Angevin France

If Louis VII's son Philip dies in the womb, this exposes the lands of the French Royal Demesne and the throne to conflict among the leading noble houses in France on the death of the old king in 1180. Lets say as Henry II of England, with the combined resources of his various realms, invades Ile-de-France and captures Paris, at the expense of Robert I Count of Dreux (Louis' brother) and perhaps Hugh III Duke of Burgundy. Would the union of the French and English crowns long survive his death? How likely is it that this unified monarchy survives with people like Henry the Younger (barring any tourney accidents) Richard of Aquitaine, Geoffrey of Brittany and John Lackland succeeding Henry Curtmantle?
 
The scenario you mention doesn't necesserarily requires to have Philip die in the womb of his mother. If he is born a girl or dies childless, the situation becomes pretty much the same.

As much as it seems possible, I'm not sure Henry II would be interested in the conquest of France. For one, he has no inheritance rights on it. Then, there is the mess this situation would represent.

The possible candidates to the French throne in this scenario would be the following ones :
Henri I of Champagne (1127-1181) - Count of Champagne and husband of Marie of France, eldest daughter of Louis VII. He had four children with his wife, including Henri II of Champagne (who later became King of Jerusalem) and Theobald III of Champagne.
Theobald V of Blois (1130-1191) - Count of Blois and brother of the former. Husband of Alix of France, second daughter of Louis VII. With her, he had seven children including his successor, Louis of Blois.
Henry the Young King (1155-1183) - Eldest son of Henry II Plantagenêt and co-King of England. Husband of Margaret of France, third daughter of Louis VII. The couple had a stillborn son (William) and the difficult pregnancy seems to have rendered Margaret sterile (she didn't had any children from Henry after the death of her stillborn, neither did she have one from her second husband Bela III of Hungary).
Richard the Lionheart (1157-1199) - Second son of Henry II Plantagenêt and in charge of the Duchy of Normandy. He is fianced to Alix de France, fourth daughter of Louis VII, but his claim would only be strong if he married her.
Robert I of Dreux (1125-1188) - Younger brother of Louis VII and his closest male relative. Salic Law would make him heir, but it wasn't officially applied before 1316 OTL, so it doesn't make him the only heir available. From three marriages, he had twelve children, including his son and heir Robert II.

This makes us with three sides in the possible Successoral War :
-The House of Blois-Champagne : The Blois-Champagne were extremly powerful at that time. With the eldest branch being Counts of Champagne and the cadet being Counts of Blois, they were encircling the Royal Dosmaine. Plus, Louis VII's third wife, Adèle, was from that family. They could also count on Henry White Hands, Archbishop of Rheims.
-The Angevins/House of Plantagenêt : Of the three sides, they have the lowest claim but are the strongest in France since they hold the whole Western half (Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Tourraine, Aquitaine and Britanny). Problem is that the family is far from United.
-The Remaining Capetians : This includes Robert I of Dreux, but also the last brother of Louis VII, Peter of Courtenay. This also includes Hugh III of Burgundy, who is a distant cousin but could support them for family reasons. One of Robert of Dreux's sons is also Bishop of Orléans, making him one of the twelves peers of France.

Two of the six Ecclesiastical peers could be supporting one side because of Family as I mentionned in the description. I don't really know how the Four remaining would play their part.
It leaves us with the six laïc peers, but four of them (Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Count of Champagne, Duke of Burgundy) are already linked to one of the sides. This leaves us only the following two :
Philip of Alsace, Count of Flanders - His policy were generally playing on a balance between the French and English Kings. I think he is pretty much a wild card in that scenario.
Raymond V, Count of Toulouse - Forced Vassal of Henry II, he is the husband of Constance, sister of Louis VII and Robert I of Dreux. Doubt he would support the Angevins, but don't know if he could support the Capetians : his situation is pretty bad at that point.

With the situation being the one I described, I'm not sure Henry II would be willing to push for one of his son to be the French King. That and there is also the fact it could be kind of risky : Henry's sons (except for John who was Henry's favorite) were very rebellous. Giving them the French crown could give them more power and would be risky.

I'm not saying this id impossible. Once I have finished my Napolenic Timeline (which I should update...), I was thinking on making a timeline working on that scenario (well, something close at least). But, I just pointed out the main difficulties.
 
Thanks for the info. Looking at the workings of the Plantagenet Empire and its French peers, I was wondering on how to at least keep the "empire" together in the long term. I thought the most plausible was the elimination of the Capetians on the Frankish throne. Henry Curtmantle may have had no claim, but he was undisputedly the most powerful prince on both sides of the English Channel. It just seems weird to have him paying homage to someone that whom really just controls this one county in northern France. Perhaps Henry II was comfortable with all he possessed, but his successors would pay the price for ignoring the Capetians.
 
The scenario you mention doesn't necesserarily requires to have Philip die in the womb of his mother. If he is born a girl or dies childless, the situation becomes pretty much the same.

As much as it seems possible, I'm not sure Henry II would be interested in the conquest of France. For one, he has no inheritance rights on it. Then, there is the mess this situation would represent.

The possible candidates to the French throne in this scenario would be the following ones :
Henri I of Champagne (1127-1181) - Count of Champagne and husband of Marie of France, eldest daughter of Louis VII. He had four children with his wife, including Henri II of Champagne (who later became King of Jerusalem) and Theobald III of Champagne.
Theobald V of Blois (1130-1191) - Count of Blois and brother of the former. Husband of Alix of France, second daughter of Louis VII. With her, he had seven children including his successor, Louis of Blois.
Henry the Young King (1155-1183) - Eldest son of Henry II Plantagenêt and co-King of England. Husband of Margaret of France, third daughter of Louis VII. The couple had a stillborn son (William) and the difficult pregnancy seems to have rendered Margaret sterile (she didn't had any children from Henry after the death of her stillborn, neither did she have one from her second husband Bela III of Hungary).
Richard the Lionheart (1157-1199) - Second son of Henry II Plantagenêt and in charge of the Duchy of Normandy. He is fianced to Alix de France, fourth daughter of Louis VII, but his claim would only be strong if he married her.
Robert I of Dreux (1125-1188) - Younger brother of Louis VII and his closest male relative. Salic Law would make him heir, but it wasn't officially applied before 1316 OTL, so it doesn't make him the only heir available. From three marriages, he had twelve children, including his son and heir Robert II.

This makes us with three sides in the possible Successoral War :
-The House of Blois-Champagne : The Blois-Champagne were extremly powerful at that time. With the eldest branch being Counts of Champagne and the cadet being Counts of Blois, they were encircling the Royal Dosmaine. Plus, Louis VII's third wife, Adèle, was from that family. They could also count on Henry White Hands, Archbishop of Rheims.
-The Angevins/House of Plantagenêt : Of the three sides, they have the lowest claim but are the strongest in France since they hold the whole Western half (Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Tourraine, Aquitaine and Britanny). Problem is that the family is far from United.
-The Remaining Capetians : This includes Robert I of Dreux, but also the last brother of Louis VII, Peter of Courtenay. This also includes Hugh III of Burgundy, who is a distant cousin but could support them for family reasons. One of Robert of Dreux's sons is also Bishop of Orléans, making him one of the twelves peers of France.

Two of the six Ecclesiastical peers could be supporting one side because of Family as I mentionned in the description. I don't really know how the Four remaining would play their part.
It leaves us with the six laïc peers, but four of them (Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Count of Champagne, Duke of Burgundy) are already linked to one of the sides. This leaves us only the following two :
Philip of Alsace, Count of Flanders - His policy were generally playing on a balance between the French and English Kings. I think he is pretty much a wild card in that scenario.
Raymond V, Count of Toulouse - Forced Vassal of Henry II, he is the husband of Constance, sister of Louis VII and Robert I of Dreux. Doubt he would support the Angevins, but don't know if he could support the Capetians : his situation is pretty bad at that point.

With the situation being the one I described, I'm not sure Henry II would be willing to push for one of his son to be the French King. That and there is also the fact it could be kind of risky : Henry's sons (except for John who was Henry's favorite) were very rebellous. Giving them the French crown could give them more power and would be risky.

I'm not saying this id impossible. Once I have finished my Napolenic Timeline (which I should update...), I was thinking on making a timeline working on that scenario (well, something close at least). But, I just pointed out the main difficulties.
You forgot about the House of Barcelona that holds Eastern Languedoc and Provence.
 
Lysandros Aikiedes said:
Thanks for the info. Looking at the workings of the Plantagenet Empire and its French peers, I was wondering on how to at least keep the "empire" together in the long term. I thought the most plausible was the elimination of the Capetians on the Frankish throne. Henry Curtmantle may have had no claim, but he was undisputedly the most powerful prince on both sides of the English Channel. It just seems weird to have him paying homage to someone that whom really just controls this one county in northern France. Perhaps Henry II was comfortable with all he possessed, but his successors would pay the price for ignoring the Capetians.

Getting rid of Philip II Augustus would probably save the Angevin "Empire" as you said. Up until him, the Capetians were still weak and not much of a threat : Louis VI and Louis VII has started administrative reforms, but Philip II was the one who strenghtened the Capetian control on France.

The idea of placing a Plantagenêt on the throne is not a bad one, but I'm not sure Henry Curtmantle would use the right of conquest to install himself as King of France. As for placing one of his sons, he could but that's risky. Yet, that might be a strategy to ease the relationships between the family.

The Plantagenêts had two weak points that doomed their "Empire". The rise of the Capetians was the first, the Plantagenêt family was the second. Your scenario gets rid of the first weak point, but the second remains. Henry didn't liked his sons (except for John), and his sons were not only competing with their father but also between themselves.

kasumigenx said:
You forgot about the House of Barcelona that holds Eastern Languedoc and Provence.

The Count of Barcelona wasn't a peer of France, which is why I didn't mentionned him. Besides, he was no longer a French Vassal since the 920s if I remember correctly.

As for Provence, it wasn't yet part of the French Kingdom. It only became part of it thanks to Louis IX's (Saint Louis) marriage to Margaret of Provence.
 
Getting rid of Philip II Augustus would probably save the Angevin "Empire" as you said. Up until him, the Capetians were still weak and not much of a threat : Louis VI and Louis VII has started administrative reforms, but Philip II was the one who strenghtened the Capetian control on France.

The idea of placing a Plantagenêt on the throne is not a bad one, but I'm not sure Henry Curtmantle would use the right of conquest to install himself as King of France. As for placing one of his sons, he could but that's risky. Yet, that might be a strategy to ease the relationships between the family.

The Plantagenêts had two weak points that doomed their "Empire". The rise of the Capetians was the first, the Plantagenêt family was the second. Your scenario gets rid of the first weak point, but the second remains. Henry didn't liked his sons (except for John), and his sons were not only competing with their father but also between themselves.
Yes, also having Philippe Augustus born as a female will work.
 
Regarding the count of Barcelona and the crown of France, in practice the count of Barcelona was independent; but in theory (very formal sense) there still was a feudal relation. This feudal relation was only ended with the treaty of Corbeil (between France and Aragon-Barcelona) in 1258.

Without Philip II Augustus Artois would have remained a part of Flanders, since the count of Flanders gave it as dowry to his niece, when he arranged her marriage with Philip II Augustus, when he was his guardian.
Furthermore Flanders also controlled Vermandois, Amiens and Valois, but Philip of the Alsace was childless and the Flemish house of the Alsace could go extinct. Philip of the Alsace might support the candidate, who offers him the best succession arrangement and preferably doesn't hurt the economic development of his prosperous counties.
 
Last edited:
The idea of placing a Plantagenêt on the throne is not a bad one, but I'm not sure Henry Curtmantle would use the right of conquest to install himself as King of France. As for placing one of his sons, he could but that's risky. Yet, that might be a strategy to ease the relationships between the family.

The Plantagenêts had two weak points that doomed their "Empire". The rise of the Capetians was the first, the Plantagenêt family was the second. Your scenario gets rid of the first weak point, but the second remains. Henry didn't liked his sons (except for John), and his sons were not only competing with their father but also between themselves.

That's true about the early Plantagenets being their own worst enemies. Perhaps if the French monarchy were kept weak for a sufficient time after the death of Louis VII, until one of Henry's surviving heirs, through marriage to the Capetian line, could secure the French crown for their progeny. A long drawn and uncertain process that would take years, but at least there may be a chance that Henry the Younger, Richard or John might not have anyone to challenge them for their continental fiefdoms for a long time.
 
What's perhaps slightly more likely is a HRE like situation. Henry I of Champagne takes the throne, but with the arrangement that he will respect the boundaries of the other feudal lords and not confiscate any lands if one of the other lines goes extinct/gets into trouble. Fast forward a century or so and the Angevin Duchies (multiple by this point, with branches ruling independently in Aquitane, England-Normandy and Anjou), the Duchy of Burgundy etc., and the now seperate but dynastically linked Duchy of Champagne with the King of France usually being one of the members of the Champagne family, but acting as a weak overlord.
 
So it may be enough to keep the French Crown weak, and the Plantagenet dynastic federation in the west as the permanent "protectors" of the French Royal Demesne?

Before the conquests of Greater Anjou and Normandy by Philip Augustus in 1204, there were a large number of Angevin and Anglo-Norman nobles with estates on both sides of the Channel. The war between Philip and John was putting them in an unenviable situation. If they chose to side with Philip, they had to lose their estates in England. If they declared their support for John, they had to say goodbye to their ancestral homelands in France. Many would, during the truces between Engalnd and France between 1204 to 1244, try to legally negotiate their restoration of ownership of their estates in France.

Only a few powerful lords, such as William Marshal 1st Earl of Pembroke, whom owned estates in places as geographically diverse as England, Normandy, Wales and Ireland, were able to make a compromise in keeping all his lands on both side of the English Channel despite the enmity of King John and Philip II.

There would be a very large pan-regional aristocracy with fiefdoms all over the shop as long as the Angevin Empire endures, with Counts, Barons and Knights holding land in lieu to different overlords. Would or could this situation only increase the possibility of the trans-ducal class of warrior-landowners acting in cohesion in the future, leading them to curb the ability of the overlords on making war with each other? Perhaps leading to a parliamentary force with ruling interest in both England and France?
 
Last edited:
I agree that the House of Champagne would take the French throne.
It's probably helped that Phillipe's mother Adele/Alice is the sister of Count Henry.
Once it is clear that she will not have Louis's son she will probably start manoeuvring towards Henry or later his son (and her nephew) acceding.
Perhaps she can get Louis to put it into his will or declare the succession?
A declared succession would be useful in limiting any confrontation with the Angevins.
 
In a scenario where the Plantagenets were to eventually wrest the French crown from the House of Champagne in the 1200's , I reckon that they would relocate the royal capital of France from Paris to either Chinon or Angers in Anjou. Flanders, Blois, Champagne, Burgundy and Toulouse would remain autonomous, but subjugated and on the fringe of the Angevin realm.
 
Lysandros Aikiedes said:
In a scenario where the Plantagenets were to eventually wrest the French crown from the House of Champagne in the 1200's , I reckon that they would relocate the royal capital of France from Paris to either Chinon or Angers in Anjou. Flanders, Blois, Champagne, Burgundy and Toulouse would remain autonomous, but subjugated and on the fringe of the Angevin realm.

I'm not sure they would relocate the French Capital... I'm not sure about this, but I think Paris was already a quite attractive city at that point. But I may be wrong.

I agree Angers would be a good choice if the French capital were to be relocated in this scenario, since this city is the "capital" of Anjou. My second choice would be Rouen rather than Chinon though. After all, the Angevins were heirs to the Anglo-Normans and Normandy was sort of halfway between England and France.
 
I'm not sure they would relocate the French Capital... I'm not sure about this, but I think Paris was already a quite attractive city at that point. But I may be wrong.

I agree Angers would be a good choice if the French capital were to be relocated in this scenario, since this city is the "capital" of Anjou. My second choice would be Rouen rather than Chinon though. After all, the Angevins were heirs to the Anglo-Normans and Normandy was sort of halfway between England and France.

On one hand, Paris is a decent sight for a capital. But if the Plantagenet kings needed to permanently solidify their hold on both England and France, they might want to either move the capital to somewhere logistically viable.

Anjou sort of also makes sense, as this is the hereditary homeland of the dynasty, and the reason why the dynasty are called "Angevins".

Rouen or Caen aren't bad either. Normandy is one of the better administrated realms and the true foundation of the realm.

Or London. England is the better controlled realm of all the Norman-Angevin realms, a model of political centralization and the main tax-base. But if a united kingdom of England and France was to be formed in the High Middle Ages, the seat of power might be better placed on French soil.
 
On one hand, Paris is a decent sight for a capital. But if the Plantagenet kings needed to permanently solidify their hold on both England and France, they might want to either move the capital to somewhere logistically viable.

Anjou sort of also makes sense, as this is the hereditary homeland of the dynasty, and the reason why the dynasty are called "Angevins".

Rouen or Caen aren't bad either. Normandy is one of the better administrated realms and the true foundation of the realm.

Or London. England is the better controlled realm of all the Norman-Angevin realms, a model of political centralization and the main tax-base. But if a united kingdom of England and France was to be formed in the High Middle Ages, the seat of power might be better placed on French soil.
Why not Tours, since the standard french is based on the dialect of Tours.
 
The Plantagenet capital would need to be placed somewhere in between the major domains. Most of the major landowners had estates in Normandy and England, so the kings would need to have their headquarters located where he could keep an eye on them. In practice, Medieval rulers could and did hold court wherever they pleased, but they needed some place defensible and commercially active to run their kingdom. And for anyone wishing to centralize a significant number of autonomous realms permanently, it would help if they didn't just lease over whole duchies to their sons or vassals. But, as I've mentioned earlier, if the Angevin/Anglo-Norman nobility were to act in cohesively against royal authority on behalf of their own interests, they might also need a permanent site for their parliament.

If this permanent union occurs, I'm not sure what this means for England and its culture? Will England just become an extension of France? What does this mean for the future of the English language? What would this mean for the rise of the urban middle class or the yeoman archers?
 
I can't help but look ahead after the eventual unification of the English and French thrones, seeing how this affects western Europe. How long it would take them to conquer Scotland and colonize Wales and Ireland. What conflicts they get into with the other continental powers, such as the Holy Roman Empire. And if or when they participate in the overseas colonial expansions.
 
Top