Henry I of England has a second son, consequences?

Very true, in regards to Clito, how likely was his success?
I still think he'll end up dead regardless of Louis's patronage as he is too big a threat to Henry and his heir.
The question is more will he have children and what happens to them if he does?
A daughter would be more useful to marry to Richard than Laurette. Though marrying that daughter to any future sons of Thierry alongside Laurette's marriage to Richard with some form of exchange of rights could be useful.
A son would be another threat Louis could use.
No children likely still means success of Thierry in claiming Flanders but the longer this takes the more likely Matilda reconciles with Geoffrey.
 
I still think he'll end up dead regardless of Louis's patronage as he is too big a threat to Henry and his heir.
The question is more will he have children and what happens to them if he does?
A daughter would be more useful to marry to Richard than Laurette. Though marrying that daughter to any future sons of Thierry alongside Laurette's marriage to Richard with some form of exchange of rights could be useful.
A son would be another threat Louis could use.
No children likely still means success of Thierry in claiming Flanders but the longer this takes the more likely Matilda reconciles with Geoffrey.

Alright interesting, would it make it more interesting to have him have both a son and a daughter?
 
Coming to this late, commenting on Stephen's reactions.

His seizing the throne in OTL was almost entirely based on being the best male candidate plus opportunism. I don't think he's foolish enough to try it on the latter alone. And unlike the Richard III situation mentioned, his life/family are not at risk if ~ Godfrey succeeds, nor is the country coming off decades of internecine war/antagonism, nor is there an equivalent to the Lancastrian threat to a minority reign.

I think, rather, as AQ suggests, he's more likely to push for a dominant role in the regency. He might use that to expand his power base in England, the Continent or both, but I seriously doubt he'd take on a hopeless bid for the throne (barring Godfrey proving seriously incapable or a sudden extreme threat needing a warrior King.) His record seems to paint him as having a pretty good sense of realpolitik, and where he errs it tends to be towards magnamity/chivalry rather than acquisitiveness.
 
Coming to this late, commenting on Stephen's reactions.

His seizing the throne in OTL was almost entirely based on being the best male candidate plus opportunism. I don't think he's foolish enough to try it on the latter alone. And unlike the Richard III situation mentioned, his life/family are not at risk if ~ Godfrey succeeds, nor is the country coming off decades of internecine war/antagonism, nor is there an equivalent to the Lancastrian threat to a minority reign.

I think, rather, as AQ suggests, he's more likely to push for a dominant role in the regency. He might use that to expand his power base in England, the Continent or both, but I seriously doubt he'd take on a hopeless bid for the throne (barring Godfrey proving seriously incapable or a sudden extreme threat needing a warrior King.) His record seems to paint him as having a pretty good sense of realpolitik, and where he errs it tends to be towards magnamity/chivalry rather than acquisitiveness.

Very true, so a more dominant role, perhaps sometihng akin to the struggles of Henry III's regency then?
 
Top