What might happen if John Lackland dies after signing the Treaty of Le Goulet but before he marries Isabella of Angouleme. I'm guessing Arthur would succeed him, but is there anything else I'm missing?
WI: King John dies after Le Goulet?
- Thread starter ByzantineLover
- Start date
It is customary to wait for more than one hour, much more actually, before bumping.
Anyway.
The likely regency of Constance isn't going to be warmly accepted, especially in England, and maybe in Aquitaine as well. We could even see a civil war for regency between Eleonor (with possibly a formal claimant for regency) and Constance.
Even without this, Constance is going to be almost systematically opposed by part of nobility at the point I think Arthur and his mother may have to stay in France (Normandy or Anjou).
I'd think that Philippe Auguste would support again Arthur ITTL, as it would be far more fit both customary rules, and to weaken even more the Angevine fabric. We may even see the marriage with Blanche of Castille being butterflied away.
The situation would likely benefit the Capetians (both Philippe and his son, Louis), that may push their advantage with extending the treaty (or making a new one) after some time.
Eventually, while Arthur survived his prime infancy and should likely survives in a first time, an early death in his teens would make Hell breaking loose. Plantagenet dynasty had not much possible heirs at this point, safe Philippe de Cognac (but his claim is at best bad), with possibility for Scottish, Tolosan or even Castillan claimants.
Even without that, Arthur's reign would probably see a rise of power of English and French nobility of the Angevine hegemony, at least in a first time, with Philippe being the arbitle (or at least trying to do so, with good reasons and ressources for that) of his different vassals (Arthur or Arthur's vassals) conflicts.
Anyway.
The likely regency of Constance isn't going to be warmly accepted, especially in England, and maybe in Aquitaine as well. We could even see a civil war for regency between Eleonor (with possibly a formal claimant for regency) and Constance.
Even without this, Constance is going to be almost systematically opposed by part of nobility at the point I think Arthur and his mother may have to stay in France (Normandy or Anjou).
I'd think that Philippe Auguste would support again Arthur ITTL, as it would be far more fit both customary rules, and to weaken even more the Angevine fabric. We may even see the marriage with Blanche of Castille being butterflied away.
The situation would likely benefit the Capetians (both Philippe and his son, Louis), that may push their advantage with extending the treaty (or making a new one) after some time.
Eventually, while Arthur survived his prime infancy and should likely survives in a first time, an early death in his teens would make Hell breaking loose. Plantagenet dynasty had not much possible heirs at this point, safe Philippe de Cognac (but his claim is at best bad), with possibility for Scottish, Tolosan or even Castillan claimants.
Even without that, Arthur's reign would probably see a rise of power of English and French nobility of the Angevine hegemony, at least in a first time, with Philippe being the arbitle (or at least trying to do so, with good reasons and ressources for that) of his different vassals (Arthur or Arthur's vassals) conflicts.
Sorry. In my impatience, I forgot.
Eleanor isn't long for the world at that point, and I think Arthur would be mainly under the influence of his mother. What about a compromise regent, like William Marshal? Failing that, could there be a chance for England to break away under a different king, if they wanted to?
I can see why the situation would benefit the Capetians, but why would Louis' marriage to Blanche be annulled? Surely Philip would want an ally on the Angevin's southern border?
If not Blanche, maybe a double marriage between Arthur and Louis to Sancha and Dolca, Alfonso II of Aragon's youngest daughters? A similar setup to what happened with Henry III, Richard of Cornwall, Louis IX and Charles of Anjou. IIRC, their wives were all sisters and apparently that helped diplomatically.
I'd think, if Arthur dies without surviving issue, the sons of Matilda Plantagenet and Henry the Lion would have the best claim. Henry, Count Palatine of the Rhine, the future HRE Otto IV or William of Luneberg.
It's seeming more and more inevitable to me that the Angevin Empire is going to fall apart anyway. The only question is would Arthur get the same treatment as John if it happened under him?
It didn't prevented her to play an important political role up to her death, IOTL.
And if wishes were horses...If Eleanor manages to efficiently pull her objectives, with a likely English-Aquitain support, Constance wouldn't have much to do.
Too close from English nobility to make a compromoise regent. Remember that he was chosen as regent IOTL during the French invasion for this reason.
Eventually, whatever William Marshal or Hubert de Burg, I would rather see them side with Eleanor ITTL.
Assuming, of course, that Constance or Eleanor would ever really be tempted by a compromise : both of their IOTL lives doesn't really make me thinks they would go this way.
I don't think so : Arthur, with John feeding worms, would be the only clear heir for England, and English nobility wasn't that wild that it would want an Anarchy Mark 2, assuming Arthur's legitimacy would even be handwaved that easily when it was an important ideological point.
That's why you'd likely have struggles around the young king and his regency.
Blanche de Castille marriage wasn't related to Franco-Castillan policies, but Franco-Angevine.
Basically, the Treaty of Goulet, in order to cement the peace between John and Philippe (as it often happened) included a matrimonial union with one of Eleanor's grand-daughters and Blanche was chosen.
With Philippe switching sides to support Arthur, the reasons for this union would likely be moot.
Possible, but an union with one of Philippe's daughters, as planned IOTL, may be likely.