What if the French had won the Hundred Year war against Edward the III and completely annexed England? What would the rest of history look like?
What if the French had won the Hundred Year War against Edward the III
- Thread starter Romanus696
- Start date
How? The most France could hope for was all the English Continental possessions. Edward III was a fairly legitimate claim to France, if Salic law is ignored. The House of Valois had no such claim and back in the middle ages, that's pretty damn important. Not to mention the logistics of Crossing the Channel with enough troops to conquer England, and getting the population not to revolt against them. The most France could do would be to put a puppet on the throne, but even then, deposing a Monarch outside of Byzantium at the time was essentially taboo.
And lost in a Generation or Two. Governing both realms as a personal union would be very difficult to say the least. I doubt the English would be happy to be downgraded to the same level as Ireland.
Well, the French did briefly claim the English throne by virtue of their descent from Henry II. The elimination of some English princes (i.e, Edward's sons) and a marriage to some English princess would be necessary for starters.
Actually, if the victory is in the 1350s/1360s, you can have the English princelings imprisoned in some remote castle and prevented from fathering Richard II or any other inconvenient grandchildren. The French King (assuming he hasn't married or divorces Joan of Bourbon) or the infant Dauphin can then be pledged in marriage to Philippa of Ulster (born 1355).
Actually, if the victory is in the 1350s/1360s, you can have the English princelings imprisoned in some remote castle and prevented from fathering Richard II or any other inconvenient grandchildren. The French King (assuming he hasn't married or divorces Joan of Bourbon) or the infant Dauphin can then be pledged in marriage to Philippa of Ulster (born 1355).
Last edited:
The population is very low compared to France's though, the imbalance is like 1890 England vs. Ireland. Obviously there are other factors in play, but population wise there's little reason to care about England.
Alex Richards
Donor
On the other hand, England was much more centralised, more efficiently administered and generated more tax income per person than France at the time. Not quite as bad as before the reign of Phillip II, but still a significant difference.
An incredibly tenuous claim but still...didn't Edward III himself claim Scotland, eventually settling for overlordship, despite having only the faintest trace of Scottish blood? If King Charles holds the kingdom in fact and marries Philippa, or betroths her to his son, things could tie up together quite nicely.
Papal approval would also be necessary, to allow the marriage with Philippa (within forbidden degrees I would imagine) and given England's vague status as a Papal fief.
About a quarter or a third (pre plague) - it's still a substantial territory. It'd be like the Burgundy-Valois line becoming kings of France and forgetting the Low Countries, only worse.
Velasco: Edward claimed the right to be feudal overlord of Scotland if memory serves, which is based on some murky stuff I'm not sure of the legitimacy of.
I think any claim to the crown was via some process other than blood descent - Balliol resigning his claim to him or something.
But it's been a while since I looked into that, so I'm not sure.
As far as Edward III's rights to the french crown is concerned, you can turn it to any side but in no way can you find a justification to his claim to the french crown.
Of course, the salic law was an invention. But even excluding the salic law and not having Philip of Valois becoming king, the basic rule of succession or at least of transmission of the right of succession of all monarchies and fiefdoms was :
- boys by order of birth,
- and, if no boys, then and only then girls by order of birth.
After Louis X (and the baby John I), it was either his daughter Joan (and her future son Charles who was not born in 1328, or his brother Philip (V). And it was Philip who became king because he was the second son of Philip IV and because there were doubts on the legitimacy of his niece Joan.
If women could transmit the rights to the throne, then Joan of Navarre and Philip V's daughters would have come before Isabelle mother of Edward III.
Now, if you have the french kings rule England, for example if Louis VIII succeeds in conquering Britain by keeping the alliance of the english nobles, then things become different.
Look at Spain for example, there were many differences and tensions between Castilla and Aragon. They could have parted in the early 16th century when king Ferdinand married again after Isabelle died. However it remained united.
Look at Britain (England + Scotland) : when you have a really strong unbalance, the union can last very long and produce really deap change and unification.
Of course, the salic law was an invention. But even excluding the salic law and not having Philip of Valois becoming king, the basic rule of succession or at least of transmission of the right of succession of all monarchies and fiefdoms was :
- boys by order of birth,
- and, if no boys, then and only then girls by order of birth.
After Louis X (and the baby John I), it was either his daughter Joan (and her future son Charles who was not born in 1328, or his brother Philip (V). And it was Philip who became king because he was the second son of Philip IV and because there were doubts on the legitimacy of his niece Joan.
If women could transmit the rights to the throne, then Joan of Navarre and Philip V's daughters would have come before Isabelle mother of Edward III.
Now, if you have the french kings rule England, for example if Louis VIII succeeds in conquering Britain by keeping the alliance of the english nobles, then things become different.
Look at Spain for example, there were many differences and tensions between Castilla and Aragon. They could have parted in the early 16th century when king Ferdinand married again after Isabelle died. However it remained united.
Look at Britain (England + Scotland) : when you have a really strong unbalance, the union can last very long and produce really deap change and unification.
Yes, you can.
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CAPET.htm#Isabelledied1358
After you exhaust Philip IV's sons (done in 1328), the oldest daughter with issue is Edward's mother.
Philip V takes precedence over Edward of Windsor, but Philip VI does not.
But Joan and her issue are questionable (as you noted above). And Philip V's grandsons:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUNDY.htm#EudesIVDucdied1349B
Eudes's son, rather than himself, obviously.
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands
/FLANDERS,%20HAINAUT.htm#LouisIdied1346B
Louis's son isn't even born in 1328, so he's out at that time.
And the final daughter doesn't seem to have left any sons behind her.
As relates to Philip vs. Edward . . .
Edward is closer to Philip V (his nephew) than Philip VI (some convoluted cousin).
Isabella is also, for what it's worth, Philip V's older sister - though I don't know how this relates to normal succession off the top of my head.
So you can find a very strong justification for Edward claiming that he has a superior claim to Philip VI by primogeniture, no turning to the side required.
Actually--yes and no. There was a Salic Law. But no one had ever thought it applied to the throne of France up until this point, and it didn't operate the way the French claimed it did. Not that anyone cared the first time they did it, because Joan of Navarre was really unpopular, and... well, not exactly ruling a feudal powerhouse.
Unfortunately, the second time....
Last edited:
Well, as you noticed, the daughters of Philip V and of Charles IV would have come before Isabelle and her son.
And Joan of Navarre was never officially declared a bastard.
If not the Valois, then it would have been either the line of Joan of Navarre, or the lines of the 2 daughters of Philip V, or the line of the daughter of Charles IV before the one of Isabelle and Edward.
To have Edward king of France, you need to have the assembly of the barons reject all rules of birthright and elect Edward on the ground that he is either the richest or the best and that as one of the many grandchildren of Philip IV, he is a member of the dinasty.
Problem : the barons wanted the opposite. No foreign king.
No, but her claim is questionable enough that saying it comes before Edward's but not before Phillip's is just blatantly partisan - she and her issue either have a stronger claim than either or neither.
Since they rejected all rules of birthright utterly in picking Philip VI - who does not have the benefit of primogeniture or proximity of blood - Edward has a far stronger claim here.
Only one of Philip V's daughters has a son as of 1328 (the point in which if Edward was going to be king he has the strongest claim by blood) - Jeanne. Margaret (to use the English spelling) doesn't have a son until 1330.
Charles IV's oldest grandson isn't born as of 1328, so his grandsons don't count in 1328.
Philip VI has the worst claim by blood by a long shot.
Not wanting a foreign king is a legitimate concern. Claiming Edward has no claim to the throne isn't.
Well. Joan of Burgundy, the firstborn daughter of Philip V, has à son Philip bien in 1323.
And there was a logic in the access to the throne of Philip of Valois : the principle that only men could transmit rights to the throne. And folliwing this line, Philip of Valois was the rightful heir (firstborn male by the elder male line). Whereas Edward III was in no way of an elder/firstborn line : neither by the male line, nor by the female line.
And there was a logic in the access to the throne of Philip of Valois : the principle that only men could transmit rights to the throne. And folliwing this line, Philip of Valois was the rightful heir (firstborn male by the elder male line). Whereas Edward III was in no way of an elder/firstborn line : neither by the male line, nor by the female line.
Well, yeah, pre-plague the equation is different. My thinking was that the plague would put additional stress on the realm, while also making England substantially less valuable. Though looking at the numbers, they're not really precise enough to say how it changes the balance between France and England. France seems to be around 40% mortality rate, while England is between 1/3 and 2/3, which is of course quite the difference. Assuming the higher number, England would certainly look like a more acceptable loss post-plague. Though I guess that could go either way, depending on the skill of the king. Either he's incapable of holding everything, in which case letting England go comes naturally, or he wants to hang on to everything since he has already lost so much wealth.
E: Maybe the weakened England just resigns itself to a French king, like how Norway was devastated by the plague and became dominated by its two neighbors for about 500 years?
It's actually a pretty interesting idea, come to think of it. Perhaps instead of getting a new king that can effectively push them around, the nobles of England decide that a weak king on the other side of the Channel is pretty nice? Which would basically make France just a bunch of nobles from Yorkshire to Narbonne, who de jure pledge their fealty to Paris, but don't really take it that seriously. Even more interesting if there was some degree of settlement from France, as French peasants move to extremely depopulated England. I don't know how realistic the latter part is, but if any country in Europe has the capacity to refill England (to some degree) it's certainly France. At that point, you're truly sending European history on a completely different track.
E: Maybe the weakened England just resigns itself to a French king, like how Norway was devastated by the plague and became dominated by its two neighbors for about 500 years?
It's actually a pretty interesting idea, come to think of it. Perhaps instead of getting a new king that can effectively push them around, the nobles of England decide that a weak king on the other side of the Channel is pretty nice? Which would basically make France just a bunch of nobles from Yorkshire to Narbonne, who de jure pledge their fealty to Paris, but don't really take it that seriously. Even more interesting if there was some degree of settlement from France, as French peasants move to extremely depopulated England. I don't know how realistic the latter part is, but if any country in Europe has the capacity to refill England (to some degree) it's certainly France. At that point, you're truly sending European history on a completely different track.