King John Dies in 1203

Yes, but if she survived and lived a longer life she would have married before her elder sister have, I really think Eudes of Burgundy and Sancho of Navarre are the best candidates..
Well, first, it would have been a brand new situation, compared to the OP.
But if she survived, then the caution about having only one female grand-daughter of Henry II in England suitable for negociations would have probably disappeared, and you may see her marrying Louis VIII, as it was planned with Aliénor IOTL.
 
Well, first, it would have been a brand new situation, compared to the OP.
But if she survived, then the caution about having only one female grand-daughter of Henry II in England suitable for negociations would have probably disappeared, and you may see her marrying Louis VIII, as it was planned with Aliénor IOTL.
Matilda would have married Louis VIII instead of Blanche...that would be interesting..
 
Perhaps marrying Eleanor/Alienor/Alanor off to one of the Brunswick lads would be a nice compromise (though a dispensation would probably be needed)?
 
The biggest problem with the Fair Maid of Brittany is surely that she was John's prisoner at the time and almost certainly on board the ship that sank in the POD and so is likely dead with him.

In a circumstance such as this I can't help but think strict laws of precedent may go out of the window and it'll be the powerful noble closest to London with at least a vague claim who takes the crown, which probably means Salisbury - especially if he can get a papal decree legitimising himself. The real outcome will almost certainly be civil war though.
 
The biggest problem with the Fair Maid of Brittany is surely that she was John's prisoner at the time and almost certainly on board the ship that sank in the POD and so is likely dead with him.

In a circumstance such as this I can't help but think strict laws of precedent may go out of the window and it'll be the powerful noble closest to London with at least a vague claim who takes the crown, which probably means Salisbury - especially if he can get a papal decree legitimising himself. The real outcome will almost certainly be civil war though.

But if John gets killed in Battle in Normandy, Eleanor gets rescued.
 
*Sigh* Again, there was no succession law set on stone at this point : only custom and precedent build it up on a relatively long process. And we have a precedent with Mathilda.
I stress that : you didn't have succession laws in medieval Europe before the XIVth at best. Everything is built on custom, precedents, and opportunity.


That's a different situation : there isn't a real direct alternative, equivalent to Etienne de Blois that had not only a dynastical legitimacy but a political influence among the anglo-norman elite.
That the succession war continued that long, prooves that "wuman can't lead duh" wasn't really that present as an argument : it was who had the biggest stick to enforce the claim and while Etienne had one ready from the start, Mathilde had to build up one.


It's definitely clearer than the succession of Henri I, made even clearer by the absence of any credible dynastical rival : she's a grand-daughter of a king and nobody else can claim a direct issue. Anglo-Normans nobles would know that, and would probably support her at elast in a first time would it be only to delay the decision and negociate the succession of a childless Aliénor.

These 4 were all grandsons of King Henry II of England the same king she was granddaughter of her first cousins, and the first three grew up in England:
  • Henry V, the Elder of Brunswick (tried to claim crown against John) 1173
  • Otto IV, King of Rome 1175
  • William of Winchester, Lord of Lüneburg(tried to claim crown against John) 1184
  • Raymond VII, Count of Toulouse
Of course there were no laws at this point, there were precedents and conventions, which are changeable but did specifically exclude women, Matilda is my example also. This wasn't a strong precedent, but it is the only one about associating women with the throne. Let us say the two main claimants are the Elder of Brunswick and Eleanor of Brittany, neither children of kings, both grandchildren of Henry II, both grew up in England, one male one female, who do you think would be prefered? The male obviously, unless he was hated or something like that.
Eleanor of Brittany's line was skipped over for succession in England, does that mean she is disinherited, most likely not, but it could be argued that it did, which could put a very small cloud over her dynastic rights in England.
 
Henry V, the Elder of Brunswick
Probably the only really serious choice there. But IOTL, he simply didn't considered the possibility of a Plantagenet inheritence, remaining essentially with his german demesnes.
Long story short, he didn't seem to have actually claimed the english royal title IOTL (it doesn't seem to appears as such contemporarily : but maybe you have different and better sources than I have at hand?). Why would he do so ITTL?

As said above : a putative claim that is not acknowledged, even less enforced, is no claim at all.
Would he be a natural candidate if Alienor dies childless ITTL? Probably much more so, giving the lack of an obvious and legitim candidate among the Anglo-Norman nobility, assuming he takes interest for claiming the kingship of England which is quite possible but not as obvious you make it so.

Anyway, for what matters the actual political situation the moment the PoD kicks in, Aliénor does have the obvious clearer claim as feminine inheritence have precedent in England.
Otto IV, King of Rome 1175
Far too busy trying to hold its own against Philipp of Swabia at this point, and loosing the conflict.
Eventually, what I said about his brother above holds even more for him.

William of Winchester, Lord of Lüneburg(tried to claim crown against John) 1184
Same as above, altough I think he would have a much better chance than Otto if both Aliénor and Henry dies, by virtue not being emperor. Transmission of kingship trough a cadet branch isn't unheard of at this point, and it would be a natural choice (if not condition for acceptance) for both Anglo-Norman but Imperial nobility as well.

Raymond VII, Count of Toulouse
He's probably the one that have clearly the lesser chances to claim anything. And by less chances, I mean he would have none even if everyone else dies : Raimond VIII/IX was at this point not even fully count (admittedlty he was considered as a junior count for what it mattered) but Raimondins barely controlled their own demesne north of Tarn, let alone controlling the plethora of their vassals AND were about to recieve the full strength of the Crusade.
They couldn't even enforce their claim to the Duchy of Narbonne : how in frozen hell would have they been able to enforce a claim over Aquitaine, let alone England?

Of course there were no laws at this point, there were precedents and conventions, which are changeable but did specifically exclude women, Matilda is my example also.

And your exemple is flawed : Mathilda legitimacy was eventually acknowledged trough civil war, not only trugh a de facto situation (as after the Battle of Lincoln, where a significant part of Anglo-Norman nobility acknowledged her as "Mistress of Englishmen" (Domina Anglorum) and most of the resistance to having her being crowned is less due to be a woman, but to the fact Stephen was still alive and didn't renounced the crown yet, and having still enough forces to oppose her in London (mostly due to her poor politics).

I stress this : it's clear from the oath given in 1127 that the issue with her isn't being a woman, it doesn't appear as such in documents (while it does appear for Capetian succession) but from being seen as a lesser candidate overall, having much less ties in England (as Stephen did).
Did the fact she was a woman didn't played? Of course it did, and a lot when it comes to nobiliar and critically clerical alignment : but, and that's an important but, it never was rationalized as such, not creating a clear precedent.

Let us say the two main claimants are the Elder of Brunswick and Eleanor of Brittany, neither children of kings, both grandchildren of Henry II, both grew up in England, one male one female, who do you think would be prefered? The male obviously, unless he was hated or something like that.
I think you're thinking too much in matters of genealogy and (pretty much technical) "claims", and not enough in matter of political situation.
What would have mattered for the Anglo-Norman nobility would have been some stability for the moment being : with the political/military crisis that John managed to create and loose pitfully, the general feeling would have been that Aliénor represented a fair chance of legitimate and immediate succession (being present in England would have been a large bonus compared to other possible pretenders).

Let's rememeber, again, that Welfs didn't show much interest on being the very pretty much technical heirs of England during this decade IOTL. So, a pretender avaible right away and without clear ties with such or such house? It would have been a bloody opportunity.

If something, Aliénor's reign could have been seen by the Anglo-Norman lords as an opportunity to advance their interests more smoothly than it could have been done with John, especially the abandon de facto of the vis et voluntas principle. I could see, however, the same nobility preparing a later succession, such as making a possible Welf pretender the acting viscount in what remained of Guyenne : finding more advantages with an immediate succession by Aliénor doesn't mean they wouldn't have wanted to prepare an eventual male succession.

Eleanor of Brittany's line was skipped over for succession in England, does that mean she is disinherited, most likely not, but it could be argued that it did, which could put a very small cloud over her dynastic rights in England.
That, on the contrary, is actually a fair point. I could see, would a crisis arise, this being argued.
That said, her claim was just unenforced by her uncle and tutor, which could be as easily be part of the unlawful set of decisions that would be reversed ITTL for the benefit of English nobility : some sort of political pretext.

But indeed, that would be a major argument against her being crowned.
 
The sons of the daughters of Eleanor of Aquitaine precede the succession of the Children of the daughters of Henry II on Aquitaine, it means the only alternative for Aquitaine if Philippe Auguste wants to prevent the whole Angevin inheritance to Eleanor of Brittany is for Eleanor of Aquitaine assign Alice of Jerusalem, the daughter of the Grandson of Eleanor of Aquitaine via Marie of France as her heiress to Aquitaine..
 
Probably the only really serious choice there. But IOTL, he simply didn't considered the possibility of a Plantagenet inheritence, remaining essentially with his german demesnes.
Long story short, he didn't seem to have actually claimed the english royal title IOTL (it doesn't seem to appears as such contemporarily : but maybe you have different and better sources than I have at hand?). Why would he do so ITTL?

As said above : a putative claim that is not acknowledged, even less enforced, is no claim at all.
Would he be a natural candidate if Alienor dies childless ITTL? Probably much more so, giving the lack of an obvious and legitim candidate among the Anglo-Norman nobility, assuming he takes interest for claiming the kingship of England which is quite possible but not as obvious you make it so.

Anyway, for what matters the actual political situation the moment the PoD kicks in, Aliénor does have the obvious clearer claim as feminine inheritence have precedent in England.

Far too busy trying to hold its own against Philipp of Swabia at this point, and loosing the conflict.
Eventually, what I said about his brother above holds even more for him.


Same as above, altough I think he would have a much better chance than Otto if both Aliénor and Henry dies, by virtue not being emperor. Transmission of kingship trough a cadet branch isn't unheard of at this point, and it would be a natural choice (if not condition for acceptance) for both Anglo-Norman but Imperial nobility as well.


He's probably the one that have clearly the lesser chances to claim anything. And by less chances, I mean he would have none even if everyone else dies : Raimond VIII/IX was at this point not even fully count (admittedlty he was considered as a junior count for what it mattered) but Raimondins barely controlled their own demesne north of Tarn, let alone controlling the plethora of their vassals AND were about to recieve the full strength of the Crusade.
They couldn't even enforce their claim to the Duchy of Narbonne : how in frozen hell would have they been able to enforce a claim over Aquitaine, let alone England?



And your exemple is flawed : Mathilda legitimacy was eventually acknowledged trough civil war, not only trugh a de facto situation (as after the Battle of Lincoln, where a significant part of Anglo-Norman nobility acknowledged her as "Mistress of Englishmen" (Domina Anglorum) and most of the resistance to having her being crowned is less due to be a woman, but to the fact Stephen was still alive and didn't renounced the crown yet, and having still enough forces to oppose her in London (mostly due to her poor politics).

I stress this : it's clear from the oath given in 1127 that the issue with her isn't being a woman, it doesn't appear as such in documents (while it does appear for Capetian succession) but from being seen as a lesser candidate overall, having much less ties in England (as Stephen did).
Did the fact she was a woman didn't played? Of course it did, and a lot when it comes to nobiliar and critically clerical alignment : but, and that's an important but, it never was rationalized as such, not creating a clear precedent.


I think you're thinking too much in matters of genealogy and (pretty much technical) "claims", and not enough in matter of political situation.
What would have mattered for the Anglo-Norman nobility would have been some stability for the moment being : with the political/military crisis that John managed to create and loose pitfully, the general feeling would have been that Aliénor represented a fair chance of legitimate and immediate succession (being present in England would have been a large bonus compared to other possible pretenders).

Let's rememeber, again, that Welfs didn't show much interest on being the very pretty much technical heirs of England during this decade IOTL. So, a pretender avaible right away and without clear ties with such or such house? It would have been a bloody opportunity.

If something, Aliénor's reign could have been seen by the Anglo-Norman lords as an opportunity to advance their interests more smoothly than it could have been done with John, especially the abandon de facto of the vis et voluntas principle. I could see, however, the same nobility preparing a later succession, such as making a possible Welf pretender the acting viscount in what remained of Guyenne : finding more advantages with an immediate succession by Aliénor doesn't mean they wouldn't have wanted to prepare an eventual male succession.


That, on the contrary, is actually a fair point. I could see, would a crisis arise, this being argued.
That said, her claim was just unenforced by her uncle and tutor, which could be as easily be part of the unlawful set of decisions that would be reversed ITTL for the benefit of English nobility : some sort of political pretext.

But indeed, that would be a major argument against her being crowned.

Domina Anglorum is more traditionally translated as Lady of the English. Matilda never consolidated her power and was not crowned, the precedent set was the only legitimate child of the king who was also the named Heir, with all englishmen swearing to uphold her succession, was not allowed to succeed, even after she raised arms. But her son after raising arms was named heir even though the then current King Stephen had living sons. The consequence of a woman pressing her claim was chaos or "The Anarchy". Matilda lost and was never a legitimate Sovereign, even though she ruled very shortly, Stephen was, and it was because she was a women. How could that not set the precedent that women can only pass their claim to their children, especially since it reinforced Stephen's claim through his mother? Matilda outlived Stephen by 13 years, yet her son and not her became monarch of England.

Why would the Welfs want the crown? It was believed and still believed that the Anointing during the Coronations changes the Character of the Soul. It was a religious thing that set apart kings from regular men, forever making them to somewhat divine. It was why the french king was able to go to war with his vassals while largely not fearing of death on the battlefield. Still this doesn't appeal to everyone.

My point is I have never ran across anything mentioning Eleanor of Brittany as a heir to her brother's claim to the throne of England and she was held captive by John for her superior claim to some of the their families continental holdings. So why would she suddenly become a claimant if John died, when she wasn't even a child of king, only a grandchild and she had male first cousins? I guess it could of happened if no one else pressed a claim, I just find it unlikely. She probably wouldn't of ruled even if by some off chance she inherited, it would of been her husband, which would of most likely been the first powerful nobleman, or nobleman's son, that got of hold of her. It would of established the precedent of King by right of wife in England, which was already common back then for other kingdoms and the nobility. Anyways l think we just disagree for whatever reasons.
 
Top