Talk:Alba Nuadh
Pre-league history
If someone looks through their archives of the list, they might be able to find some details to add to (or replace) some elements to history that were concocted by Dan and me a year or 2 ago.
Basicaly, acadia was settled by by french huguenot fleeing persecution. As it was never an official french colony, France (and neighbouring New Francy) didn't interveened when scots attacked the various settlements. Afterward, Lousianna (in need of settlers) accepted to receive the acadians that were being forced out. --Marc Pasquin 16:15, 7 January 2006 (PST)
- Ah, so the Francophone population would be similar to *here*? I'd been assuming that, without the Seven Years' War (and without Loyalists fleeing the Revolution), there'd be more Francophones Nik 20:19, 7 January 2006 (PST)
- As far as I'm aware, Queen Anne or King William III didn't rule *there*. --Sikulu 07:26, 4 May 2006 (PDT)
- Regarding what Sikulu said, I've edited as a temporary measure. Later on, I shall perhaps consider whether Louis XIV's wars would have occured, and what they would be called, and discuss it over on the yahoo group. I've also changes "British colony" to "Scottish colony". Schlock Junkie 15:58, 30 July 2007 (BST)
French Involvement
I've finaly found the following which were written before (and conflict with the proposal):
From: "Daniel Hicken" <bo_arthur@...> Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 5:05 pm Subject: IB: Timeline Correction bo_arthur Here's the change for Acadian history: The Acadians were Huegenot refugees, but the scots drove them out after being rebuffed in their attempt to settle Newfoundland, and NF let it all happen, because, after all, they were heretics. They were thus accepted in Louisianne. Approval? Dissent? DH -------------------------------------------- From: "Kristian Jensen" <kljensen@...> Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:35 am Subject: Re: [conculture] IB: Timeline Correction boreanesia First of all, were there ever huegenot refugees in IB? We know that the Thirty Years War did not exist *there*, and neither did the religious pursecution of French protestants - an act that was closely associated with that war. -kristian- 8) -------------------------------------------- From: "Marc Pasquin" <majan_ca@...> Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:36 pm Subject: Re: IB: Timeline Correction mr_majan Even if their was no active persecution, they might still have left france to found their own "kingdom of god". Not having received a charter to do so, they would have received no protection from france (or its NF representatives). Marc Pasquin -------------------------------------------- From: "Kristian Jensen" <kljensen@...> Date: Mon Jul 13, 2004 6:23 am Subject: Re: [conculture] IB: Timeline Correction boreanesia I agree. But then that wouldn't make them the refugees Dan suggested. They'll just merely be huguenot pilgrims or migrants. -kristian- 8) -------------------------------------------- From: "Marc Pasquin" <majan_ca@...> Date: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:55 pm Subject: Re: IB: Huguenots (was: Timeline Correction) mr_majan they would not have been refugee at first but the scottish aggression would have made them so. It might have gone something like this: The scots, having been granted a charter by their own kingdom, would have started to settle near the acadians with a "live and let live" mentality. In time, tension would have grown between the colonists and the "squatters" (as the acadians would have been deemed from a legal standpoint) until the scots' leadership demand some form of recognision of their authority over them. Since this would have been in the form of an oath (which might include renouncing their faith or at least recognising the pope) they would have refused and told to leave. NF would have refused to take them in for the reasons I described and with a "we won't object but we won't go out of our way" declaration from louisiana, they would have been packed on boats and shiped south which is pretty much what happened *here*. Marc PAsquin -------------------------------------------- From: "Kristian Jensen" <kljensen@...> Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:09 am Subject: Re: [conculture] Re: IB: Huguenots (was: Timeline Correction) Sounds good enough to me. Daniel! Are you listening? How'z this sound to you? -kristian- 8) -------------------------------------------- From: "Daniel Hicken" <bo_arthur@...> Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:16 pm Subject: Re: IB: Huguenots (was: Timeline Correction) bo_arthur I like the idea. I support it.
I suggested before that the islands in the saint lawrence gulf would have been a different colony. Quoting myself (from the 1750 north-american map):
The french territory is the same as was *here* at that period altough the "St-Lawrence Islands" is a fictional creation. *Here* after the treaty of utrecht, the province of acadia lost its mainland component but kept Royal Island, St-John Island and the settlement of Plaisance (on what *here* is newfoundland) which came to be known as Acadie-Plaisance. Even though *there* France never officialy claimed Acadia (which was settled without charter by french huguenots), the kingdom would have still been interested in both protecting the entry to the St-Lawrence and having easy access to the fishing banks.
For those reasons, I propose that the French goverment would have created a maritime province (starting at the same time as *here* they were settled) which would have also included St-Piere-et-Miquelon, the Magdalene Islands and Anticosti (the last 2 *here* belong to Quebec). The Islands would have stayed French province until the french revolution when they would have been occupied by New Francy to prevent a landing by republican forces.
At some point in the early 19th century (and after the Covenant), there would have been talks made to settle various territorial dispute between NAL and New Francy (as good neighbours do). New francy would have accepted to renounce any claims on the pays-d'en-haut in exchange for a land bridge to the hudson bay and free right of passage on the great lake and down the mississipi. In addition, they would have ceded Isle-Royal and Isle-St-Jean (but kept Anticosti and the Magdalenes) to New Scotland in exchange for contiguous lands in the north-west part of the province and a certain monetary amount. On the Neofrancian side, this would diminished cost in term of defence and maintaince while ensuring that the new owner would not be too Republican friendly. On the NAL side, this increased its territory without having to go through the trouble of fighting for it.
Also, I don't realy like this part:
In 1808, the islands [Île Saint-Jean et Île Royale] petitioned the NAL for admission.
We have already used the "petitioned for entry" on most of the other previously french territories so how 'bout doing something different. I proposed on another talk page that the islands would have been part of an exchange of territory between New scotland and New Francy at one point
lastly, why is english an official language ? by all account the place is fully scottish (i.e. not a condominium). Francian I understand if there is enough acadian left (and since they've been there for long) but english seem to have no reason.
--Marc Pasquin 06:09, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- Very good points. Perhaps the islands were given to the NAL (or whatever bit they are attached to) after the War of 1755, or even captured during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. --Sikulu 06:13, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- It has been stated before that New Francy and NAL were somewhat allied during the revolution (common ennemy) so invading what the first perceived as its "protectorate" would have been a bad idea. The advantage of the exchange of lands is that it explain the bit south of NF's Gaspesia (which wasn't a part of New France) --Marc Pasquin 06:27, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- Territorial exchange does sound good, but then why would New France give up such a strategic advantage, unless the NAL payed along with the territorial modifications. I personally think that they were captured during the War of 1755. --Sikulu 06:36, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- New France was no more and New Francy had were more concerned with ensuring the integrality of its territory. Easier to protect a contiguous part of land then 2 islands. --Marc Pasquin 06:41, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- And I suppose New Francy were looking to pad the southern border a bit. I guess some money on the NAL part was involved (even if it wasn't too much). So, is it agreed that the territorial exchanges happened at/just after the independence of New Francy? --Sikulu 06:46, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- Are the Magdalen Islands part of Nova Scotia or New Francy? It looks like the former from most maps. --Sikulu 06:49, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- New Francy. Kept it due to its importance to the fishing industry (and because its part of Quebec *here*) --Marc Pasquin 06:52, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- I would assume whoever did it thought they were outlying islands of the other 2.--Marc Pasquin 07:08, 24 February 2006 (PST)
Reverting
the reason I reverted it is that the history still conflict (especialy in term of the acadians) with QSS as I had written above. --Marc Pasquin 19:10, 20 July 2006 (PDT)
- I saw that, and thanks for catching that :) BoArthur 19:30, 20 July 2006 (PDT)
New Brunswick?
Am I correct in thinking that what *here* is called New Brunswick would *there* be part of Alba Nuadh? Zahir 08:48, 23 November 2006 (PST)
- It is, except for the northern part (acadia) which is part of New Francy --Marc Pasquin 16:45, 23 November 2006 (PST)
DeProp?
This page hasn't been touched since 2006. Comments? If none, we should deprop this. BoArthur 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- the point regarding the acadian hasn't been adressed so the owner of this page should make the changes before the page being deproped.--Marc Pasquin 19:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to the edit log, but bulk of the edits are from Nik -- I'm inclined to go along with whatever you had particularly in mind for the area. I'll see if I can't congeal something from the discussion. BoArthur 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
