French Conquer England in 1215

Out of curiosity, in that scenario, given the greater centralization of England, migh Louis VIII successors prefer to rule in England, where the tax base is greater, leading to the French nobles attempting to free themselves from this "English" king, who attempts to impose English centralization on the French nobility?
I'm not sure centralized is a fitting word for a feudal state. More "bureaucratic", possibly and certainly more united.

For the residence : I think that eventually the Capetians would stay more in their french holdings for several reasons.

1) They used to. That looks pretty dull, but in a time where uses can be as strong as law, it counts

2) Paris and their holdings in France (here, as part of northern half of the kingdom) are rich and really populated (once century later, Paris became the first city of Europe and Christianity as a whole)

3) You'll have acculturation, but clearly, Capetians aren't going to "anglicize" themselves. Norman England kept many french features and without the Hundered Years' War pushing to a reject of these up to the court, they're going to last.

4) I don't think Capetians would try to impose themselves the Magna Carta and a powerful Parliment.
I'm pretty sure they'll eventually try to remove these in England when their power would be well ensured.
Furthermore, it could end with more territories belonging to Crown Estates in the Kingdom of France.

OTL, Louis VIII and Louis IX created several "appanages" : it was about giving lands to the sons that didn't inherited the royal title and possessions after the king's death. By exemple Poitou, Saintonge and Languedoc was given to Alphonse de Poitou, Anjou to Charles of...Anjou (isn't this amazing).
It allowed expanding royal influence, and as apanages came back to royal line if the cadet line of their holders is extinguished (even if they have other descendants), it allowed them to secure the possession of such lands in the kingdom.

I would likely see part of England being given as apanages instead of, say Poitou, therefore securing capetian influence, french presence, etc.

I think this is an interesting question. What will essentially happen is you have two "rival" cities within the realm with London and Paris on either side of the Channel. Which city the king prefers will greatly affect history.
I'm inclined to think they will prefer Paris.
Given the great works Philip August did in Paris before the POD, I agree with you.
Great walls, one of the most important cities of Christiendom, and the Capetians already began to fix there a part of their administration and court.

As I recall (and I might be wrong about this, so someone correct me if I am) Richard the Lionheart spent most of his life in France, not England, and that was something of a trend amongst other English kings at the time. If a French king stayed in France, it would play, I think, to the benefit of the barons as well as the king.
Here, allow me to nuance.
Richard was far more a Duke of Aquitaine than an English King. He's raised in the favour of his mother, and she basically made of him an occitan lord in many regards.
Being duke of Aquitaine, his policy isn't really different from his grand-father and the ramnulfid line. Knowing only latin, french and occitan, the kingdom of England must have looked like a foreign land.

I'm not sure you can say it was a trend : his father shared his time between England and France, Stephen as well. And maybe the fact Anglo-Norman culture was quite close to what existed in Anjou or N-W part of the kingdom played.

Of course, at this time Aquitaine knew more troubles than England, but that doesn't fully explain why he didn't even went a complete year in England during his reign. I'm not usually for explaining everything thanks to personal preference of historical individuals, but frankly, I think we're kind of forced to study this for this case.
 
I would see 3 possibilities for capital

-the king alternate between London and Paris. This is a reversal to early french kings customs
- the king stays in Paris and the prince rules england from London
- the capital is moved to Rouen. The city is on the seine with a good access to both isle De France and england and in the center of a rich land.

I think the third one will be adopted eventually
 
Some kind of mix between possibilities 1 and 2 would be a good solution.

The royal heir could be some kind of viceroy in England.

But there is another question in the long run. Given the fact he had many sons, would the french and english crowns remain on the same head after Louis VIII or would the english crown go to one of his younger sons ?
 
since it was the prince who led the attack, making England, or at least a part of it, the Prince's domain similar to Wales, or Daulphin would make some sense
 
Frankly, I would see more Crown Estates in England turned in great part as apanages, for reason listed above, than given to the heir. The french princes were more associated to their father's rule than in say, England.
Now, a good part of England would be certainly trusted to the sucessor, but the use wasn't made yet to let them act like others lords.

But there is another question in the long run. Given the fact he had many sons, would the french and english crowns remain on the same head after Louis VIII or would the english crown go to one of his younger sons ?
Not of their own will, but admittedly a political crisis could lead to split the titles.
But a precedent would have been made, and in case of conflict between a king of England or France and nobility/political faction, etc, you could have more frequently a call to these opponents to make the other their ruler.
 
Out of curiosity, in that scenario, given the greater centralization of England, migh Louis VIII successors prefer to rule in England, where the tax base is greater, leading to the French nobles attempting to free themselves from this "English" king, who attempts to impose English centralization on the French nobility?

I don't think a king in the 13th century is really going to crunch the numbers like an accountant and choose the most efficiently-governed place. (Besides, he's a king, so he's probably egotistical enough to think he can fix France's finances.) France is the most pre-eminent Western Christian kingdom during this time, the source country of most of the Crusaders, while England is more on the periphery of European civilization. It's hard to imagine a King of France becoming an absentee ruler - I don't think there is any historical example of that happening, whereas there are several cases of English monarchs not living in England.
 
I don't think a king in the 13th century is really going to crunch the numbers like an accountant and choose the most efficiently-governed place. (Besides, he's a king, so he's probably egotistical enough to think he can fix France's finances.) France is the most pre-eminent Western Christian kingdom during this time, the source country of most of the Crusaders, while England is more on the periphery of European civilization. It's hard to imagine a King of France becoming an absentee ruler - I don't think there is any historical example of that happening, whereas there are several cases of English monarchs not living in England.

There aren't in this period any examples of kings of France holding something that would make them go outside France, either - unlike England. And I think in this period the honor of "pre-eminent" is still the HRE.
 
There aren't in this period any examples of kings of France holding something that would make them go outside France, either - unlike England. And I think in this period the honor of "pre-eminent" is still the HRE.

Speaking of which, I'd be curious how the HRE would react to France suddenly securing its western borders.

Or would Henry simply escape to Angevin France and fight the French from there, reversing essentially the situation previously between France and England (if that makes sense. didn't really know how to word it).
 
Speaking of which, I'd be curious how the HRE would react to France suddenly securing its western borders.
I think (as I said above) that Frederic II wouldn't be too fond of that, that HRE didn't suffered from its defeat at Bouvines, and that the emperor wouldn't see well a France/English behemoth going too far in his direction.

Or would Henry simply escape to Angevin France and fight the French from there, reversing essentially the situation previously between France and England (if that makes sense. didn't really know how to word it).

Regarding how much is left of Angevine France and his forces, it's not going to take long to...how to put it..."end" him.
Henri III, with much ressources was defeated at Saintes and Taillebourg, in English lands.
 
There aren't in this period any examples of kings of France holding something that would make them go outside France, either - unlike England. And I think in this period the honor of "pre-eminent" is still the HRE.

Well, French kings did expand the royal domain far beyond the Île-de-France, which originally was all they had, but this never prompted them to leave Paris.

You can make a case for the HRE being a more prestigious throne, OK, but that's really it for that time period. England then was not what it would later become. Moreover, London was considerably smaller than Paris at this time, with only about half the population, if that.
 
Last edited:
You can make a case for the HRE being a more prestigious throne, OK, but that's really it for that time period. England then was not what it would later become.

That it wasn't. HRE and France were considered, in prestige regards, as equal to HRE since (at least, based on documented sources) Robert II of France.
And even later, France remained to be really prestigous as a title : it's why English kings claiming french throne used french coa first on their coat of arms, then english arms.
 
Well, French kings did expand the royal domain far beyond the Île-de-France, which originally was all they had, but this never prompted them to leave Paris.

But that's not the same as an entirely foreign country. And I'm not sure how focused on Paris they were - medieval courts had a tendency to be on the move.

But that's not the same as moving to another place long term.

You can make a case for the HRE being a more prestigious throne, OK, but that's really it for that time period. England then was not what it would later become. Moreover, London was considerably smaller than Paris at this time, with only about half the population, if that.
Definitely. England is hardly a backwater, but I don't think its up to France's level if we're measuring prestige.
 
Last edited:
Dynastic marriages are unlikely to be the same as OTL with a POD significantly impacting the party or parties involved.
Without wanting to wade into what almost appears to be a private argument, I'm quoting this for its relevance.

What appears to be a useful/helpful/advantageous marriage with a prince or princess of France may not look as good if that same prince or princess (depending on how keen on butterflies you are, and how close to the PoD) is of the royal house of England and France. Strategic considerations will change, and France may lose the support of some it counted allies before.
 
Top