England and Normandy Union

Which time is best for a POD?

  • After Henry's V Death

  • Richard the Lionheart

  • Henry II's Middle Reign


Results are only viewable after voting.
I'm was wondering which time period would be the best for the King of England/UK (if it forms) to also control Normandy.

A POD 1 month after Henry V's death. His father-in-law is still alive and supports his daughter (you must remember at this point in time the future Charles VII discredited himself with the affair with John the fearless not only in front of his father, but all the nobles at Paris!). Let's say we don't butterfly away Henry VI's marriage to Margret of Anjou. But anything else is up for grabs. Henry VI not being insane, the Burgundies closer to the English (the marriage with Margret of Anjou partially alienated them but didn't push them entirely out of the Plantagenet camp... though her court manners didn't help), Margret being a competent administrator and not antagonizing almost every one she meets... anything. Before you ask "what does this have to do with Normandy?" I think Normandy was merged with the French crown at this point. And if it wasn't, then a later butterfly can put it back into the crownlands.

A POD 3 years before Richard the Lionhearted's death. It's going to be tricky because John is either a completely moronic general (the traditional view) or an above average tactician for his time but ridiculously unlucky general (a view that's surprisingly common among a lot of 20th century literature), but Richard doesn't know that and thought John would be more likely to keep Normandy safe from Phillipe than Arthur.

A POD around 1164. Henry Fitzpress of England and Normandy has some unruly sons. On top of that, they are likely to butt heads with each other when he dies. His spouse had decided to get back at him for his infidelity. What to do?

So for the poll, I just wanted to know what people thought was the best POD of these for a union (as in a POD that least the fewest "nudges" to help after the POD). Pick your time and name what exactly the POD would be.

Also, do not put your answer for the poll, which would be best for a union that still had some Anglo-Norman cultural influence on the crown.

For the language of Anglo-Norman (not nescarrily the culture), it reached its peak during Richard's reign, having the most speakers there and a great deal of the mobility (the Normans themselves and Anglo-Saxon nobles who needed to kiss up to the crown). Still, most of the population was speaking English. by Henry V's time, the number of Anglo-Norman speakers was a third of this, the court language was made English and probably most of them spoke middle English as a primary language. However becoming French Kings would have made the English kings spend more time across the channel.

Regular Norman and Anglo-Norman appears to be mutually intelligible. Regular Norman speakers could understand "standard" court style French, a one way intelligibility.

So this is two questions. One, which POD is best of these three (the situation isn't good for any of them to be honest) simply for having English Kings control Normandy? the other is which is best if the end goal is English kings controlling Normandy, Anglo-Norman influence remains on the crown (the language can die out, but I mean some cultural influence) and England still believing in the divine right of kings (a later concept) OR dynastic principle (the high middle ages train of though)? Three, can you explain the POD (the poll just asks for a time period)

if you only know the first answer, it's OK just to discuss it since it's a simpler question.

Edit: I poorly worded the question and misunderstood how dynastic ruling worked, so these are corrected
 
Last edited:
I'm was wondering which time period would be the best for the King of England/UK (if it forms) to also control Normandy.

A POD 1 month after Henry V's death.
I don't think you understand well the political situation at this point.
Charles VII did discredited himself to the Bourguignon party, which joined with an alliance with England, but Paris was hardly were French nobles were gathered as Bourguignons took back Paris from Armagnacs at the cost of a real slaughter. French nobility, except the one in direct vassality of Burgundy, didn't really joined up with Bourguignon faction either resting in a comfortable attentism but for a good part joining more or less cautiously the Armagnac side.

Remember that the alliance with Burgundy was considered as unreliable at best by Lancasters, as Burgundians nobles more or less tended to void a strong presence at their borders would it be Armagnac or English, Burgundian support more or less declining after the death of Henry V, and what buggered the relation with Bedford was that Burgundy still had noticable presence outside Burgundy proper.

Safe for the death of Charles VII and his son, you'd still have a strong support for Valois noticable not only in the remaining two thirds of the kingdom, but as well in places occupied by Lancasters where existed a significant anti-English feeling if not resistance : Normandy, particularily, is known to have harboured pro-Valois plots and insurgencies.
Note that Normandy, between the Treaty of Troyes and the french reconquest, was no longer considered as a part of the kingdom of France, but a personal holding of the king of England.

A POD 3 years before Richard the Lionhearted's death.
The problem there is that, even without a Capetian takeover as it did happened IOTL, Normandy is still a part of the kingdom of France, while the Duke of Normandy is usually the english king. A bit like why Elizabeth II reigning over both Britain and Canada doesn't mean that both countries share a same legal code, same institutions, etc.
The Angevin hegemony in continental France was not about the king in London ruling over all his dominions like an extension of England, but as an overlord ruling over territories with their own customs, their own nobility, and their own interest. While Normandy of all continental holdings depended the most from England and was closer from it, you had enough differences that suddenly declaring it a part of the Kingdom of England would provoke a war, but also a general revolt or refusal to go at war (as it happened with John Lackland IOTL) from continental nobility depending from Plantagenêts, in fear the same would happen for them.

It doesn't help that the control of Seine was an old interest of early Capetians (hence why the focus on obtaining Vexin), which had enough resources and political leverage as suzerains to dry out Plantagenet's possibilities even if, I insist, it doesn't mean the IOTL takeover was unavoidable. Just that keeping the whole lot without effectively becoming kings was not possible for Plantagenêts (and then, return to how doing this : the easier would be to kill off somehow Charles VII and son, as Louis of Orléans would be in no position to do anything).

Regular Norman and Anglo-Norman appears to be mutually intelligible. Regular Norman speakers could understand "standard" court style French, a one way intelligibility.
I can read Old French rather well, and you certainly have a lot of mutual intelligibility between different chanceries French, would it be Norman, Francilian, Picard, etc. There is simply no reality to this claim.
As a detail, there's no standard french to speak of in the medieval period : what you have is a diverse array of dialects which each chancery more or less artificially cherry-pick depending on its uses.
One, which POD is best simply for having English Kings control Normandy?
None, for reasons aformentioned.

the other is which is best if the end goal is English kings controlling Normandy, Anglo-Norman influence remains on the crown
Probably, for a time : but you'd still have a growing differenciation happening ITTL, eventually formalizing the distinction between English and Norman chanceries, even if you somehow manage to have similar institutions in both lands (to not speak of a, at least in middle term, unique institution for both of them).

England still believing in the divine right of kings?
The divine right of kings is a MUCH later political concept : what presides in England is rather a dynastical principle tempered by political imbalance, while dynastic principle plays more fully in Normandy.
 
Ok, I made corrections on the Original Post because I misunderstood something.

None of the PODs are the best of all time to control Normandy, in all of them there is an uphill fight. Which one would be the best of the three? Obviously all of them will need a "nudge" (butterflies) and a bit of luck given to the Plantagenets in order to consolidate whatever gains the first POD gives.
 
It's less a matter of shoehorning the situation, or to give Plantagenêts a serious buff, than the rather complex position of Normandy within the Capetian/Plantagenet conflict.
Both sides saw it as a main focus, but Capetians were eventually more motivated by the presence of a strong hegemonic rival at their doorstep, and beneficing from more political and resource leverage in the continent.

In a conflict which would decide which side would gain Normandy, and Normandy alone, Capetians would probably certainly win (I do not say a Plantagenet victory is impssible, just really unlikely).

Now, in a conflict that would be about, not just Normandy, but whoever had the feudal hegemony in northern France including Normandy, is amusingly less hard to do for Plantagenêts giving the right timing and the right circumstances. It would be still particularily hard for Plantagenêts to win either the first Capetian/Plantagenet conflict, or the Hundered Years War (from the third post onwards) as long it's understood as complete takeover; but there's more possibilities to gain a definitive victory on this regard than for what matter a "Normandy only" scenario.is
I'm thinking, for exemple, to the aformentioned timely death of Charles VII and his son as the only possible successor was hostage in London. I do think Plantagenets would have an hard time imposing their rule over central and southern France, but in the same time I think they wouldn't care that much about it in a first time.

A second possible PoD would be a much more worse situation after the Battle of Poitiers, where the future Charles V doesn't manage to impose his scorched earth policy, where Charles de Navarres pushes more skillfully his shenanigans, where general revolt (urban as in Paris, or rural as Jaqueries) are real problem, and where Edward III succeed in his chevauchée to Reims, with an application of the Treaty of London instead of the Treaty of Brétigny. It would be a rather unlikely multi-PoD situation, but it could work.

Eventually, there's a possibility for a more tight relationship between England and Normandy "alone" during Middle-Ages that I'm really surprised that few people, if at all, think about it.
A survival of the Norman dynasty in England, instead of the Anarchy, would certainly see the personal union England-Normandy living on, making certainly thing easier for the King of England to keep the duchy without mixing this with the whole overbearing conflict with Capetians.
 
In a conflict which would decide which side would gain Normandy, and Normandy alone, Capetians would probably certainly win (I do not say a Plantagenet victory is impssible, just really unlikely).

Ah, I probably should have said "Normandy plus." If a POD with less shoehorning from Richard I's time worked to keep Normandy, I'm happy to use that as an idea. If a POD after Henry V's death worked (say Charles VII doing something incredibly stupid and alienating his counts, or Bedford not minding Burgundies having large control of French lands) nets the Plantagenets France (which includes Normandy as a crownland) with less shoehorning, than I'm OK with that.
 
So you think of all possible PODs given, Charles VII and his son dying shortly after Henry V's death would be the most likely fo the three for the Plantagenets to keep Normandy?
 
Mayble Charles VII dying getting caught assassinating his sister (hey, if he authorized the assassination of John the Fearless, I'm sure the normal assassination of noblemen taboo doesn't apply to him) followed by his son dying to Salmonella shortly after Henry V works, perhaps with Charles VI sticking around to bolster his beloved grandson at the expense of his hated son (or course, maybe he'll be a liability... with his madness)
 
Ah, I probably should have said "Normandy plus." If a POD with less shoehorning from Richard I's time worked to keep Normandy, I'm happy to use that as an idea.
By Richard I, the balance was already favouring Capetians : again, more political leverage as overall suzerain (the revolts of Henry's sons does show the importance that suzerainty had politically and strategically), and more resources at hand. The problem there is that the question of Normandy was mixed with the overall question of Plantagenet dominance, and would be the first region Capetians would want to take over.
In fact, Richard's skills are more or less what managed to prevent Capetians to just carve out what they wanted, as in a collapse of Angevin hegemony. (It's really John management that made possible the takeover of Northern France, which wasn't that planned away).

If a POD after Henry V's death worked (say Charles VII doing something incredibly stupid and alienating his counts
Honestly, even if Charles VII turned to make several bad decisions in a row, Armagnac party and their allies would probably just cover it : a bit like it happened with the entrevue with the Duke of Burgundy, where the assassination was definitely not to be blamed on Charles, but on the nobles that accompanied him, and that didn't want any reconciliation.

or Bedford not minding Burgundies having large control of French lands) nets the Plantagenets France (which includes Normandy as a crownland) with less shoehorning, than I'm OK with that.
That would be right in the "something incredibly stupid" file you mentioned above : not minding this would be tantamount not minding that Plantagenet's geostrategical situation in France to be significantly weakened, and dependent on Burgundy's own interests and shenanigans. Frankly, after Burgundy switched side, there wasn't much for Plantagenets in France save Anjou and Gascony, Paris falling like a ripe fruit (the city being a Bourguignon-leaning center).

Not that Bedford was a warhawk there : he only reluctantly went to besiege Orléans, because his rivals for regency in France pushed him for what was a tiedous and not even that strategically sound move (and definitely negative politically-wise). But if Bedford does pulls "heh who cares about Bourguignons", Salisbury would have a field day arguing the regent would be an idiot.

Any "Normandy plus" scenario eventually boils down to Plantagenet taking the lead in France as suzerains of their own territory : I think, as I said above, that while hard , it would be significantly more doable (hence why I proposed two situations where it could work fairly well) than Plantagenets keeping Normandy and the rest as vassals of Capetians : the Angevin hegemony was already crumbling during Henry II's reign, meaning cracks already were obvious when the whole hegemony got formed.
 
So you think of all possible PODs given, Charles VII and his son dying shortly after Henry V's death would be the most likely fo the three for the Plantagenets to keep Normandy?
Indeed : it's a bit of an overkill, but the immediate successor of Charles VII would have been Louis d'Orléans who was prisoner of Henry in London, and totally unable to impose his possible claims. Armagnacs and their allies might refuse to acknowledge this, but without a leading figure the best they could do at term would be to maintain a large independence from a Franco-English personal union (and maybe, in the long term, acknowledging a far suzerainty from it).

Mayble Charles VII dying getting caught assassinating his sister (hey, if he authorized the assassination of John the Fearless, I'm sure the normal assassination of noblemen taboo doesn't apply to him)
Okayy, there is clearly some issues there : First, Charles VII didn't authorized the assasination of John the Fearless, especially after he managed to negociate a reconciliation shortly before. The assassination was the fact of the allies of Charles which refused to do so.
That Philippe choose to believe Charles was responsible doesn't make it true.

Then, how a political assassination becomes tauntamount to sororicide? Did Brutus, after having killed Ceasar, decided to go on a bloody rampage on his family?

Frankly, maybe it's better to keep it simple : they die because of narrativium which took the aspect of, I don't know, a fire in Bourges Castle?
 
Ok, so the best chance is Charles VII and his son dying outright. Even him getting caught trying to kill his sister in an assassination (followed by several less serious but something stupid) will be covered up.

What do you mean letting Burgandy controlling large non-Norman frenchlands would be tantamount to not minding that Plantagenet's geostrtegival situation in France to be significantly weakened? Not minding it gives the Burganidians in control of more of France directly than the Plantagenets while minding... leads to the OTL complete collapse. Given the first is better than the latter I wouldn't consider with "something stupid" although I agree with you that Bedford not minding the Burgandian control isn't likely to keep Normandy in Plantagenet hands for 4 decades down the line.
 
What do you mean letting Burgandy controlling large non-Norman frenchlands would be tantamount to not minding that Plantagenet's geostrtegival situation in France to be significantly weakened?
As said above, in addition of lands whom Jean and Philippe de Bourgogne were suzerains (Burgundy, Luxemburg, Artois, Flanders), they also controlled and occupied a large part of Northern France.

Pz8ubFM.jpg
As you can see, Champagne, Somme, Picardie and Ile-de-France were within there sphere of influence or control.
I think you will understand why not being careful about a really powerful ally that was at best not that reliable, when it actually controls significant part of your kingdom but furthermore, ITTL, could appear as a viable alternative to a Plantagenet's France, would be a really, really, REALLY stupid idea.

IOTL, Peace of Arras did prooved how controlled core territories and cities as Paris : spoiler alert, it wasn't Plantagenêts who had already trouble keeping Normandy in check due to fiscal revolts. It's not about giving more power over the kingdom, it's not giving a real interest about unreliable allies that control structural safety of your personal union.

Regardless of a Valois or Lancastrian victory, whoever is king of France in the XVth will have to deal with Burgundy as a major rival and possible threat to the stability of the kingdom.
 
Last edited:
I think you will understand why not being careful about a really powerful ally that was at best not that reliable, when it actually controls significant part of your kingdom but furthermore, ITTL, could appear as a viable alternative to a Plantagenet's France, would be a really, really, REALLY stupid idea.

I agree having a powerful not reliable ally is a bad idea.

I can't consider it stupid when... well OTL was pretty much a disaster for the Plantagenets. What you described is them having a tenuous hold which looks like a recipe for long term disaster. If they can keep the Burgundians happy there is a small chance a few marriages in the future could stabilize the situation three or so decades down the line. By alienating the Burgandians their position is France was swept away. Having a powerful unreliably ally controlling a significant part of your new kingdom is a bad idea, but seems preferable to certain defeat.

Thank you for your help and input.

Anyone else have anything to say? Anyone think Richard might have been able to do things in the last three years of his life to fix things? We have one person who says a POD there seems unlikely and the facts he gives are true. But does anyone think it's not as grim as he says?
 
The winning idea so far is the would be Charles VII and his son dying. If Charles VII dies with only one son and that son has a religious vision and decides to be a bishop in... I dunno Normandy or Flanders, is he as good as dead as far as the Plantagnets situation goes?
 
If Charles VII dies with only one son and that son has a religious vision and decides to be a bishop in... I dunno Normandy or Flanders, is he as good as dead as far as the Plantagnets situation goes?

You'd likely, in this situation, have a regency for Louis, probably mainly led by his grandmother Yolande d'Aragon. One evening, the young king (what, maybe 8 years old at best?) proclaims that he want to be bishop, and promptly being send to his room while adult carry the same policies they did with his father.
 
I meant when he's of age like... I dunno 13? 16?
You mean when his father is already sacred in Reims, made peace with Philippe de Bourgogne, and well on his way to take back what he didn't already? (13 years old at the Peace of Arras, 16 years old during the institutional reinforcement of the kingdom)
Then, no : at this point Louis is definitely not going to grow a sudden religious vocation, when he already shown a certain affinity with his future role. In fact, at 13, he would be considered as major and would probably be sacred king quickly, even if with the support of a council; and at 16 he already played a significant political role (and really, really wanted more)

I don't really understand why you want to complexify stuff there : kill them both, and it would be settled.
 
Actually, I just wanted to know if a bishops claimant posed a threat, although you said Louis had affinity for his future role so that's not going to happen. Killing them both is idea number one an dI'll probably go with that, I just wanted to see if more detailed routes were possible just... just in case I have a creative vision
 
What about having John I marry a Norman instead of Isabella of Angouleme..Ida of Boulogne might work as a replacement for Isabella of Angouleme..
 
Last edited:
Top