France and England

This may have come up before. Have Henry II of England unite France and England. Perhaps Louis VII fails to have a son. How would this affect the future development of England, especially with regard to language, and government. I'm sure the dual monarch would spend most of his time on the continent.
 
Honestly, England's nobility either revolt and pick a new king within a couple generations, or England becomes France 2 over the next few hundred years.
 
Honestly, England's nobility either revolt and pick a new king within a couple generations, or England becomes France 2 over the next few hundred years.

Just as Norway lost its national identity, or Hungarians now speak German?

It occurs to me that we usually think England will be subsumed, but this reflects IMO the notion that Anglosaxons (whether English, American, etc.) are the wee little guys rather than reality. Recall that the Hundred years War was mostly little old England rampaging across France.

Why couldn't the two realms be united but maintain separate identities?
 
No, the hundred year wars were two French nobles fighting over the throne of France, one happened to be king of England too.
[/pedantic mode on]
Make that three French nobles: don't forget the role of the Duke of Burgundy.[/pedantic mode off]
 
It occurs to me that we usually think England will be subsumed, but this reflects IMO the notion that Anglosaxons (whether English, American, etc.) are the wee little guys rather than reality.

Maybe it is bacause they basically did role over after 1066?
 
Unite France and England during the time of Henry II of England isn't an easy task. Even if Louis VII were to fail fathering his only son (Philippe II Augustus), the Angevins are not in a good positions for the succession. They were two other great party:

  • The House of Dreux, which were a cadet branch of the Capetians (born of Louis VII's younger brother Robert of Dreux). By Salic Law, they would be Louis VII's heirs. They are pretty weak politically, but they have been around Louis VII's court for quite some time. Plus, they were very loyal to Louis VII and the King: it's likely they would make a move to keep the crown in the Capetian family.
  • The House of Chamapgne, which was very strong even if it can't compete with the Angevins. The claim of this house are pretty strong: the two daughters of Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine (Marie and Alix) married into the House of Champagne (to Henri I of Champagne and Theobald V of Blois respectively), Louis VII's third wife and queen was Adele of Champagne and, last but not least, the Archbishop of Reims, William White Hands, was of the House of Champagne. If you add to this that their lands encircle the Royal Dosmaine (Champagne & Blois), they probably are the strongest opposing faction of the Plantagenêts.
Comparatively, the Plantagenêts are rather far from the throne and their claim is weak though there is no doubt the King of England is the most powerful French noble of the time (being Duke of Aquitaine & Count of Poitiers jure uxoris, Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou, Maine & Tourraine as well as having the Count of Toulouse and Duke of Britanny as vassals).
The first claimant would be Henry the Young King, whose wife is Margaret of France, the eldest daughter of Louis VII and Constance fo Castille. That makes him only third in line though and he has another problem: his wife sufferred a difficult pregnancy (resulting in a child that died young) that rended her sterile OTL. Thus, even if he manages to secure the throne, he might have no heir to hold it.
The second claimant is Richard the Lion Heart as he is bethroed to Alys of France, second daughter to Louis VII and Constance of Castille. The problem is that a bethroal isn't a marriage: Richard needs to wed Alys for his claim to come around. Richard's own character might be an issue here: I am not sure he would want Alys as his wife.
The last problem is the 1173 rebellion: ever since it came around, Henry II and his sons are at each other's throats. Would Henry II really want one of his son to become King of France if that could make him a greater threat?


Faeelin said:
Why couldn't the two realms be united but maintain separate identities?
French culture would still probably have an impact on England as the Anglo-Normands could become Anglo-French in this scenario. What I mean is that the chance of the nobility holding land on the Continent (France) and on the Island (England) would increase. We all know that the Normands had a hell lot of influence on England's culture: imagine what it would be with Anglo-French.

I do not forcibly mean it would result in England becoming "that Big French Island on the other side of the Channel": I do think the two countries could remain separate identities. However, England is gonna be Frenchified: the language might become some sort of Frenglish (if you pardon me the barbarism) and the English culture will have more French elements. There might be a reverse effect in France with English elements showing up, but I have a doubt they would be pretty important.



pompejus said:
No, the hundred year wars were two French nobles fighting over the throne of France, one happened to be king of England too.
One of the most important decisions Edward III ever made was to enforce English as the language of his court. Edward III may have spoken French, had a French mother (Isabella the She-Wolf), come from a French-born dynasty (the Plantagenêts being Angevins and thus French) and hold the title Duke of Aquitaine/Guyenne but there is no doubt he was English.

Mind you, that's one of the reasons he was rejected by the French nobles: because he was a foreigner. And the French also feared that France would come under personnal union as the weakest side: that's the reason Salic Law came around. Hence why they refused to give the crown to Joan II of Navarra in 1316 (she was the only daughter of Louis X of France) and why they denied it to any female lines of the Capetians in 1328.

According to some, the Hundread Years' War saw the rise of an early form of Nationalism, opposing an England that had become quite English since it had lost most of its continental holdings (only Guyenne remained) to a France that was not wanting to become English.
 
the problem is, even if he did get the french throne, its less likly to have actually formed a anglo-french union on his death, due to the policy at the time of splitting realms between heirs...so if henry died, the throne of england wouldve gone to one son and the throne of france to another...ive never worked out way but i think its too reduce rebellions between them (which always worked out opposite)
 
Top