AHC: Kingdom of England in HRE

With a POD any time after 1066, your goal is to get the Kingdom of England as member of the Holy Roman Empire.

Bonus Points: Get whichever King you choose have elector status.
 
Richard of Cornwall, second son of King John of England was King of the Romans for quite some time, although he never managed to have any effective power in HRE ... this could easily be changed by getting rid of his older brother Henry III (and Edward I and prehaps Edmund Crouchback) and he would suddenly either be King or Regent of England, from which he could have a better position to influence/bribe the electors into accepting him as Emperor. From there things might happen
 
Have Matilda of England and Henry the fifth (holy roman emperor from 1111 to 1125) have a child, That child get's named emperor of the Holy Roman Empire after Henry's death, and Matilda presses her claim after her father's death. Assuming that they'd win as per OTL and have her elected as queen or her son elected as king.
 
Richard of Cornwall, second son of King John of England was King of the Romans for quite some time, although he never managed to have any effective power in HRE ... this could easily be changed by getting rid of his older brother Henry III (and Edward I and prehaps Edmund Crouchback) and he would suddenly either be King or Regent of England, from which he could have a better position to influence/bribe the electors into accepting him as Emperor. From there things might happen

Even if the King of England was also Holy Roman Emperor, there's no reason why England would join the Empire, and several strong reasons why both the English and the Germans would resist such a move. There's also no requirement that an Emperor be a Prince of the Empire.
 
Even if the King of England was also Holy Roman Emperor, there's no reason why England would join the Empire, and several strong reasons why both the English and the Germans would resist such a move. There's also no requirement that an Emperor be a Prince of the Empire.

Sure, chances of anything actually happening beyond the fact that the King of England happens to be Emperor as well are miniscure ... but weirder things have happened...
 
Even if the King of England was also Holy Roman Emperor, there's no reason why England would join the Empire, and several strong reasons why both the English and the Germans would resist such a move. There's also no requirement that an Emperor be a Prince of the Empire.

Matilda was married to the last Salian Emperor Henry V. Being a Prince of the Empire does however greatly increase once's chances. Apart from the failed experiments with Richard of Cornwall and Alphonse of Castille, in part on instigation of some Popes during that period, every other Emperor had at least also a demesne in the Empire too (that includes Francis Stephen, both Lorraine and Tuscany were considered a part of the Empire).
However England would end like Sicily, Castille-Aragon or Hungary, so the king of England also happens to be Emperor, but the HRE and in this case England are held separate.
 
Last edited:
The king of Hungary and the Emperor were the same person for centuries. Hungary did not become part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Same is true for Naples-Sicily during the Hohenstaufen Era.

I believe that based on these examples, the chance that the Kingdom of England become a constituent kingdom of the HRE, like Kingdom of Germany, Kingdom of Italy and Kingdom of Bohemia, just because the King of England is emperor, is nil.
 
The king of Hungary and the Emperor were the same person for centuries. Hungary did not become part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Same is true for Naples-Sicily during the Hohenstaufen Era.

I believe that based on these examples, the chance that the Kingdom of England become a constituent kingdom of the HRE, like Kingdom of Germany, Kingdom of Italy and Kingdom of Bohemia, just because the King of England is emperor, is nil.

So do I.

And the king of England and emperor would have no reason to make his kingdom of England part of the HRE since he enjoyed far more power in England as king of England than as emperor in the HRE.

So the only way to bring England into the HRE would be some kind of military conquest by the HRE. But then again, I don't see the interest for the conqueror emperor to make England part of the HRE because he is not certain that his descendants will succeed him as emperor, the imperial title being elective.
 
So do I.

And the king of England and emperor would have no reason to make his kingdom of England part of the HRE since he enjoyed far more power in England as king of England than as emperor in the HRE.

So the only way to bring England into the HRE would be some kind of military conquest by the HRE. But then again, I don't see the interest for the conqueror emperor to make England part of the HRE because he is not certain that his descendants will succeed him as emperor, the imperial title being elective.

And of course, it's highly unlikely that the HRE would be able to conquer England in the first place. The Emperors were ultimately unable to subdue Italy, and England would be a much tougher proposition, in terms of unity (Italy was split into city-states, and these were in turn riven by factionalism), logistics (you think maintaining an army across the Alps is bad, try maintaining one across the North Sea), and having rivals taking advantage of your distractions to attack you elsewhere (since it'd be harder to summon back your army from England than from northern Italy).

Maybe if you managed to reunify Charlemagne's empire (so having France and Germany under one monarch), you'd be able to pull it off. Then again, the butterflies created by such a reunification would soon make European history totally unrecognisable compared to OTL.
 
The Emperors were ultimately unable to subdue Italy, and England would be a much tougher proposition, in terms of unity (Italy was split into city-states, and these were in turn riven by factionalism), logistics (you think maintaining an army across the Alps is bad, try maintaining one across the North Sea), and having rivals taking advantage of your distractions to attack you elsewhere (since it'd be harder to summon back your army from England than from northern Italy).

Well, they were able to subdue Italy.

Easily at first. Then easily at the very end.

After all, that's the very reason Otto I became emperor. The Ottonians pretty much ran northern Italy. In fact, the HRE was made up of the Kingdom of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy united.

And Henry III made and unmade popes as if they were German bishops, interfering south of the Alps at will.

It was only Henry IV onward that the Germans had trouble retaining control south of the Alps.

And even after him, Henry VI and Frederick II managed to control Naples and Sicily, though of course they weren't part of the HRE. It was only after 1250 that the Hohenstaufen control of Southern Italy desintegrated.

And even after that, Emperor Charles V pretty much controlled most of Italy. And if Charles V bequeated Italy to Ferdinand rather than Philip, there's no reason why the Emperor won't be able to retain control over Italy. Later on, Emperor Charles VI got control over Sicily and Naples, though he later lost it. But he got Milan, and later on, Francis I brought Tuscany into Imperial control.
 
Last edited:
Matilda was married to the last Salian Emperor Henry V. Being a Prince of the Empire does however greatly increase once's chances. Apart from the failed experiments with Richard of Cornwall and Alphonse of Castille, in part on instigation of some Popes during that period, every other Emperor had at least also a demesne in the Empire too (that includes Francis Stephen, both Lorraine and Tuscany were considered a part of the Empire).
However England would end like Sicily, Castille-Aragon or Hungary, so the king of England also happens to be Emperor, but the HRE and in this case England are held separate.

Francis Stephen was the candidate of Austria and Bohemia mostly...
 

libbrit

Banned
When you consider Hungary, Prussia, Sicily etc, it raises the question, why was it so rare for the Empire itself to expand its official boundaries to include other kingdoms?
 
Well, they were able to subdue Italy.

Easily at first. Then easily at the very end.

After all, that's the very reason Otto I became emperor. The Ottonians pretty much ran northern Italy. In fact, the HRE was made up of the Kingdom of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy united.

And Henry III made and unmade popes as if they were German bishops, interfering south of the Alps at will.

It was only Henry IV onward that the Germans had trouble retaining control south of the Alps.

And even after him, Henry VI and Frederick II managed to control Naples and Sicily, though of course they weren't part of the HRE. It was only after 1250 that the Hohenstaufen control of Southern Italy desintegrated.

And even after that, Emperor Charles V pretty much controlled most of Italy. And if Charles V bequeated Italy to Ferdinand rather than Philip, there's no reason why the Emperor won't be able to retain control over Italy. Later on, Emperor Charles VI got control over Sicily and Naples, though he later lost it. But he got Milan, and later on, Francis I brought Tuscany into Imperial control.

Remember the Kingdom of Italy traditionally was only northen and part of central Italy... If Charles V bequeated Milan (and also Netherlands, I think) to his brother (or give them as dowry to his daugther Maria, who was Ferdinan's daughter-in-law) I suspect both branches of Habsburg will have a much easier life...
 
Francis Stephen was the candidate of Austria and Bohemia mostly...

Which were held by his wife Maria Theresia. She did make a statement by not being crowned Empress, essentially making it his day (everyone knew he had his wife to thank for that).

Remember the Kingdom of Italy traditionally was only northen and part of central Italy... If Charles V bequeated Milan (and also Netherlands, I think) to his brother (or give them as dowry to his daugther Maria, who was Ferdinan's daughter-in-law) I suspect both branches of Habsburg will have a much easier life...

In principle I agree, though both Milan and the Burgundian Inheritance might have been too much. Still the Burgundian Inheritance could have been the dowry of Maria, who was married to Maximilian II. Charles V did contemplate this idea, but was worried Maximilian II wasn't Catholic enough.
Milan was disputed between both branches, but this IMHO seems like a plausible compromise. In other words Philip II loses the Burgundian Lands (the Low Countries, but also Franche Comté), but is compensated with Milan.
Milan was of strategic importance for Austria too, when Charles V granted the duchy of Milan to his son, Philip, and not the Austrian branch it was the first crack in good relations between Charles and Ferdinand.
 
Last edited:
Top