.

The subsequent prosperous period of English history is mistakenly ascribed to the Normans, however, I would argue that this is not the case, had Harold won the battle and cemented his control of England, the Anglo-Saxons would have enjoyed equal prosperity, and so would the Welsh, Scottish and Irish.

Why on earth is that, you ask? Because of a little known freak period of warming that just so happened to occur in the following 2 centuries.

The Medieval Warm period.

This important warm period resulted in increased agricultural output across much of Europe, notably in the regions on the north Atlantic coast.

Now, contrary to popular belief, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England was actually incredibly well organised and already one of the wealthiest Kingdoms in all of Europe. The Anglo-Saxons minted more coins than almost every other country in Europe with the exception of the Byzantine Empire. The often forgotten prosperity of the Anglo-Saxons was fuelled by booming trade, productive agriculture and mining of the abundant resources across England.

Frustratingly, there is a stubborn myth that the island of Britain and the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, in particular, was some backwater shit hole of no worth, regardless of all evidence pointing to the opposite. Gold, Iron, Tin, Copper and much more was shipped from the shores of Anglo-Saxon England to the mainland of Europe, in huge quantities.

The prosperous Anglo-Saxon Kingdom was littered by fortified towns known as Burhs and cities, built to repel the many Viking invasions.

The society of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom was divided into an incredibly efficient cohesive state, based around Oaths, Honour and Laws;

  • Tithings: A group of ten families, who were responsible for maintaining law and order in their community.
  • Hundreds: A group of ten Tithings, which elected a local Constable to represent the ten Tithings.
  • Shires, what today we call - Counties (Think Pembrokeshire or Lincolnshire, etc): formed of a collection of Hundreds, the head of the shire was the Shire-reeve, aka a Sheriff. (again, think the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire)

Each Shire had its own law courts and was under the control of an Earl, the system worked so well it was more or less preserved by the Normans.

The glorious Sutton Hoo helmet. Imagine facing a prodigiously skilled heavily armoured warrior on the battlefield adorned with a stunning War helm such as this.

So, essentially the Anglo-Saxon kingdom would continue to thrive, the Medieval Warm Period would fuel increased Anglo-Saxon prosperity, with an abundant agricultural surplus, as it did across much of Europe during the following years and the experience of fighting the Normans would lead to the Anglo-Saxons developing their own version of the Norman heavy cavalry, just as the fierce battles against the Vikings from Scandinavia resulted in the development of the Dane axe-wielding heavy infantry in the form of English Housecarls.

The major changes would be linguistically, with less Norman influence would come little to no French words in the English language. Without the Norman nobility, there would be a diminished probability for the countless conflicts between France and England, especially the Hundred years war. France would also not have the kickstart from repeated invasions that directly resulted in the unification of France as a single country. The Norman genocides committed against various groups across Britain, such as the Harrying of the North, which involved roughly 75% of the population of northern England either dying or fleeing and never returning, would never happen, which I think we can all agree is only a good thing. The relationship between the separate peoples of the British Isles would likely be much closer culturally, without the ruthless Norman invasions, conquests and occupations of the territories of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish.

Overall, it would drastically change the history of the British Isles, but I would argue that the overpowered spawn aspect of these islands would remain, eventually, the people of the largest island in Europe would unify. The need to develop a strong Navy and maritime tradition would be apparent and the continuation of martial prowess would not change.

This means the establishment of an Empire would be almost inevitable and later global history would largely play out the same.

What about Normandy?[edit | edit source]

For Normandy, the defeat is huge. With no mature successor, Normandy enters a state of crisis with different nobles trying to gain power until Robert, son of William, is of age. As the French kings do not have much power beyond Paris at this moment in history, Normandy doesn’t fall to the French. Because Conan II of Brittany is still poisoned, Normandy doesn’t fall to the Bretons. However there is a chance that Brittany and Normandy end up combining through marriage or war. Over time, the Normans, with no English territory, focuses its military aggression towards Southern Italy and the Holy Land. This could potentially result with a Southern Italian kingdom forming that becomes culturally more unified than in our timeline.

France does not unify earlier in this timeline as a major reason that France unified in our timeline was because the French duchies faced common enemy - the English Angevin Empire and then later the Hundred Years War, where the French monarchs were able to centralise more power under their control. The shared experience of almost losing their country to the English galvanised the French and helped form the beginnings of a shared French culture across France, further unifying the people into 1 nation. In this alternate timeline, the English are far less involved in French society, so Eleanor of Aquitaine doesn’t marry into the English royal family. As a result, France doesn’t face meaningful opposition close to home that can help unify them into a single nation. Instead, the nobility keep the power of their duchies so the French monarchs are not able to centralise power by the time they do in our timeline. This lack of unity happened to the Holy Roman Empire in our timeline as few external pressures from its neighbours never forced the German city states to unify during the Middle Ages. As a result, France is not properly unified by the times of religious upheaval of the 16th century. Colonially, this has impacts as France doesn’t emerge as an imperial power until domestic survival is assured. As a result, Spain, Portugal, England and The Low Countries gain a head start on colonisation of the Americas.

What if England remained Roman Catholic?[edit | edit source]

I’m taking it the question means there was no Reformation by Henry VIII. Say, the Pope grants his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and he marries Anne Boleyn and then Jane Seymour while remaining Catholic. He has the same three children, but they are all brought up Catholic. How much things would differ is impossible to say, but I’m going to suggest there need not have been very much difference.

France remained Catholic, and that didn’t make it a supporter of Spanish hegemony. On occasion, it even allied with the Muslim Ottomans against Catholic Spain. As a second-level power, England would ally with whichever of the two seemed less of a threat at the time, and might well fight the other, but whichever side it chose wouldn’t make much difference to the broad sweep of continental power politics up to the end of the 30 Years War. Spain would still decline and France would still rise to be the new potential hegemon. Another answer claims there would be major differences to the course of the 30 Years War, but I don’t see why. England had no official involvement in it. English protestant opinion wanted the country to get involved but King James refused, and considered it his wisest decision. He might well have refused to get involved on the Catholic side, too.

The rise of the English Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, would have been affected. Again, it’s hard to say by how much. The Reformation Parliament 1529–36, which saw the House of Commons really flex its muscles for the first time, would not have happened, or would have been just a normal parliament. On the other hand, the Reformation Parliament was something of an isolated event. The parliaments of the rest of the Tudor period were much more normal, so the Reformation Parliament did not result in an immediate step change in the way parliament operated. The Commons’ rise in power matched that of the mercantile class that it represented, and might well have happened even without the blip of the Reformation Parliament.

The other rising protestant mercantile power was the Netherlands. For most of the 17th century, England and the Netherlands were deadly rivals, often at war. No reason to suppose a Catholic England would have been any more friendly.

Irish Catholicism vs. English protestantism added on both sides an emotional edge, and a rallying point, but would 17th century Anglo-Irish relations have proceeded very differently if England had been Catholic too? England would still have been paranoid that an independent Ireland might fall under French or Spanish influence, and would still have regarded the Irish masses as little more than savages. Things might easily have turned out much as they did.

In this timeline, I would see James I as a protestant king agreeing, as a condition of taking the crown, to respect his subjects’ Catholicism, while tolerating the significant protestant minority, which would have suffered but survived some persecution under Mary and Elizabeth. Charles I had Catholic sympathies, and I could see him becoming a Catholic. The Bishops’ Wars, Long Parliament and the Civil War could then happen much as in our timeline, but as Catholic vs. presbyterian instead of episcopal vs. presbyterian. The Commonwealth would be a few years in which England became officially protestant, before a Catholic Restoration of Charles II in 1661. The Stuarts would still not have been able to establish an absolutism as in France, for much the same underlying reasons as in our timeline: England would still have a middle/mercantile class and a strength of civil society and public opinion that France lacked.

Where bigger changes start to become less avoidable is 1688. Although the Glorious Revolution is presented as a particularly English event, it was actually the spilling over into England of the continent-wide struggle between William III of Orange and Louis XIV of France. William invaded England with 10,000 troops and weapons for 20,000 more that he hoped would join him. After James II of England fled, William agreed to a constitutional monarchy similar to that which he knew how to operate in the Netherlands. He was thus able to bring England into the wars on the protestant side, starting the process by which England (later the UK) successfully thwarted France’s attempts at hegemony up to 1815.

A Catholic England would have been less likely to support William and might therefore have remained Stuart — or perhaps William could conquer it and bring the protestant minority to power, but then a second Stuart Restoration becomes more likely.

However, although the Stuarts tended to be francophile, the political and commercial imperative to oppose the rise of France would still be there. The conflicts and personalities of the last few decades of the 17th and first few of the 18th would be different —more Stuart and less Hanoverian— but the outcome might be quite similar: a powerful prime minister side-lining the monarch and directing a consistent and successful policy of containing French expansion, while founding a worldwide commercial empire.

Instead of the UK, there might be a looser federation between England, Scotland and Ireland. English relations with Catholic Ireland might be easier and more peaceful, and with protestant Scotland, more stressful and conflicted, but the military and political fundamentals would be the same, and they would remain together. As the 18th and 19th centuries wore on, instead of increasing tolerance of Catholics, we would see increasing tolerance of protestants, and there we are. Different, but not necessarily all that different.

British home affairs[edit | edit source]

  • Britain is a semi-constitutional monarchy
  • Ireland is a "British Crown Dependency" under a federal model
  • Constitutional Framework of Great Britain was introduced
  • The 1970 Equality Rights Act under Diane Abbott was passed which enacts "systematic discrimination (but not segregation) of British White people"
  • After Labour's win the "Reign of Terror" begins, this is where crime rate escalated (particularly black on white), economy crashed & went into huge debts, medieval disease returned, police brutality and corruption increased (mostly against whites), immigration dramatically increased, public services face massive burdens, NHS reached a 'crises' and hospital bed shortage, increased discount among the UK.
  • In this POD, the 2011 England riots were over 'positive' discrimination against British Whites.
  • As part of the 2011 England riots, the 2011 Sheffield Massacre occurs. (In OTL this never happens)
  • UK and EU successfully agreed to a "Ukraine+" deal.
  • Sasha Johnson was shot, she would later be transferred to hospital but unfortunately passed away on June 8, 2021.

Other[edit | edit source]

If Monarchy was abolished

  • Elizabeth (and her husband) lives and owns Sandringham House in Sandringham, Norfolk, England. Charles and Camilla lives and owns Birkhall at Balmoral in Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Anne and Timothy Laurence lives and owns Gatcombe Park in Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire. William and Catherine lives and owns Anmer Hall in Sandringham Estate, Norfolk. Richard and Birgitte lives and owns Barnwell Manor in Barnwell, Northamptonshire. Andrew and Sarah Ferguson (stay together until November 2019) live and own Balmoral Castle. Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones lives and owns Craigowan Lodge at Balmoral in Aberdeenshire, Scotland
  • Elizabeth Windsor (irl Queen Elizabeth II) alongside Philip Windsor (Prince Phillip) are business partners owning the 'Crown Estate' a property developer, owning all of irl British royal residences and some of irl former ones (thus Phillip and Elizabeth were co-owners and co-chairman of Crown Estate). Phillip and Elizabeth was a patron, president, or member of over 780 organisations, including the World Wide Fund for Nature, and served as co-chairman of The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, a youth awards program for people aged 14 to 24 as well as completed 22,219 solo engagements and 5,493 speeches. They both announced their retirement from business on 2 August in 1997, Phillip was aged 76 and Elizabeth 72 who handed ownership of Crown Estate to Charles, they still continued being patron, president, solo engagements, member and delivering speeches until 2 August 2017, when they retired from public life Phillip is aged 96 and Elizabeth aged 92. Philip died on 9 April 2021, 2 months before his 100th birthday (no national mourning, salute and slightly less coverage on the death)
  • Charles Windsor (and her wife Camilla Windsor) was awarded the CEO role of 'Crown Estate' by Elizabeth and Phillip in 1978 (after his service in the army). Charles still finds The Prince's Trust in 1976 (which he owns), as well as finding and owning Duchy Home Farm, Highgrove House shops, Duchy Originals, The Prince's Charities, Mutton Renaissance Campaign, The Prince's May Day Network and Sustainable Markets Initiative as well as being a patron, president, or a member of over 400 other charities and organisations. As a self-described environmentalist, Charles has spoken publicly about issues such as organic farming and climate change, which has earned him awards and recognition from environmental groups. He also worked on the creation of Poundbury, an experimental new town based on his architectural tastes. He is also an author or co-author of a number of books. Charles would become the chairman and owner of 'Crown Estate' following Elizabeth and Phillip's retirement from business on August 7, 1997 aged 49.
  • Andrew Windsor (irl Duke of York) decided not to involve himself with 'Crown Estate' instead joined United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment (UK Trade & Investment, part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) as well as finding the Pitch@Palace initiative to support entrepreneurs with the amplification and acceleration of their business ideas, founded The Prince Andrew Charitable Trust which aimed to support young people in different areas such as education and training. He also founded a number of awards including Inspiring Digital Enterprise Award (iDEA), a programme to develop the digital and enterprise skills, the Duke of York Award for Technical Education, given to talented young people in technical education, and the Duke of York Young Entrepreneur Award, which recognised talents of young people in entrepreneurship. Andrew lent his support to organisations that focus on science and technology by becoming the patron of Catalyst Inc and TeenTech. is Patron of the multiple organizations. In November 2019, Andrew would permanently resign from all public roles and step down from public duties "for the foreseeable future" over his ties to Epstein he would later be sent to US to formally interrogate Andrew about the matter, a criminal trial started on August 2021 with Andrew facing charges of 2 counts of Sexual assault and battery, 2 counts of rape in the first degree, Sex trafficking of a minor and Conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. 7 weeks later Andrew was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. The Windsor family categorially apologized to the victims and gave them money as compensation and denied their involvement
  • Edward Windsor (Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex) decided not to involve himself with 'Crown Estate' instead opting for a career in entertainment, formed the television production company Ardent Productions but he was forced to dissolve on 14 September 2011, instead working for All3Media, and works as a theatre production assistant at the Really Useful Theatre Company. He also holds patronage within over 70 charities and organisations, including the National Youth Theatre, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and the British Paralympic Association. His charity work focuses on the arts, athletics, and the development of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which centres around fitness, wellbeing and community service. Sophia Rhys-Jones continued working in public relations, representing firms across the UK, Switzerland and Australia before opening her own agency in 1996 as well as working with Capital Radio
  • Harry Windsor (Prince Harry) and Megan Merkel do similar work to irl (but is based in Cotsworlds, Markle Windsor Foundation is never founded but same irl Board of Directors involved with Markle Windsor Foundation is instead involved in Archewell) with headquarters from 25 Moorgate, London, England EC2R 6AY and decided not to involve themselves with Crown Estate. They also live in Great Tew Estate (WestfieldLarge), Chipping Norton in The Cotswolds and Beverly Hills, California and spilt time in both places, they would both permanently live in The Cotswolds in March 2019
  • William Windsor (Prince William) was awarded 'Executive Director' of 'Crown Estate' as well alongside his wife Catherine Middleton owns The Royal Foundation holding patronage with over 30 charitable and military organisations, including the Tusk Trust, Centrepoint, and London's Air Ambulance Charity. He undertakes projects through The Royal Foundation, with his charity work revolving around mental health, conservation, and emergency workers. In December 2014, he founded the "United for Wildlife" initiative, which aims to reduce worldwide illegal wildlife trade. In April 2016, William and Harry initiated the mental health awareness campaign "Heads Together" to encourage people to open up about their mental health issues. In October 2020, William launched the Earthshot Prize, a £50 million initiative to incentivise environmental solutions over the next decade. He also owns Aston Villa F.C.

Help[edit | edit source]

Need help? No problem! We will help you with your wiki as needed. To make a start we have added a few links about working with MediaWiki:

But Miraheze, I still don't understand X![edit | edit source]

Well, that's no problem. Even if something isn't explained in the documentation/FAQ, we still are happy to help you. You can find us here:

Retrieved from "https://alternatebritainwiki.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=2785"