Posted on 01/15/2007 12:00:35 PM PST by GWB00
Traumatised by Suez and the fighting in Algeria, a desperate French Prime Minister floated the idea of merging with Britain in 1956 and installing the Queen as head of state of the two countries, the BBC will report tonight.
Records of conversations between Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister, and his Cabinet Secretary, Sir Norman Brook, show that the idea was swiftly dismissed but that serious thought was given to a secondary proposal to make France a member of the Commonwealth.
The minutes have been available to historians for 20 years in the National Archives but their contents was not widely known, the BBC reported today. The discovery has surprised historians in France, where no evidence of the proposal, made by Guy Mollet, the Prime Minister, exists.
The Cabinet record of Mr Mollet's visit to Britain on September 10, 1956, reads as follows: "When the French Prime Minister, Monsieur Mollet was recently in London he raised with the Prime Minister the possibility of a union between the United Kingdom and France," the BBC reported.
A subsequent note, from September 28, 1956, describes a conversation between Mr Eden, a well known Francophile, and Sir Norman Brook:
"Sir Norman Brook asked to see me this morning and told me he had come up from the country consequent on a telephone conversation from the Prime Minister who is in Wiltshire. The PM told him on the telephone that he thought in the light of his talks with the French:
"That we should give immediate consideration to France joining the Commonwealth.
"That Monsieur Mollet had not thought there need be difficulty over France accepting the headship of her Majesty.
"That the French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis."
The offer of an Anglo-French merger — "an indissoluble union" — was made by Winston Churchill in the spring of 1940, as Nazi Germany threatened to conquer both countries, and historians and politicians said today that the Mollet idea was another curio in a long and intense relationship. It prefigured the formation of the European Economic Community, the forerunner of the EU, by just a year.
"I liken the French/British relationship to a very old married couple who often think of killing each other but would never dream of divorce," said Denis MacShane, the former Europe Minister, today. "This is an example of the tortured romance between our two countries that has been going on since William the Conqueror colonised Britain 1,000 years ago."
Mr MacShane also suggested that for all the hostile posturing in the press of both countries, the royal family would have had a loyal following in France — where the film The Queen has been a hit — and that the populations of each country have a strong mutual respect.
Kevin Ruane, a professor of modern history at Kent University who has studied Anglo-French postwar relations, said Mr Mollet's suggestion had been known to historians of the subject for some time and illustrated the intense strain of the looming Suez crisis and the agitations of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptian President, who was funding the Algerian uprising against French colonial rule.
"For the British audience I think this shows that France was extremely worked up over the Suez thing. It wasn't just Anthony Eden," he said. "This shows desperate men at a desperate moment, coming up with a knee-jerk reaction."
"I think if you were to sit down and work out the practicalities of such a relationship you would see it as a marriage made in haste and repented at leisure. You simply cannot put two such nationalist entities, as they then were, together and expect them to get along."
We would have had a great national soccer team!!!
Other than that the 2 peoples have little in common both culturally and spiritually.
The Hundred Years War was fought because France did not want to be ruled by the English Monarch.
The French Revolution was fought because France did not want to be ruled by any monarch at all.
This merger was never close to occurring.
"I find this laughable."
They probably did too.
But stodgy historians reading the notes don't "get it."
Canada ;-)
T'wasnt nuthin but a frog's hop for me, but we've done taken a big 'ole leap for all y'all back there on earth.
Buzz, pull me out some of dem freezed dried Vienna sausages, I'm fixin' to come on back in.
Or we could've been Fritalian.
The fact that they didn't pursue it beyond a few chats indicates that they didn't think it was realistic. But it was not as laughable then as it was now: After all, In the space of less than twenty years Britain and France had gone from being first rank world powers to a state where they still endured meat rationing, unemployment, social damage from the war (orphans, split up families, refugees, emigration of many of their best and brightest, etc), both powers were still struggling to hold onto the tattered remnants of Empire: France in Algeria (Having only recently given up on Vietnam), Britain had lost India and was being kicked out of Egypt (as would become noticeable shortly) not to mention all the general unrest building throughout the African colonies at imperial rule.
Is it any wonder they paused to consider it? After all, both had suddenly been supplanted by both the American and Soviet powers. With the effective end of the Chinese civil war, quickly followed by the Chinese being able to project force in Korea, there was even the danger that China might e erge to overshadow them. We were all luck y to get so much of Mao's inept rule holding them back there!
Now, it is laughable. Back then, the world was a different place and it wasn't as ridiculous an option as it is now. The idea was never a winner, but it would have been briefly tantalising until they realised it would just share their problems and create more at great loss, without solving anything.
Hey Neal...you ate all my moon pies and drank all my Dr. Pepper!
Except it wouldn't be Neil. It would be Billy Joe.
I believe the Queen's titles include Sovereign of France- in recognition that the rulers in London have claimed the the throne of France since Edward III (Henry VI was actually crowned king of both countries). Naturally, the French disputed this from the Hundred Years War right up until Louis XVI foreshadowed the fate of Hussein's half brother.
Figureheads, however little political powers they may actually have, play very well in the European mind. In times of national crisis, Europeans often look towards them as rallying points. Great Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia have such persons. The Pope can also function in such a way (namely in Italy and Poland). The Hapsburg name is making a comeback in Austria and there was recently talk of Russia crowing Nicholas II's nephew titular Czar. Given how much press the Windsors get in France, it would not be surprising for the French to look at Elizabeth II much the same way the English do.
Especially back then when she was young and glamorous. The French (Amongst others) have been known to succumb to a pretty woman with an enchanting face...actually, I suspect they wouldn't be looking at her quite as respectfully as the English do!
"The Hundred Years War was fought because France did not want to be ruled by the English Monarch.
The French Revolution was fought because France did not want to be ruled by any monarch at all."
And in 1939 the french fought Hitler because they did not want to be nazis. Barely a generation later the french central bank was in Frankfurt and the french were all smiles. Never underestimate the perfidity of the french!
This is indeed a prime reason for the desirability of the EU to many constituents, and the reason everyone is so vicious when it come to the proposed constitutional drafts: Whichever one is accepted will decide who runs the show for quite a while. And despite our jokes about their bureaucracy and langages, the fact is that their resources, productivity (in some nations) and skills are impressive. If (Big if) they can ever be joined efficiently, they could shake the world.
Mind you,m the current situation reminds me of the old Yes Minister joke about the Eu ideals vs reality:
Heaven vs. Hell
In Heaven:
the cooks are French,
the policemen are English,
the mechanics are German,
the lovers are Italian
and the bankers are Swiss.
In Hell:
the cooks are English,
the policemen are German,
the mechanics are French,
the lovers are Swiss
and the bankers are Italian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.