Plantagenets get the French throne - would they become a French dynasty?

Let's say the Plantagenets get the French throne some way or another (e.g. no Valois ascendancy, Henry V doesn't die early or Charles VII dies early).

It's been posited that with France being the larger, more populous, richer, and more prestigious crown that the Plantagenets would eventually move to Paris and speak French as their first language again, but would it be possible for the reverse to happen - that is, the combined kingdom being ruled from London and becoming more English in nature (which has a possibility, given that England had a few advantages such as a more egalitarian society, more centralized, and being on an island meant it was more easily defensible).

So how likely is each outcome?

 

Well the Plantagenets were originally a French dynasty (Angevins derive from Anjou)... If they get France early they will become French again...
If they get later we’ll they will still likely become soon a French dynasty again..

 

Would there be any push back from the cadet branches?

 

It may depend how Edward III would become king in the first place. Henry V or anyone after him would have such a distant claim to the French throne that I don't believe they would be able to hold onto both crowns and would always be seen as invaders usurping the crown. Edward had far more legal ground to his claim, being a grandchild of Philip IV, just like Joan II of Navarre, though both were bypassed due to descending from a female line or being female themselves, as well as Joan's own legitimacy being in doubt.

Let's say that Isabella of France manages to convince the French magnates to accept her son Edward as king based on his direct descent. He would certainly be facing his share of unrest, but let's also assume that before long, he establishes his authority throughout and gains the fealty of the nobles. I think his very first act would be to crown his eldest son Edward in a similar way to how Henry II crowned his own heir, who was known as Henry the Young King, to secure the succession and honestly, to be able to better manage both realms. Prince Edward had in OTL been very loyal to his father, as the king granted him significant responsibilities, titles, lands, and the income that came with them. It could be an arrangement similar to that of the old Roman tetrarchy with Edward III being the Augustus and Prince Edward being the Caesar.

Prince Edward almost certainly becomes Duke of Aquitaine as well, and I think this would cause his descendants to become more and more French as time went on. In OTL, his son Richard was born in Bordeaux. Furthermore, TTL Prince Edward is likely being married to a French noblewoman with close descent to the Capetian dynasty to further solidify the Plantagenet dynasty, instead of shacking up with his very English cousin Joan of Kent.

However, I think the eventual pragmatic decision would force the separation of crowns down the line. Even if Prince Edward outlives his father in TTL and becomes Edward IV of England and Edward II of France, his heirs are not guaranteed to be able to maintain the union and England would be lost to the main Plantagenet dynasty unless the decision is made to finally split the crowns between two legitimate sons. Otherwise, perhaps a John of Gaunt begins to agitate for one of the crowns and invites a civil war.

 

Henry V's marriage was done precisely to avoid this, and it could easily be done if he crowned his wife as Queen of France instead. The issue was whether if the other sons of Charles VI still survived, if the English managed to kill Charles VII, and given enough autonomy for the Burgundian, it's certainly doable.

 

They were originally French aristocratic dynasty but they were not French royal dynasty. The whole claim had been based upon the link to the Capetians.

 

It would be against tradition to have crowned Queen of France and to achieve recognition of her legitimacy. Even having her son as a king proved to be a foolish idea: Henry VI was crowned (in Paris) and nobody paid attention.

 

I'm certainly aware of this, hence why I suggested if Charles VI's son had all died. Furthermore, this was written in response to Ivan Lupo's claim that Henry V had less of a claim than Edward III, which like I said, if he were to push the claim of the surviving child of Charles VI, it would certainly be better than Edward's situation.

Simply put, if you want to have the Plantagenets to succeed you'd have to force the French to ignore Salic Law, and what better way than the death of all male-line Valois (or uh...all Capet???)descendants

 

For that, you need precendence before Edward III when French throne is passed through female line, thus Salic Law can't be used as argument against Plantagenet claim.

 

Though the burgundians survival sort of shows the Valois aren’t dead, as does the survival of Orleans and anjou

 

“Surviving child” had to be a son of the Kung of France, not his grandson from a daughter. “all male-line Valois” included the Burgundians who, in an absence of all other male Valois, probably prefer the crown of France to just autonomy of the Duchy.

Of course, Henry was trying to push through the schema and got an agreement from his father-in-Law (probably pressured by his scheming wife) but it was one of the cases when official agreement means little: the Dauphin was alive and so were representatives of both Burgundian and Orlean branches and both branches had in their disposal considerable military forces, financial resources and territories. The main reason why the Burgundians opted to support the Treaty of Troys and Henry’s claim was assassination of John the Fearless, which made them understandably pissed off. But, as OTL demonstrated, this position was not set in stone and a tangible compensation compelled them to change the sides. Anyway, while England had traditional trade relations with the Flanders, having a king of both England and France would contradict the Burgundian interests (and traditional English relations with the Flemish cities would be a potential danger to the Dukes if a new king decides to incite the rebellion against them).

Anyway, it does not look like confirmation of the Treaty of Troys by the Estates General and the following act of the Parliament of Paris which disinherited Dauphin had a noticeable effect on Dauphin’s position and Armagnac’s support of his claim. Neither did they put his eventual coronation in question in the terms of its legality. Paris was pro-Burgundian, not pro-English.

 

Regardless of how the Plantagenets acquire the French throne they would be thoroughly Francified within two generations, France was larger, richer, more cultured and more prestigious. Whether it would cause problems is another thing entirely, a continuing House of York based in England where there Estates would be and remaining Anglicised might be just the sort of figurehead an anti-French revolt in the 16th century is looking for.

 

That's a weird logic, why can't Edward III or Henry V be the precedence? Although I'm not stating it wouldn't be difficult, it's like Salic law in other countries weren't overwritten with enough compromise or forced applied.

Yup my post there did suggest all of the Capetians, but it would certainly be difficult to arrange it.

Why would they prefer the crown of France if they're dead?

Like what I said to Jan, it's the matter of precedence, if the precedence could be set would the tradition matter? Just like how the legality of Dauphin succeeding didn't matter in the face of "tradition", these are flexible points that could be altered given enough concessions from Henry V for the time being. If you're fixated on the event of just the Dauphin dies, the Anjou and Orleans line still exist in front of the Burgundian in terms of "tradition" to provide some sort of impetus for animosity from the Burgundian.

Now with that being said, I'm more inclined to believe that England would not be content with a French dominated union, even if they only held "neustria" and parts of Aquitaine, so some decade down the line the Plantagenets would either have to separate to two lines or get kicked out of one country.

 

Because they're English. Thus there was motivation to exclude them from the line of succession and old Salic Law was recalled. If before E3 there was instance of female line succession with 'native' candidate, who would not be so strongly opposed, then Salic Law could not be used anymore.

 

It would be an easier POD for sure, but if we want to make the same situation allowing Edward III and Henry V to appear, cause you know, butterflies, it's much more difficult. But yes it'll definitely wipe out the Salic Law argument.

 

There is the question of Joan of Navarre.Is she to be declared a bastard?Otherwise her claim is still stronger than Edward’s.

 

Plantagenets based their claims on statement (common in Medieval Europe) that woman can't inherit the throne, but could pass her rights to her sons, as Joan has no sons when her father died, her line lost claim to the throne (from Edward III's POV).

 

It would not be a combined kingdom. It would be two kingdoms in personal union. Institutionally they would be separate : the laws of England would not apply to France and vice-versa.

It is very unlikely that France would become English in culture. Not only does it have four times as many people, but if the king of France acts too much like a foreigner, it will alienate his supporters. A Plantagenet victory in the war requires the support of a significant amount of French nobility. Their hold on the throne is precarious and contested ; they have to become French to be accepted.

I think the big question is what happens to England ITTL, now finding itself with a dynasty that has become foreign.

 

It was always foreign though.It just ended up getting assimilated during the 100yw.

 

But earlier, it was not only the monarchy but the aristocracy in general. By the XV century the nobles have assimilated. Also, the kings are probably going to be in France most of the time.