Talk:Personal Union

Indo-British Union

Indo-British Union? I thought we'd long ago (as in QSS) decided that there wasn't the colonization like *here*. Am I mistaken? BoArthur 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess colonisation in India wasn't like it was *here* indeed. I just followed the idea by Elemtilas as he wrote it the I-B U discussion some time ago: for him the I-B U would be something similar to NAL and independent since the 1960's.--Pedromoderno 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

if by the union is meant the coming together of the british counters under some sort of umbrella organisation, then its possible but I doubt it would be like the NAL since that would implied a much stronger colonization on their part. Like Dan, I distinctly remember someone mentioning that the colonization of India did not happen outside of some counters.--Marc Pasquin 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did Padraic make that comment, Pedro? BoArthur 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will put the Indo-British Union out. Guess it was mainly composed by concessions to the FK under payment of a tribute and not colonies.--Pedromoderno 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NB -- the Indo-British Union has not yet been fully described or properly defined. It is some kind of union between the various British colonies and territories in India. I don't think there's a personal union between it or its constituents and the FK, though I wouldn't rule it out. They might have a native (full Indian / full British / mestizo) raja; or they might recognise one of the British monarchs as head of state. As Marc says, this union is a "coming together" of some British territories, and a fairly recent one at that. Perhaps late 1950s or early 1960s. Also, as Marc correctly points out, colonialism in India did not follow the same route as *here*. Only China had a large colonial territory -- the Malabar Coast -- which was later seized by Federated forces during the 1949 Oriental War. The British colonies generally consist of small territorial enclaves in or near big cities and ports. Think along the lines of Goa for size, rather than all of India! It's not correct to say that these are tribute concessions, either. They're outright colonies, generally bought from or otherwise granted by some local raja. Britain has its reciprocal concessions with China (though Hong Kong is not one of them); possibly Japan or some other Asian power. Elemtilas 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Republic of the Two Crowns

As far as *here* is concerned: Sigismund wasn't really recognized as the head of Sweden after 1599. The Swedish råd spent 5 years pushing Karl IX to take the throne, which is why he wasn't actually crowned king. For all intents and purposes, though, Karl IX was acting as king from 1599--when Sigismund jumped aboard his ships and went back to the RTC.

QAA, I think that this same holds true. BoArthur 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)