English victory in HYW: Nobility become French?

[Ben McKinlay]

Hi
I've been working on a timeline based around France losing the Hundred Year War and being subjugated into a dual monarchy of sorts, with one French-English Kingdom. Basically, after this happens the centre of government of England would move to France and becoming thoroughly Frenchified. The result would be the dual monarchy becoming increasingly Franco-centric, with England becoming very much an afterthought. Thus, it would become like France had won the war and subjugated England.
However, is this at all plausible? I know much of the English nobility were French and spoke French and indeed largely came from France. So do you think this seems realistic? And does this timeline sound interesting?

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, if it's about plausibility, I would tend to say HYW was unwinnable, as understood as the complete takeover of France by England, even if only politically.
Demographically, geopolitically, the difference was far too important, and England would at best get lost in a war of attrition even if its kings managed to win every single important battle. The key was about regional control.

It's as well dubious that the English Parliment would accept to pay more and more for such conquest that would ideally end with a more important and royal power and french presence.
Eventually, the piggy bank will close.

On the other hand, and that's why late Plantagenêts tried to do (as well some Lancasters at first), a partial conquest, critically in Aquitaine was far more managable. Even if it's not that holdable in the long run, you'd have better chances to take it for longer (probably as much longer than IOTL Pale of Calais) critically when at least the coastal part was loyal to England historically.
If it beneficies from enough unrest in France, an English dominated Aquitaine would stay quite distinct from England politically (more divided and independent than England) and culturally (Most likely a longer lasting Gascon dominant culture)

 

[Danth]

I have always thought that the "English" nobility at the time where meerly French exiles (Normans who had rejected French rule) who were using England as a base of operations in a strange French Civil War as sorts.
While that definition maybe wrong it does give some insight as to what might have happened.
With the Civil War over and England victorious, the nobility and King eventually spend more and more time in France due to the Country being far more powerful. Also with focus on the continent and eventual European wars the people of England begin to feel like a french colony as the intelligentsia develop etc.
Eventually we see a situation where England revolts in a bid for independence from French war, and we may see a situation develop where a second 100 yearesqe war occurs but with the battles being fought in England with the french King attempting to retake the crown.

 

[Matteo]

En gland does not need to revolt. It may also in some way be more or less assimilated.

The risk for the english identity is being satellized to the continent. England was peripheral to the european continent while at the same time France was the core of the european roman catholic world : geographically (its center) as well as demographically (4 to 5 times as populated as England).

England needed to be cut from the continent and self-ruled to endure it kept its identity.

Either it lost France, which was its own salvation as History demonstrated. Or it képi France and was swallowed by France the same way the manchus and others ended swallowed by China.

 

[cracou]

Well, considering that the Plantagenet were basically French (I know how weird it sounds but...) the probability that the French culture becomes dominant is really high.

The king would be happy to call some French knogits and barons to cut some heads in england if they went on takling about "parliament" or funny other things.

 

[libbrit]

I have no doubt that, to go all Crusader Kings on the thread, the already Frenchified Plantagenets, and the French speaking English aristocracy in general, would up sticks to Paris and focus on their French titles. They would `Select kingdom of France as Primary title` . The English aristocracy practically was French anyway, or at least wanted to think of themselves as such. They did not speak English unless they had to, they spoke French at court, and they adopted French styles of dress and dining already.

 

[Ben McKinlay]

OK, thanks for the help, guys. From what I knew of the English nobility, I was pretty sure that this would be plausible. I suppose the bigger issue now is how does England actually win. And of course, to continue the Crusader Kings analogy, would England de jure drift into France, or try to break free.

 

[Danth]

OK, thanks for the help, guys. From what I knew of the English nobility, I was pretty sure that this would be plausible. I suppose the bigger issue now is how does England actually win. And of course, to continue the Crusader Kings analogy, would England de jure drift into France, or try to break free.

I think it would eventually break free, it is to large and has a far more powerful tax base than say France-Normandy or England-Wales. Even smaller countries like Scotland and Brittany kept a separate identity so England/Wales would definitely drift away from France.

 

[Tonifranz]

I think it would eventually break free, it is to large and has a far more powerful tax base than say France-Normandy or England-Wales. Even smaller countries like Scotland and Brittany kept a separate identity so England/Wales would definitely drift away from France.

But who will lead it if all the nobility, all the people who mattered go rushing to France? Certainly not the great magnates, certainly not the upper or lower nobility, who will be given estates in France and be absentee landowners and french speaking.

And remember, Scotland and Wales, after the Union of Crowns, never successfully broke off from England, and neither did Brittany. Brittanny never was de jure independent anyway from the king of France.

Maybe the Kingdom of England could be given to a younger son as an appanage?

 

[Danth]

But who will lead it if all the nobility, all the people who mattered go rushing to France? Certainly not the great magnates, certainly not the upper or lower nobility, who will be given estates in France and be absentee landowners and french speaking.

And remember, Scotland and Wales, after the Union of Crowns, never successfully broke off from England, and neither did Brittany. Brittanny never was de jure independent anyway from the king of France.

Maybe the Kingdom of England could be given to a younger son as an appanage?

It won't happen immediately, it may take 100 or even 300 years. I have always believed that the English Civil War period would be the mark for English independence.
As I have said the power is to large and the channel makes it harder to integrate. Once nationalism hits the country is gone really.
The Lower nobility will be annoyed by the fact that Paris rules and they have no hope of making any decisions.
Its the same way that England could never have ruled France really, or why the majority of unions broke apart

 

[Tonifranz]

It won't happen immediately, it may take 100 or even 300 years. I have always believed that the English Civil War period would be the mark for English independence.
As I have said the power is to large and the channel makes it harder to integrate. Once nationalism hits the country is gone really.
The Lower nobility will be annoyed by the fact that Paris rules and they have no hope of making any decisions.
Its the same way that England could never have ruled France really, or why the majority of unions broke apart

Well there's Poland Lithuania, Aragon Castille, Ile De France Brittany Anjou Champagne etc, Austria Hungary, Brandenburg and East Prussia, England Scotland, Leon and Castille, Bohemia and Austria

All those unions lasted a long long time, and some of them even lasted until now!

As long as the ruling classes in England favor the union with France, and if they started to think themselves as French, then it's not going to happen.

Remember, England never broke away from Normany, even if England is much bigger than Normandy. England never rebelled when Henry II held much of Western France. Even when they lost it, the English barons even invited Louis VIII to become king of England.

Still, I think it would break off, not by rebellion, but as an appanage to a younger son.

 

[Danth]

Well there's Poland Lithuania, Aragon Castille, Ile De France Brittany Anjou Champagne etc, Austria Hungary, Brandenburg and East Prussia, England Scotland, Leon and Castille, Bohemia and Austria

All those unions lasted a long long time, and some of them even lasted until now!

As long as the ruling classes in England favor the union with France, and if they started to think themselves as French, then it's not going to happen.

Remember, England never broke away from Normany, even if England is much bigger than Normandy. England never rebelled when Henry II held much of Western France. Even when they lost it, the English barons even invited Louis VIII to become king of England.

Still, I think it would break off, not by rebellion, but as an appanage to a younger son.

All of these countries had a close land link, and even then the splits did occour (and many you mentioned are so simillar in culture etc that it was obvious a link would occour), even the ones that survived are now on the verge of breaking away.

Once nationalism kicks in the Frenchcentric view will be the death knell of the Franco-British (england and wales) union.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Whilst perhaps plausible in the long term - I can't help but think that rapidly upping sticks and focusing on the "French" territories is not as cut and dry as many think.

At this time France wasn't one homogeneous culture, you had Gascons, Occitan, Breton, Cosmopolitaine, Burgundians, Aquitaines, Wallonians - and still some Normans in Normandy.

If the entire structure of power just shifted to Paris for the Cosmopolitaine French - the English landholding Lords would be seriously pissed if they didn't get huge swathes of territory if after all their sacrifice, that they are now further removed from power - and the Plantagnets would know this. Unless all their landholdings get reorganised to France and the new seat of power - they've pissed off their strongest support base, and this is Post-Magna Carta.

I see a more sensible solution being retaining the structure of power in London, at least initially, but ensuring that the different cultures stay separate, if they all have individual identities that aren't French, then London would only be a major rallying point for the N.French, who are closer to the new centre of power anyway.

Over time - you'd probably see all these individual cultures Anglicised to a degree, and English further Frenchified - rather than any one culture utterly subsumed to the other - and probably never as centralised, and with the Continental Lords experiencing similar liberties to the English Lords.

Sidenote : If the ruler of this decentralised silliness managed to get himself made Holy Roman Emperor - that would be hilariously chaotic.

 

[Teejay]

If say Henry V lived another twenty and managed to establish the dual monarchy of England and France. England in the long run would have become just another province of France, being ruled by a French speaking dynasty residing in Paris (rather like Brittany). France was much more wealthier and had a vastly greater population than England.

The Lancaster dynasty would have become thoroughly French and ruling from Paris rather than London in a generation of two. Likewise the English nobility would have remained quite French (which they were before the Hundred Years War).

 

[Mookie]

A change in English warfare policy would be needed to win. They concentrated on wining battles, the French on wining sieges. There was no way to win with that kind of English strategy.

Nobility wouldnt become French, they already were French. They would just put French primary titles to use.

 

[Teejay]

A change in English warfare policy would be needed to win. They concentrated on wining battles, the French on wining sieges. There was no way to win with that kind of English strategy.

I would agree with you, even a military genius like Henry V if he had lived another 20 years would have faced great difficulties in retaining English control in Northern France. Although England might have very well continued to hold Gascony.