AHC: Keep England's Continental Possessions

Wouldn't Henry the Young King living do some good, if England doesn't go on the 3rd crusade or at least doesn't invest as heavily into it under Richard, and then lose it's possessions under John.
 
Here is what is probably the authoritative work on the Salic Law. It does not seem to agree with you.

I think you are confusing attornment (which was part of the mediaeval succession process) .with the modern idea of election. When the men of the middle ages spoke of 'election' they meant it in the sense that theologians do - as in " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (Westminster Confessional). Not what modern folk mean by the word, someone being voted into power. God elected Princes. Not men.

The practice of "electing" the sons of Kings in their fathers lifetime was common. It was a role copy of the King of the Romans/ Holy Roman Emperor paradigm. "If the Emperor has his vassals recognise his son as his successor , maybe I should do the same". Difference was, that the HRE really /was/ elective.

I don't think this thread is about Edw III becoming King of France. It is about retaining the Angevin possession in the area now known as northern France.

I will have a look at this link. But at first glance it seems very hyeroglyphical.

You are playing words about election and should admit what all historians have written about the french kings. There was a formal election. It was not a competitive election except at rare exceptions. But it was a formal election and this has a meaning. There was a real competition in 987 and in 1328.
In 1328 the compétition was before the election and they reached a family agreement before the formal election.

I am speaking of Edward III becoming king of France because I think this is the only way for the english king to retain his big possessions in France.
 
It's in Latin. Not hieroglyphic. Any primary source of the period will be in Latin.

As for elected French Kings, by the C13, I can only repeat, humbug.

By the time of Edw III there were no northern possessions to retain. The horse has long bolted.
 
This is not what I meant by "hyeroglyphical". :lol:

I just meant the document on your link is unreadable. There are figures and space everywhere and no clearly readable text unless one takes 1 hour to find where the part of text you are refering to is hidden.
And this latin text is probably a primary source. Primary sources of such an ancient past need to be analyzed.

As far as the election of the french kings, I don't want to be rude but facts and history have been established and proved by historians.

Edward III just could not hold lastingly his continental possessions for the same geographical and demographic reasons as Japan could not have held lastingly its chinese possessions. Whatever you may think of the french of the time, they were not a small group of neolithical indians on an almost empty land.
 
My understanding concurs with Matteo's. For much of the High Middle Ages, the King of France was elected by an assembly of nobles.

As much as I can piece it together, the practice of election seems to have started late in the Carolingian period, as a way of bypassing an incompetent heir or resolving an ambiguous succession. Both France and the HRE carried on the practice. The divergence in actual practice and France's transition to a strict hereditary monarchy seems to come down to a few major factors:

  • The Capetian dynasty had much better "dynastic luck" than their counterparts in the HRE, specifically a long series of competent kings, each of whom had a male heir and lived long enough to arrange for that heir to be elected during the father's lifetime. In the HRE, there were regularly opportunities for the electors to exercise real power rather than just ceremonially confirming the King's geneological heir.
  • The Imperial title itself was a bit of a handicap, especially because of the precedent that the title was in the gift of the Pope. French kings had their sons elected as junior co-monarchs (sharing the title of "King of France"), while neither the electors nor the Emperor had the power to create a co-Emperor without the Pope's approval (when a successor was pre-elected, he was usually elected to the lesser title of "King of the Romans" or "King of Germany"). The requirement for Papal approval also gave the Pope the ability to upset and complicate succession plans.
  • France was simply easier to rule, by virtue of being geographically smaller and more culturally and institutionally homogenous.
 
My understanding concurs with Matteo's. For much of the High Middle Ages, the King of France was elected by an assembly of nobles.

As much as I can piece it together, the practice of election seems to have started late in the Carolingian period, as a way of bypassing an incompetent heir or resolving an ambiguous succession. Both France and the HRE carried on the practice. The divergence in actual practice and France's transition to a strict hereditary monarchy seems to come down to a few major factors:

  • The Capetian dynasty had much better "dynastic luck" than their counterparts in the HRE, specifically a long series of competent kings, each of whom had a male heir and lived long enough to arrange for that heir to be elected during the father's lifetime. In the HRE, there were regularly opportunities for the electors to exercise real power rather than just ceremonially confirming the King's geneological heir.
  • The Imperial title itself was a bit of a handicap, especially because of the precedent that the title was in the gift of the Pope. French kings had their sons elected as junior co-monarchs (sharing the title of "King of France"), while neither the electors nor the Emperor had the power to create a co-Emperor without the Pope's approval (when a successor was pre-elected, he was usually elected to the lesser title of "King of the Romans" or "King of Germany"). The requirement for Papal approval also gave the Pope the ability to upset and complicate succession plans.
  • France was simply easier to rule, by virtue of being geographically smaller and more culturally and institutionally homogenous.

Any way to make the Capetians weaker in that respect?
 
Top