I am quite pleased with this scenario. I know exactly what happened here, but I'm curious to see how all of you interpret this map. Type in the comments what you think this scenario is and Ill tell you how right, or wrong, you were.
In OTL it was a proposed British colony in present day West Virginia and eastern Tennessee. It was named in honor of Queen Charlotte, thought to be a descendant of the Vandals. An alternate name was "Westsylvania". Now that I think about it, Westsylvania might have been better, but I'm still okay with Vandalia.
I didn't say it was likely, only that they thought so and proposed it as the name of a colony.
I did about 5 minutes of research and thought up this very poor explanation. Tracing back Queen Charlotte's ancestry on her father's side, I could go back to 1090 to Niklot, a pagan chief of a slavic group in modern Mecklenburg. He was an ancestor of the House of Mecklenburg, which is where Queen Charlotte came from before being married to King George III of England. Until pretty recently, "King of the Wends" was part of Denmark's and Sweden's monarchical titles. The Wends were a group of Western Slavic people who also formerly lived in Mecklenburg. In Latin, "King of the Wends" is translated to "vandalorum rex", which also happens to mean "King of the Vandals". Because of this, it might have been believed that there was at least a possibility that the House of Mecklenburg, and thereby Queen Charlotte, were descended from the Vandals.
This isn't a very good explanation, and I didn't think to just look up "Was Queen Charlotte a descendant of the Vandals?", but at least it gives some background. I don't really understand why they would want her to be a Vandal, but hey, more power to'em.
Actually, your wrong. Its VERY silly, but just because its silly that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. For whatever reason, they tried to name the colony "Vandalia" in honor of her. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalia…
The big problem is one of the rallying points during the revolution was that the King had forbidden white settlement west of the crest of the Appalachians. It was never intended to be permanent, but the folks who liked to go carve out new homesteads and towns in Indian country tended to be well armed and prone to doing whatever they wanted which did not lend itself to peaceful governance so the government was trying to put the brakes on these wildcat settlers. It is hard to imagine they would allow people they had just fought a war against to go traipsing off into lands the crown claimed and had planned to settle in a reasonable and orderly manner a few decades down the line.
I don't see that as a problem. When the revolutionaries are forced to migrate west of the Appalachians, they don't exactly ask for the king's permission. They go bringing their families, money, tools, food, and as much livestock as they can herd at one time. They also bring as many guns as possible and continue their guerrilla war against the British. For decades after 1776, the Americans would be fending off the British who would have only superior number and ammunition as their advantages. The Americans would have the terrain, the supplies (local population) and the entire population to back them up. The British would have to sustain long, vulnerable supply lines and get shot at in unknown territory will no hospitality. The Spanish would be secretly smuggling weapons and ammunition across the Mississippi to weaken the British and increase their chances of taking back Florida. The Fredonian Republics wouldn't be powerful or wealthy at all, and they would probably be periodically forced back into the British Empire, but they could most definitely exist.