Normandy annexed to the English crown?

The Wikipedia article on Henry I of England claims that after he conquered Normandy from his brother Robert, he ruled it as King of England and didn't bother to call himself "Duke". Does anyone know if this is actually true? In any case, it seems that this policy wasn't continued by later English Kings - so was it only a legally dubious administrative shortcut, without him formally annexing it?

Could a formal annexation have happened at any point? Perhaps in the 1430s or '40s, the English, realising they are losing the war, decide to annex Normandy and Gascony (or even a larger "Aquitaine") and focus on defending them whilst abandoning the rest of France? Could this have been sustained in the long term?
 
Wasn't the Duchy always part of the Kingdom of France, held in personal union by the Kings of England?

Akin to Boulogne and Tournai as well.
 
If they are losing the war why would they annex territory that they won't be able to hold?

They still actually controlled Normandy and Gascony, and more besides, in the 1430s. I was referring to them abandoning the claim to the whole of France, legally annexing Normandy and Gascony to England (rather than being part of Henry VI's "French" Kingdom), and retreating from their other holdings such as the Ile de France so that they will be less overstretched. Maybe Charles VII would even agree to peace on these terms (unless this is towards the end when it looks like he can just conquer even those territories) if Henry VI drops his claim to the French crown.

Well the Queen is the Duke of Normandy today and the Duchy still exists.

Yes, but the Channel Islands aren't considered part of England. I was referring to Normandy proper anyway.
 
Last edited:
The main issue is that Normandy during the 100 years war is particularly hostile to English forces. It's probably the only region where a real resistance was organized.

For Henry I, whatever he considered himself or not as Duke of Normandy is not relevant : what matters was it was considered as such by others. You see, and critically in the north of France, was make the right is the custom.

And the custom regarding Normandy was it was a duchy, under the law of France.

It's a quick resume, of course and a decided ruler could find how to resolve that, but it would have to count on the hostility of his neighboors and of his own vassals.

For the late medieval period...Maybe it's more easier, and a Treaty could do it...But i don't know if the english king would have the ressources and the possibilities to apply it a lasting time : depends of the date, and probably earlier PODs.
 
The Wikipedia article on Henry I of England claims that after he conquered Normandy from his brother Robert, he ruled it as King of England and didn't bother to call himself "Duke". Does anyone know if this is actually true? In any case, it seems that this policy wasn't continued by later English Kings - so was it only a legally dubious administrative shortcut, without him formally annexing it?

Henry never took the title because it would have required him to pay homage to the French king. He ascended to the throne of England while his eldest brother, Robert Curthose, was still alive and the reigning Duke of Normandy. After his brother's capture and incarceration, the title of duke was given to Henry's only legitimate son, William Adelin, but never exercised any authority over the duchy.

Before Henry I succeeded William Rufus, both him and Robert were without heirs, and agreed to safeguard realms in the event one of them died. Robert went on Crusade in 1095, and William II became the regent of Normandy. William died shortly before Robert's return in 1100. Robert would try to pursue his claim to the English crown, but his invasion of England was defeated by Henry.

Six years later, Henry would invade Normandy on the pretext of Robert's continued conspiracy to supplant him as well as his mismanagement of Normandy. Robert would ultimately lose to Henry at the Battle of Tinchebray, and become his brother's prisoner until his death in 1134.

Henry I of England had full control of Normandy, but gave the ducal title to his son, William, who was born in 1103. King Henry was content to play the regent in Normandy, without carrying out the obligations of its duke to the king of France, who was the traditional overlord of the House of Normandy.
 
Henry never took the title because it would have required him to pay homage to the French king. He ascended to the throne of England while his eldest brother, Robert Curthose, was still alive and the reigning Duke of Normandy. After his brother's capture and incarceration, the title of duke was given to Henry's only legitimate son, William Adelin, but never exercised any authority over the duchy.

Before Henry I succeeded William Rufus, both him and Robert were without heirs, and agreed to safeguard realms in the event one of them died. Robert went on Crusade in 1095, and William II became the regent of Normandy. William died shortly before Robert's return in 1100. Robert would try to pursue his claim to the English crown, but his invasion of England was defeated by Henry.

Six years later, Henry would invade Normandy on the pretext of Robert's continued conspiracy to supplant him as well as his mismanagement of Normandy. Robert would ultimately lose to Henry at the Battle of Tinchebray, and become his brother's prisoner until his death in 1134.

Henry I of England had full control of Normandy, but gave the ducal title to his son, William, who was born in 1103. King Henry was content to play the regent in Normandy, without carrying out the obligations of its duke to the king of France, who was the traditional overlord of the House of Normandy.
Lysandros,you are,regarding to facts, historically correct,but here the issue is...legal and not simply what Henry did or didn't do,but what he could or couldn't do in terms of the law of his day,customs and usages of that day and International law of...today,bear with me the case is actually hilarious,but I am going to treat it strictly legally because this is the essence of the case:Henry could not annex Normandy to England because England after 1066 was a fief on Normandy and easily the name of the fief could have been changed from England to Normandy since the names of fiefs signify nothing because fiefs were not recognised as national entities,so Normandy could have annexed England and not the other way round.Henry didn't like the fact that he was a vassal of the king of France?...tough...titty...OK he could raise Normandy to a kingdom(like Prussia did later) and cease to be vassal to the king of France by unilateral action,BUT as things stood only France could annex Normandy by abolishing the ducedom and attach it to the French crown lands.
Take for example the current situation with the Bailiwick of Guernsey:it was part of the ducedom of Normandy so now Guernsey owns England and not the otherway round and that is why it is not part of the English Crown.Look at the state of Administration of Guernsay today and you will clearly see that the structure of the Administration reflects the case;they don't have a governor but an officer who is a liaison with HM Government.It may sound as an International quirck but that is the case;so poor Henry has had it!
 
Last edited:
Are you sure? I mean William's conquest of England was about claiming his "inheritance", not subjecting it to Normandy. Sure, he was the Duke of Normandy and he used Norman troops, but why would that necessarily make the Kingdom of England a vassal of the Duchy of Normandy, rather than a forcibly confirmed "personal union"? In 1688, England didn't become a vassal of the Netherlands just because it was taken over by a Dutch Stadtholder. I realise that's a very different time period, but I don't really see the logic - it was a matter of "William vs Harold" rather than "Normandy vs England".
 
Are you sure? I mean William's conquest of England was about claiming his "inheritance", not subjecting it to Normandy. Sure, he was the Duke of Normandy and he used Norman troops, but why would that necessarily make the Kingdom of England a vassal of the Duchy of Normandy, rather than a forcibly confirmed "personal union"? In 1688, England didn't become a vassal of the Netherlands just because it was taken over by a Dutch Stadtholder. I realise that's a very different time period, but I don't really see the logic - it was a matter of "William vs Harold" rather than "Normandy vs England".

Yeah, William was claiming to be King of England AND Duke of Normandy - as you said, a forcibly confirmed "personal union".
 
Are you sure? I mean William's conquest of England was about claiming his "inheritance", not subjecting it to Normandy. Sure, he was the Duke of Normandy and he used Norman troops, but why would that necessarily make the Kingdom of England a vassal of the Duchy of Normandy, rather than a forcibly confirmed "personal union"? In 1688, England didn't become a vassal of the Netherlands just because it was taken over by a Dutch Stadtholder. I realise that's a very different time period, but I don't really see the logic - it was a matter of "William vs Harold" rather than "Normandy vs England".
1688 is a very different case at a very different time when different laws applied.
First William had proclaimed "the respect of the rights of the English people".
Second, he was a Stadtholder in a country that had a Parliament and had signed the newly drafted English 'Bill of Rights' and,
further,the Parliament offered to William and Mary the crown as "joined Sovereigns".
I hope you understand the difference in case and in a time that the vassalage was not applicable to sovereign states .
For any further doubts yours or someone else's I suggest that the case of the Bailiwick of Gurnsey will dispell any such so
please look into it.
Add the fact that William of Normandy hadn't had a valid claim to the English throne.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, William was claiming to be King of England AND Duke of Normandy - as you said, a forcibly confirmed "personal union".
There is no such thing as a forcible personal union,you would rather clearly say that William of Normandy claimed the english crown by right of conquest,which actually happened.If he hadn't conquered England he would't have had a valid claim.
 
When I said "personal union", all I meant was that (I thought) William claimed the Kingship of England as his personal right (from Harold's promise, the Papal dispensation and finally right of conquest), separately from his right to be Duke of Normandy. So you're saying that's wrong, and that he actually made England legally subordinate to Normandy, as a fief or a vassal state?
 
There is no such thing as a forcible personal union,you would rather clearly say that William of Normandy claimed the english crown by right of conquest,which actually happened.If he hadn't conquered England he would't have had a valid claim.

William's claim to throne came from his second cousin, Edward the Confessor, and was named as such as early as 1051. William had waited for fifteen years to become king, and would even force one of his opponents in England, Harold Godwinson, to swear to recognize his claim to the throne while holding him prisoner.

When he did lead his invasion of England months after finding out his claim to the English throne was disregarded by the clergy and nobility in England, William tried to respect the customs of his new subjects. But the constant rebellion by people who still remembered living under foreign rule, forced him to change his policy toward the English.

Legally, England was still a separate entity (retaining a separate body of laws from Normandy), but in all else became a colony of the Norman, Breton and Frankish knights (post-conquest earls of Cornwall and Richmond were Breton nobles, BTW).

William II of Normandy (1st of England) didn't like the name "William the Conqueror" any more than than he liked "Guillaume le Batard".
 
There is no such thing as a forcible personal union,you would rather clearly say that William of Normandy claimed the english crown by right of conquest,which actually happened.If he hadn't conquered England he would't have had a valid claim.

But William conquered England in the same sense that for instance the Danes did - adding "King of England" to his list of titles, not how say the Romans did to the area.
 
William's claim to throne came from his second cousin, Edward the Confessor, and was named as such as early as 1051. William had waited for fifteen years to become king, and would even force one of his opponents in England, Harold Godwinson, to swear to recognize his claim to the throne while holding him prisoner.

When he did lead his invasion of England months after finding out his claim to the English throne was disregarded by the clergy and nobility in England, William tried to respect the customs of his new subjects. But the constant rebellion by people who still remembered living under foreign rule, forced him to change his policy toward the English.

Legally, England was still a separate entity (retaining a separate body of laws from Normandy), but in all else became a colony of the Norman, Breton and Frankish knights (post-conquest earls of Cornwall and Richmond were Breton nobles, BTW).


William II of Normandy (1st of England) didn't like the name "William the Conqueror" any more than than he liked "Guillaume le Batard".
I agree,Godwinson was under duress which nullifies the oath but anyway William was himself a bastard,that is why he wasn't entitled to the claim.
Colony?of course,I agree ,this is a 16th century term replacing a crown fief.
A crown fief can be a different country conquered (annexed) and can have different laws(the Romans conquered countries but respected the local laws which were left untouched,except one:the right to declare war or peace.)
the critical point is:does it control its foreign policy? here did England of William have a different
foreign policy to William's Normandy? I daresay no...
 
Last edited:
But William conquered England in the same sense that for instance the Danes did - adding "King of England" to his list of titles, not how say the Romans did to the area.
Look what Aikiedes writes:"colony" that is it in semi-modern times and anyway the Romans annexed only two times:88 BC(awarding Roman citizenship to Italians) and 212 AD by Edict of Caracala extending Roman citizenship to all citizens of the empire.
 
Look what Aikiedes writes:"colony" that is it in semi-modern times and anyway the Romans annexed only two times:88 BC(awarding Roman citizenship to Italians) and 212 AD by Edict of Caracala extending Roman citizenship to all citizens of the empire.

Not sure how this makes the Roman conquest of Britannia (or anywhere else) comparable to William's claim to be rightful ruler of England and beating the (in his eyes) usurper.
 
When I said "personal union", all I meant was that (I thought) William claimed the Kingship of England as his personal right (from Harold's promise, the Papal dispensation and finally right of conquest), separately from his right to be Duke of Normandy. So you're saying that's wrong, and that he actually made England legally subordinate to Normandy, as a fief or a vassal state?
"Personal right"? as opposed to what? a real right?the crown of England(or any crown for that matter)is directly related to the land of England so one cannot differantiate between the crown and the land of the kingddom in middle ages.Please look at any 'Constitutional History course book for that.
As for the second,yes that is correct,read the Bailiwick of Gurnsay's case as I have mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
Top