Eleanor of Aquitaine.

She never divorces Louis of France, largely as a result of having two healthy sons.

I suspect Henry II still gets the throne. I believe Stephen lost his appetite to fight with the deaths of his wife and oldest son. Henry might end up marrying Stephen's daughter and eventual heiress. I think the OTL Angevin empire will end up being smaller though.
 
Last edited:
Imagining that both Raimond of Poitiers dies earlier (the guy was quite unskilled, as he managed to piss on both basileus and the poulains, while not as such than his successor), with Michael I maybe forced to go on an expedition against him (with the agreement of the kingdom of Jerusalem) and that the reconciliation of 1150 holds, with Alix being actually a boy.

It wouldn't be surprising to see Aquitaine, or at least Gascony, being trusted as an apanage (a land of the royal demesne being trusted to a member of royal family, theorically turning back to the royal authority if the line fails). The disorders in Tolsan would be greatly changed as well, as the counts of Toulouse couldn't count on Capetian support as IOTL, as Capetians would be the claimants on the county, not Plantagenets.
Maybe a more direct, and more quick control of Languedoc by France?

A greater occitan influence on french court isn't to be dismissed, even if Alienor would probably have the same reputation than Constance of Arles as a queen. As in, bad.

On Plantagenets,their political influence would be greatly reduced in England. Controlling and hoping to controll half of a kingdom isn't the same thing than being a former ennemy with control over Maine and Anjou, and doubtful control over Normandy.

It may be too last for Stephen to change his politics, but clearly the political advantage of Plantagenets would be reduced. Remember that the treaty betwen both sides was signed only in 1153.
As the death of Eustace of Blois is certainly not a given with a PoD in late 1140's (or the death of Stephenà, you'd still have a legitim heir for Stephen before 1152 and it's likely that the control over Aquitaine and the greater prestige of Henri played fully there.
With time, depending on the events, you could have a lasting conflict and division between English and continental holdings.
Maybe a lasting Blois-Flanders-English opposition to a Norman-Angevin-English circle? (Likely) Capetian intervention (probably on both sides) may proove interesting.
 
What would Eleanor as Queen of France entail?

Henry and Eleanor's family was totally dysfunctional, with various sons in civil war against each other at various times. Since Eleanor aided and abetted that, would it be FRANCE that suffered the implosion of civil war, if she stayed French queen? Yes, yes, Henry had a large part to do with the dysfunction, too. But I could just imagine 'Jean Sansterre' (Johnny Lackland) being a FRENCH prince instead of an English one iTTL, with the English keeping Normany and Anjou, say, and maybe even getting more of France in the fighting.
 
Since Eleanor aided and abetted that, would it be FRANCE that suffered the implosion of civil war, if she stayed French queen?
I would tend to say : not likely. And even if it was the case, not at the same extent.

First, you had a practice in France to give sons parts of territory, while it didn't really existed in England. It would certainly help relieve much of tension. (You can't have a "Jean Sans Terre" if he does have a land, isn't it?)
Then, Eleanor, contrary to what she managed to do in England, had actually little political weight in France (merely signing on documents), with a lesser impact on her sons' policy.

What's more important, is that the sons of Henri Plantagenet were actively supported by Capetians, that managed to have a perfect opportunity as they were their direct suzerains.
Kings of England would certainly not have this.

That would be even more obvious if Stephen's sons manage to grab power (I can't stress it enough, Henri was even more of a strong candidate when he married Eleanor), with Plantagenet being basically stuck between England and Capetians.
 
Eleanor's not the only one who who aided in the family dysfunction. Afterall Henry II took the very unusual stance of actively trying to endow all four of his sons with land. And then he turned around and tried to keep them from power. I'd say he laid the seeds for his sons to rebel against him all by himself, no need for Eleanor.

Furthermore, if Eleanor had surplus sons with her first husband I think there's a reasonable chance that some of them would enter the church. Afterall the future Louis VII was preparing for a career in the church before his older died from a fall from a horse making him heir.
 
Furthermore, if Eleanor had surplus sons with her first husband I think there's a reasonable chance that some of them would enter the church. Afterall the future Louis VII was preparing for a career in the church before his older died from a fall from a horse making him heir.

Actually, very few Capetians even went in church service. Except for Louis VI's sons admittedlty, but it answered to a very specific situation. Remember that only Henri (and later Philippe) really went to that first (since he gets twelve), neither Robert and Pierre did.

And except this, I don't remember another occurance about royal princes being bishops or monks.
 
Top