Anglo-French or Franco-British union scenarios

[Yorel]

The more I look into both French and English/British history, the more I get the feeling that, over the time, there were several occasion on which France and the British Isles could have been united.

Here are some realistic examples I discovered :

1.Clavis Angliae Scenario

I name this one after a timeline that was posted on the board but was discontinued using the POD I will be talking about.
When John Lackland was excommunicated by the Church, king Philip II of France send his son Louis (the future King Louis VIII of France) to claim the English throne. At first, the Barons allied with Louis, but they ultimately choose to support John and Louis was defeated and forced back to France.
Had Louis vainquished John Lackland, he would have become King of England (as Lewis I) and, after the death of Philip II, King of France (as Louis VIII).

2.England winning the Hundred Years' War

If England had won the Hundred Years' War, then we would have the Kings of England as Kings of France.
This scenario could also happen if the French peers decided to have Edward III becoming king of France as Edouard I. This doesn't seem very likely though : the French did not like the idea of having a foreign prince ruling France.

3.Francis II of France living longer and having a son with Mary Stuart

If this were to happen, the son of Francis II and Mary Stuart would inherit France (from his father), Scotland (from his mother) and the rights to the throne of England (also from his mother) which he could claim after Elisabeth I's death.
An interesting scenario, but not a very likely one due to problems linked to Religion, problems in Scotland as well as Franco-English enemity.

4.Elisabeth I marrying a French prince and having a son

I recently read a book on the Tudors and discovered that, to secure an alliance between France and England, there were negotiations for Elisabeth to marry a French prince (on a proposition of Catherine de Medicis, Henri II of France's widow).

The first candidate was Henry of Anjou, the third son of Henri II and Catherine de Medicis and OTL Henri III of France. He said no.

She was then proposed Henry of Navarre (OTL Henri IV of France), but nothing was concluded as Henri III decided to say yes when he learned of this. Yet, when Elisabeth said she refused to hear mass with him, he refused again.

The last candidate was Catherine de Medicis and Henri II's youngest son, Hercules-Francis also known as Francis of Alençon. Francis came twice to England and Elisabeth seemed to like him. Yet, the thought of Elisabeth marrying a French prince was not popular in England and the wedding project was cancelled.

Of all those wedding possibilities, Hercules-Francis was the one that could have had the most chances to succeed : he was pro-reformation (he ultimately converted to Protestantism) and Elisabeth quite liked his manners. Yet, because of public opinion and because of he asked often Elisabeth for money (to help reformation in France and the Netherlands), she took a dislike in him and the wedding never happened.

Had Elisabeth one married one of the three French princes that were proposed to her and gave birth to a son, her son could have inherited the crown of France, no matter who she would have married (provided everything went OTL, of course).

Problems with this scenario : Elisabeth was nearing her fifties while the french princes were at least twenty years younger than her. The marriage would have shocked, but could have happened as it was considered acceptable for Kings. Yet, the chances of a son being born would have been low as women have a harder time in having childrens when they reach their fifties.
The other problem would be Religion : as time showed it, the French didn't want a Protestant King as it is the reason why Henri IV had to convert.

///

I'll admit all those scenarios are not that likely and does not end with a stabilized Anglo-French of Franco-British Empire. Yet, it helps seeing how French and English history are that close from one another.

Thoughts?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

England defeating the French King and his allies in the Hundred Years' War would pretty much secure a Franco-English political union though one that is basically centered in France and not in England.

 

[Dunois]

You forgot the many opportunities around the Angevins as well .

A problem with a Franco-British Union during the Middle Ages is the fact that France was more powerful than England then, it terms of wealth and population. In the long run therefore the Anglo-French Kingdom could merely become a "greater France" with French culture domineering over the Anglo-Saxon culture.

This scenario is somewhat more unlikely of England wins the hundred years war, but only just. If the French part of the kingdom stays limited to the borders of France in c1400 then you have a greater chance of forming a real Anglo-French nation in the long run. Alternatively an option is England taking over Aquitaine, Normandy and Anjoun permanently, leaving a rump France based around Paris and Champagne. In this case you end up with an Anglo-French nation facing westwards and a rump French state forced to look eastwards for expansion.

 

[JJDXB]

England defeating the French King and his allies in the Hundred Years' War would pretty much secure a Franco-English political union though one that is basically centered in France and not in England.

Its funny because I was just reading something about how China always managed to "Sinify" its invaders prior to the Qing...

You are, of course, correct about the fact that an Anglo-French Union under those circumstances would lead to a "Frankified" England.

 

[Gonzaga]

You could also use a scenario where Mary I marries the Dauphin as Henry VIII had agreed. If you find a way to keep England Catholic during this period it could be a possibility.

 

[Imperator Mundi]

Another realistic scenario:

Magni Richardi
Richard the Lionheart returns from Third Crusade successfully retaking Jerusalem, he orders that Philip II return the land stolen from him while he was in the Holy Land. When Philip refuses, the Pope excommunicates Philip, since Richard's lands were put under Papal protecting when he took the crusade vow. Richard then marches on Paris with papal approval and deposes Philip crowning himself King of England and France. With papal support he quickly pacifies the country who loves him for recapturing Jerusalem and his heir rule a Francophone Empire which serves as the papal counter-weight to the Holy Roman Emperor for the rest of the middle ages and into the modern world.

 

[Mirza Khan]

You could also use a scenario where Mary I marries the Dauphin as Henry VIII had agreed. If you find a way to keep England Catholic during this period it could be a possibility.

Keeping England Catholic is easily-kill off Anne Boleyn. IIRC, she got some kind of fever IOTL after she started courting Henry VIII and almost died of it. If she doesn't survive, than Henry now has no reason to break from the Catholic Church.

 

[papermario]

You could have William the Conqueror take over all of France, rather than simply accepting Normandy in exchange for ending his campaigns in France. Then he could conquer England the same way he did in our timeline. I think it would work pretty well, given how influenced England was by the Normans. You'd probably end up with a union were the power lied in France, but the two would be so culturally similar it wouldn't really matter if the center of power was to move to England. Also, no need for the Hundred Year's War!

 

[Falastur]

A problem with a Franco-British Union during the Middle Ages is the fact that France was more powerful than England then, it terms of wealth and population. In the long run therefore the Anglo-French Kingdom could merely become a "greater France" with French culture domineering over the Anglo-Saxon culture.

At certain points in history this is very correct. However, at others it's somewhere between "possible in the long term" and "dubious". I've described why so many times that I know how long it takes to argue the case, so I'm not going to now, but I'll summarise thusly:

England: centralised power in the King, financially/bureaucratically well-managed, liable to produce roughly similar annual incomes where taxation doesn't vary wildly and special taxes aren't levied.

France: decentralised, bureaucratically terribly-run until sometime after the HYW, large areas gave no income to the King, many vassals had the power and the royal grants to resist royal authority in financial matters, and many areas even in the royal demesne had a reputation for being a Bermuda Triangle when tax collectors came along. The collectors went in and were never heard of again. Wildly varying annual incomes. Year on year, constantly failed to match England's royal revenue.

In other words: England is going to be a financial centre for the King of an Anglo-French union in the short term at least, and he's going to have to spend years - generations, even - bringing his vassals into line and revolutionising French bureaucracy, and thus tax collecting. It might turn out to be a brief blip before France asserts itself. It may alternatively be that the implications of this are such that, say, the King bases himself in England during peacetime (or, spends more time there than France, since the royalty were expected to roam), thus Paris declines at England's expense, the French court follows the King and in part bases itself in London, and the sheer weight of the size of the joint kingdom could result in some more powerful French vassals simply being allowed to retain their strong autonomy as it's not worth the wars and the vulnerability to take away their privileges. If you get something drastic like the pre-eminent University of Paris scholars relocating to either Oxbridge or forming a new University of London (Oxbridge wouldn't be amused, but it could happen) then Paris' position as dominant in European culture could even slide and London could take its place, and if that happens then the balance really does swing towards London and England.

Of course, I won't dismiss the possibility that France could eventually simply overtake England in every respect. I simply think that every opportunity is there for England to assert itself while France is struggling to make up the lost ground.

You could have William the Conqueror take over all of France, rather than simply accepting Normandy in exchange for ending his campaigns in France. Then he could conquer England the same way he did in our timeline. I think it would work pretty well, given how influenced England was by the Normans. You'd probably end up with a union were the power lied in France, but the two would be so culturally similar it wouldn't really matter if the center of power was to move to England. Also, no need for the Hundred Year's War!

Do you mean William the Conqueror, or do you mean someone like William Longsword or Rollo? This is possible, but I think that the logical extension of the Normans pressing on to Paris and accepting no settlement is one of two things:

1 - Eventually they extend too far and the King manages to unite more of France under his banner to decisively crush the Normans. After all, they don't have unlimited troops and they aren't a match for the resources the French have on offer yet.

2 - Their momentum leads them to capture Paris and hold it successfully. However, despite a huge prestige loss for the King of France, he relocates to a new capital, may be forced to cede large swathes of the north of France but at any rate has no incentive to surrender his crown if he is not totally defeated. Thus, you either get a bigger Norman France with a jewel in the crown in Paris (which would probably diminish rapidly under the Normans with no King in residence) or the north of France eventually becomes a separate entity as some kind of Norse kingdom and the French "civilising influence" is largely lost. Either way, I just can't see the Normans managing to win the entire crown of France by lightning raid campaigns. They managed to wreak huge destruction and enrich themselves greatly when they raided but I don't think what they did was substantial enough to conquer a kingdom. After all, Normandy was a buy-off to stop the raids, it wasn't really a conquest. Only a mad-man would offer his only kingdom as a buy-off. Henry V of England only got the throne of France because he already had a legitimate claim to it...

 

[Yorel]

France: decentralised, bureaucratically terribly-run until sometime after the HYW, large areas gave no income to the King, many vassals had the power and the royal grants to resist royal authority in financial matters, and many areas even in the royal demesne had a reputation for being a Bermuda Triangle when tax collectors came along. The collectors went in and were never heard of again. Wildly varying annual incomes. Year on year, constantly failed to match England's royal revenue.

Starting with Philip II, Royal control over France was reinforced and the kings of France started to absorb the fiefs one by one. By the time of Philip IV's reign, Royal control had become very strong as the Kings of France had absorbed many fiefs (even if some were given as apanages to the King's family). That's not what I would called decentralised : France was centralising around Paris.

As for bureaucracy, I'm not that sure it was that terribly run after the HYW. Charles VII had powerful councelors (the reason he was nicknamed "the well served") and Louis XI was good at administrating. After him came Louis XII and Francis I, the latter being one of the three strongest European rulers of his time (with Charles V and Henry VIII).
Then came Henry II and his three sons who had to face the huge problem known as the War of Religions.

 

[Alex Richards]

It's probably not what you really want, but there was a suggestion for France to join the Commonwealth after WWII.

 

[Awilla the Hun]

And, in the midst of the Fall of France, there was an attempt to form a Franco-British Union, so as to keep the French fighting. It failed.

 

[Yorel]

It's probably not what you really want, but there was a suggestion for France to join the Commonwealth after WWII.

Well, I'm not that good in modern history, so I didn't knew that. Thanks for telling me anyway
Although, I doubt the French would have ever accepeted : I don't think De Gaulle would have been okay with France entering the Commonwealth, no matter how much he could have respected Churhchill and the British.

And, in the midst of the Fall of France, there was an attempt to form a Franco-British Union, so as to keep the French fighting. It failed.

I knew that. But from what I understood, the Union was to be an only temporary mesure and to ensure that France would keep fighting on. This was also to ensure the French navy didn't fall into Nazi hands as it was meaning trouble for the British (even though the Nazis never thought of using the French navy...)
The Franco-British Union was just to show a strong symbol showing that neither France nor Britain would give up the fight and give up the other one. It would probably have been dissolved after the war.

By the way, what I find very intersting about those Anglo-French and Franco-British Union scenarios is that they show how close French and British history are from one antother. England played a major part in French history from 917 (approximate date of the marriage of Charles III of France with Edwige of Wessex) up to nowadays.

 

[Falastur]

Starting with Philip II, Royal control over France was reinforced and the kings of France started to absorb the fiefs one by one. By the time of Philip IV's reign, Royal control had become very strong as the Kings of France had absorbed many fiefs (even if some were given as apanages to the King's family). That's not what I would called decentralised : France was centralising around Paris.

As for bureaucracy, I'm not that sure it was that terribly run after the HYW. Charles VII had powerful councelors (the reason he was nicknamed "the well served") and Louis XI was good at administrating. After him came Louis XII and Francis I, the latter being one of the three strongest European rulers of his time (with Charles V and Henry VIII).
Then came Henry II and his three sons who had to face the huge problem known as the War of Religions.

Granted. However, the progress was slow and by Louis XII the chances for a likely Anglo-French Union are close to zero, so it doesn't matter - it's all about the time before that, where France isn't as efficient at administrating itself as England. Royal control may have been "very strong" by the time of Philip IV too, but at that time France still had many strong vassals who could and would turn against the King - reference Aquitaine, Burgundy, Provence, Brittany as examples. None of these areas contributed revenue to the crown, their dukes all were allowed to keep 100% of revenue for themselves as part of their autonomy agreement with the crown, and all of them were liable to refuse to assist the crown in times of war, so at times it was as if they weren't part of France at all - certainly they were as good as dead weight to the King at such times. Even into the 1640s the French monarchy was still having troubles with rebellious vassals who could essentially freeze royal control over a large minority of the country. Compare this to England, which has virtually no opportunity to do this. Where nobles can revolt against the King, from pretty early on pretty much no nobles had the authority to actually govern their land like a miniature kingdom - bastard feudalism which became prevalent in England more than it did in France ensured a constant stream of money to the crown instead of knights' service which could be denied, and taxation went directly to the King instead of to the duke/count/baron etc as it did in France. This is the crux of why England could (could, not necessarily would) outperform France until about the HYW, where the last real chance of a union died.

Well, I'm not that good in modern history, so I didn't knew that. Thanks for telling me anyway
Although, I doubt the French would have ever accepeted : I don't think De Gaulle would have been okay with France entering the Commonwealth, no matter how much he could have respected Churhchill and the British.

It was proposed by the French, but it was in secret. It was 1955 IIRC, right about a year before the French went off and formed the EU instead, so de Gaulle would have no input as he wasn't in power at the time IIRC. But the French never would have accepted it anyway, it was a reaction to circumstances but not to popular feelings - it was about as hopeful as the 1940 mid-war offer. Oh, and it was an offer to "join the Commonwealth on the same terms as Ireland", so it was hardly a full merger anyway, it was more an invite to allow France and its Empire into the Commonwealth as a Dominion (or group of) so as to establish a closer economic and diplomatic relations. It really wasn't about unifying the countries, just about unifying their influence as the old Empires fell away and were usurped in power by the USA and USSR.

 

[papermario]

At certain points in history this is very correct. However, at others it's somewhere between "possible in the long term" and "dubious". I've described why so many times that I know how long it takes to argue the case, so I'm not going to now, but I'll summarise thusly:

England: centralised power in the King, financially/bureaucratically well-managed, liable to produce roughly similar annual incomes where taxation doesn't vary wildly and special taxes aren't levied.

France: decentralised, bureaucratically terribly-run until sometime after the HYW, large areas gave no income to the King, many vassals had the power and the royal grants to resist royal authority in financial matters, and many areas even in the royal demesne had a reputation for being a Bermuda Triangle when tax collectors came along. The collectors went in and were never heard of again. Wildly varying annual incomes. Year on year, constantly failed to match England's royal revenue.

In other words: England is going to be a financial centre for the King of an Anglo-French union in the short term at least, and he's going to have to spend years - generations, even - bringing his vassals into line and revolutionising French bureaucracy, and thus tax collecting. It might turn out to be a brief blip before France asserts itself. It may alternatively be that the implications of this are such that, say, the King bases himself in England during peacetime (or, spends more time there than France, since the royalty were expected to roam), thus Paris declines at England's expense, the French court follows the King and in part bases itself in London, and the sheer weight of the size of the joint kingdom could result in some more powerful French vassals simply being allowed to retain their strong autonomy as it's not worth the wars and the vulnerability to take away their privileges. If you get something drastic like the pre-eminent University of Paris scholars relocating to either Oxbridge or forming a new University of London (Oxbridge wouldn't be amused, but it could happen) then Paris' position as dominant in European culture could even slide and London could take its place, and if that happens then the balance really does swing towards London and England.

Of course, I won't dismiss the possibility that France could eventually simply overtake England in every respect. I simply think that every opportunity is there for England to assert itself while France is struggling to make up the lost ground.



Do you mean William the Conqueror, or do you mean someone like William Longsword or Rollo? This is possible, but I think that the logical extension of the Normans pressing on to Paris and accepting no settlement is one of two things:

1 - Eventually they extend too far and the King manages to unite more of France under his banner to decisively crush the Normans. After all, they don't have unlimited troops and they aren't a match for the resources the French have on offer yet.

2 - Their momentum leads them to capture Paris and hold it successfully. However, despite a huge prestige loss for the King of France, he relocates to a new capital, may be forced to cede large swathes of the north of France but at any rate has no incentive to surrender his crown if he is not totally defeated. Thus, you either get a bigger Norman France with a jewel in the crown in Paris (which would probably diminish rapidly under the Normans with no King in residence) or the north of France eventually becomes a separate entity as some kind of Norse kingdom and the French "civilising influence" is largely lost. Either way, I just can't see the Normans managing to win the entire crown of France by lightning raid campaigns. They managed to wreak huge destruction and enrich themselves greatly when they raided but I don't think what they did was substantial enough to conquer a kingdom. After all, Normandy was a buy-off to stop the raids, it wasn't really a conquest. Only a mad-man would offer his only kingdom as a buy-off. Henry V of England only got the throne of France because he already had a legitimate claim to it...

I meant Rollo. You made good points, but as I learned it the Normans still adopted the French culture even though they didn't need to. It seems the farther back you go, cultures that win still adopt the culture of the losers. Thanks for pointing out the flaws, though!

 

[Falastur]

I meant Rollo. You made good points, but as I learned it the Normans still adopted the French culture even though they didn't need to. It seems the farther back you go, cultures that win still adopt the culture of the losers. Thanks for pointing out the flaws, though!

True. Arguably, the Normans adopted French standards so readily because they were offered a place in French society with their land as their bribe. If they had been given Normandy as an independent kingdom they would likely still become more French, but probably would do so over a far longer period of time, and to a much lesser degree...