Eustace IV Count of Boulogne survives 1153

WI Eustace IV Count of Boulogne, son of King Stephen doesn't die in 1153?

His death generally meant that Stephen negotiated with Empress Matilda allowing her son to succeed him as Henry II King of England.

With Eustace still alive would the truce fall through?
Would the Anarchy end with Stephen being killed in battle and Eustace either dead or fled?
Or would Henry and his mother's forces be defeated?
 
From what I understood, Stephen's situation was pretty much doomed by the time Eustace died. I think he had already had to recognise his young cousin Henry II as his heir in England. So Eustace's survival wouldn't really stop Henry II from becoming King of England.

Eustace's survival, however, could very well be a thorn in Henry's side as he would be a potential threat for Henry II's throne. This might weaken Henry II a bit at the start, not to mention Louis VII of France was supporting Eustace.
 
Eustace (who was given a bad character by contemporary chroniclers) died a little before the conclusion of the deal with the future Henry II, generally known as the Treaty of Wallingford. Contemporaries noted that Stephen seemed heartbroken, and did indeed attribute his acquiescence to his son's death. These things are not always reliable, but they are also the only evidence we have.

It may well be that Henry's succession was inevitable in any case, but the removal of the proud and prickly Eustace from the scene cannot have hurt the peaceful manner in which it was agreed. Stephen did have a surviving son, William, Count of Boulogne and Earl of Surrey, but he seems to have raised no objection to being passed over, and was well-treated by Henry; one suspects Eustace would have had plenty of objections and would have strained the clemency Henry, a complex character, did in fact possess beyond bearing.
 
Henry married during Eustace's lifetime, so evidently not. It is the marriage and the great accession of lands to Henry from it which is presumably seen as making his eventual success in England inevitable, though much would still have depended on the chances of war.
 
Henry married during Eustace's lifetime, so evidently not. It is the marriage and the great accession of lands to Henry from it which is presumably seen as making his eventual success in England inevitable, though much would still have depended on the chances of war.

hmmm for some reason I had his marriage as in 1154 rather than 1152!
 
In 1152, Stephen's position in England was stronger than Matilda's. In 1153, however, Henry II had landed in England with a good-sized army of knights, had some success in the field and some of the English nobles had defected to his side. He had momentum, but hadn't landed a knockout blow and success wasn't guaranteed. Eustace wasn't irrational in wanting to fight on, and he had the resources to recruit an army of his own.

We know that Henry II was an able commander. Whether Eustace was too we'll never know. The outcome of a continued civil war is therefore unpredictable.

Incidentally, increasing his resources is where Eustace's bad reputation came from: he had been extorting contributions from anyone he could, especially church lands, and the contemporary accounts of him come from clerical sources who were, naturally, hostile.

Overall, I think that the best solution all around would be for Henry to become king, let Eustace have a reasonably lucrative lordship as a financial base, and for Eustace to head off to the crusades with an army partly paid for by Henry. Eustace might have liked the idea -- he seems to have been a glory hunter rather than an administrative type, and, of course, he owed the church a penance for plundering its lands.

There is one caveat: Eustace would have to renounce any claim to the crown of Jerusalem if he wanted to be welcome there (the earliest Christian rulers of Jerusalem had, like Eustace, been from the ruling family of Boulogne). So long as that wasn't an issue, the crusading states could use the reinforcements he brought and there would be plenty of opportunities for a man of Eustace's energy.
 
In 1152, Stephen's position in England was stronger than Matilda's. In 1153, however, Henry II had landed in England with a good-sized army of knights, had some success in the field and some of the English nobles had defected to his side. He had momentum, but hadn't landed a knockout blow and success wasn't guaranteed. Eustace wasn't irrational in wanting to fight on, and he had the resources to recruit an army of his own.

We know that Henry II was an able commander. Whether Eustace was too we'll never know. The outcome of a continued civil war is therefore unpredictable.

Incidentally, increasing his resources is where Eustace's bad reputation came from: he had been extorting contributions from anyone he could, especially church lands, and the contemporary accounts of him come from clerical sources who were, naturally, hostile.

Overall, I think that the best solution all around would be for Henry to become king, let Eustace have a reasonably lucrative lordship as a financial base, and for Eustace to head off to the crusades with an army partly paid for by Henry. Eustace might have liked the idea -- he seems to have been a glory hunter rather than an administrative type, and, of course, he owed the church a penance for plundering its lands.

There is one caveat: Eustace would have to renounce any claim to the crown of Jerusalem if he wanted to be welcome there (the earliest Christian rulers of Jerusalem had, like Eustace, been from the ruling family of Boulogne). So long as that wasn't an issue, the crusading states could use the reinforcements he brought and there would be plenty of opportunities for a man of Eustace's energy.


I think Louis finding out the affair between Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry of Anjou would work and have Henry banished so no divorce, I think this would work.
 
I think Louis could just have Henry assassinated then get and marry Eleanor again, Henry paid the pope to have Eleanor and Louis annulled.

A) Why get him assassinated? He didn't OTL and TTL Louis still has Eustace to sponsor
B) Louis is unlikely to remarry Eleanor having already agreed to the annulment

What is this obsession you have with royal assassination and marriages between distant kingdoms?
 
Those questions are just too random for me

He has a point, though. In virtually all of your TLs you posit two kingdoms coming into Personal Union, and recently you've suggested that several Kings would pay to have other Kings murdered, despite a lack of strong precedent for either happening. When the first happened in history, it was generally a total fluke - in fact, most states and their rulers tried to avoid it happening. When assassination happened it was pretty much never state-sponsored, exception of the Hashashin, who were a total Eurohistorical anomoly.
 
He has a point, though. In virtually all of your TLs you posit two kingdoms coming into Personal Union, and recently you've suggested that several Kings would pay to have other Kings murdered, despite a lack of strong precedent for either happening. When the first happened in history, it was generally a total fluke - in fact, most states and their rulers tried to avoid it happening. When assassination happened it was pretty much never state-sponsored, exception of the Hashashin, who were a total Eurohistorical anomoly.

I am not doing this in my new TL.;)
 
A) Why get him assassinated? He didn't OTL and TTL Louis still has Eustace to sponsor
B) Louis is unlikely to remarry Eleanor having already agreed to the annulment

What is this obsession you have with royal assassination and marriages between distant kingdoms?

Then have Louis find out the affair between Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry of Anjou would work and have Henry banished so no divorce, I think this would work and this will be the best way to keep Henry of Anjou out of the equation.
 
Then have Louis find out the affair between Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry of Anjou would work and have Henry banished so no divorce, I think this would work and this will be the best way to keep Henry of Anjou out of the equation.

Except that Louis's barons were also against his (Louis's) continued marriage to Eleanor.
To stop Eleanor marrying Henry* you either need Eleanor to have a son by Louis so that they remain married but estranged, or for Henry's brother Geoffrey to succeed in his attempted abduction of Eleanor (in order to marry her himself).


* Affairs btw were perfectly acceptable if no children issued
 
Except that Louis's barons were also against his (Louis's) continued marriage to Eleanor.
To stop Eleanor marrying Henry* you either need Eleanor to have a son by Louis so that they remain married but estranged, or for Henry's brother Geoffrey to succeed in his attempted abduction of Eleanor (in order to marry her himself).


* Affairs btw were perfectly acceptable if no children issued

I would like to see Eleanor marry Geoffrey better...hehehe..
 
Top