Principality of Aquitaine.

The principality of Aquitaine never becomes English. Princess Eleanor never marries Henry of England, or her brother lives and he inherits the territory.
 
Before Eleanor married the english King, she was Queen of France.

So, if the french King never divorces her....

And, BTW, Aquitaine was a Duchy ( vassal to the french crown ), not an independent principality.
 
Last edited:
So no Plantagenets who will rule England?

I guess France's power will be bigger since it connects the possesion of the King of France with the possesions of William of Aqutaine heir.
 
An interesting possibility is if Eleanor has only daughters and her french husband dies.

Who wants to bet the Queen Mother is not going to let anyone even try to whisper of ressurecting the salic law....

OTOH, that could be a way to get a principality of Aquitaine. Queen Regent Eleanor establish her lans as principality for her eldest daughter to learn to rule in a friendly environment, while her mother takes care of the unruly french barons. And Aquitaine is the appanage of the french heir to the throne from then on, instead of Dauphine.
 
So no Plantagenets who will rule England?

I guess France's power will be bigger since it connects the possesion of the King of France with the possesions of William of Aqutaine heir.

The Plantagenents were Angevin, not Aquitainean. Aquitaine was ruled by the Noble House d'Aquitaine.
 
The Plantagenents were Angevin, not Aquitainean. Aquitaine was ruled by the Noble House d'Aquitaine.

But King Henry II Plantagenet, the first Angevin who took power in England, was able to do so because of the power and wealth that his wife (Eleanor of Aquitaine) brought with her to the marriage. Thus one could argue that the English Angevins were just as much Aquitanian as Angevin.

On a different note, besides things like the "Prince of Wales" or the "Prince of totally forget the name" in Spain, are there any examples of any independent Princes in the West? I know some Princes of Wales have been quite independent, but I mean actually soverign.
 

Susano

Banned
And, BTW, Aquitaine was a Duchy ( vassal to the french crown ), not an independent principality.
Principality doesnt mean independance - a principality is a step below duchy, even, but yes, Quitaine was a duchy, of course.
 
Principality doesnt mean independance - a principality is a step below duchy, even,

:confused:
Are you sure?

AFAIK, in most countries ( Belgium being the only exception I know ), a Prince ( even if not of the Blood ) is considered above a Duke, in order of nobility. So I supposed a Principality was considered as more honorable than a Duchy, for the same land. Yes, there were some rather insignificant principalities ( Monaco and Andora come to mind ), but that was also the case for some Duchies.

OTOH, I admit I linked principality to independence, which may be a bend because of french history ( The title of Prince was reserved, in french nobility for the Royal familly, with a few exception, except for independent principality integrated inside France ).
 

Susano

Banned
The fact is that in English and in the Romance languages, "Prince" has actually two meanings - a Prince is either a member of the royal family, or the ruler of a principality. The first is a royal (non-reiogning royal, of course, but nontheless royal), the second a noble title. Of course, things like "Prince of Wales" and "Prince of Asturias" confuse those matters, but principally (heh), its like that. In German the noble title is Fürst, and the royal title is Prinz, and "Fürst" denoted both an entire class of titles (also including Landgraves, Margraves and Dukes) and a specific title in itself. Which is why youll often find terms like "the German princes", etc, which technically refers to the former meaning of Fürst (but often means all de facto independant territorial rulers in Germany). For a long time, the only princes (Fürsten) in Germany to also have it as title were the Anhalts, though the 18th century saw a craze of raising counts to princes (Fürsten)... I wonder then how the French court, if in contact with those, called them then... Anyways, for example the Principlaity of Anhalt was raised to Duchy of Anhalt in the Congress of Vienna...

So, it comes down to the title having two meanings ;)
 
Maybe is a crazy idea, but WI Eleanor marries Sancho VI of Navarre instead of Henry, creating then a Navarre-Aquitaine union?
 
:confused:
Are you sure?

AFAIK, in most countries ( Belgium being the only exception I know ), a Prince ( even if not of the Blood ) is considered above a Duke, in order of nobility. So I supposed a Principality was considered as more honorable than a Duchy, for the same land. Yes, there were some rather insignificant principalities ( Monaco and Andora come to mind ), but that was also the case for some Duchies.

OTOH, I admit I linked principality to independence, which may be a bend because of french history ( The title of Prince was reserved, in french nobility for the Royal familly, with a few exception, except for independent principality integrated inside France ).

Oh my :eek:
Firstly, the the assumption that the title of "prince" outranks the title of "duke" is completely unfounded. It is a case by case basis, depending on the local system of nobility. As a rule, one generally finds the title of "prince" at the top when there is no native title of "duke" present (such as in the Russian Empire).
Generally speaking, however, the title of "duke" outranks the title of prince; notice I say "title" because the idea of a "rank" of prince (i.e. a prince of royal blood) is not included in this assumption. However, even the title of "prince" for the son of a king is far from consistent, especially in pre-revolutionary Europe (it didn't develop in England--consistantly at least--until George I brought it over from Germany, and it never caught on in France, Portugal or Spain at all).
Secondly, the assertion that in France, the title of "prince" was reserved for the royal family is completely inaccurate. The title of prince never existed in France before the Revolution. While the rank of "prince of the blood" (prince du sang) did exist for members of the extended royal family, this was not a title. Period. Grandsons of a king of France and their issue were referred to as "N. de [fathers primary appanage]" followed by whatever other titles they possessed (both by law and by courtesy).
There were some exceptions to this rule, however. Certain foreign titles of "prince" were recognized by the king of France (especially after Artois was annexed), but their ranking in the order of precedence was disputed until well after 1800 (when they were placed after dukes and before marquis in the official order of things). They certainly were never believed to outrank dukes, however.
There were also some small feudal principalities existing in France, all of which (to my knowlege) had their origins in the Holy Roman Empire, and had simply been incorporated into French territory and recognized the French king as their liege (such as Monaco and Orange).
The rank of "prince étranger" (foreign prince) also existed in France, and could be bestowed by the French king on subjects whose titles of prince were recognized in France (as stated above) or who were of royal descent (such as the Rohan and Guise families). This was, however, not a title, but a rank, which carried with it many special privileges, though in practice, princes étranger ranked after peers of the realm and princes of the blood (many argued that they outranked non-peer dukes, thought that is another discussion entirely).
Finally, many nobles did assume the title of prince, especially in the eighteenth century, as it was fashionable to do so, but there are many examples of unauthorized assumption of title in France, such as that of "marquis". For example, while the eldest son of the duc d'Elbeuf might call himself "prince de Lillebonne" the title remained legally that of "comte de Lillebonne" and all addresses to him as "prince" were essentially by courtesy, even those from the king. And while there were some instances of peculiar seigneuries in which the holder was titled as "prince" this was mostly in the (very rare) feudal instance, implying that he was directly subject to the king alone as vassal.

More information can be found here. But essentially what I'm saying is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about noble titles or make broad sweeping statements. Sorry to go off on a rant :p
 

Susano

Banned
Of coruse, this whole rank/title distinction is a very French thing to start with, but thanks for the backup. I am not really knopwledgeable how the situation was in France.
Hm, below Dukes and above Marquis... fits. Well, I would put them also below Marquis, but well enough :p
 
OK, it seems I was wrong about the rank of non-royal Prince.

Which make it even more difficult to turn the Duchy of Aquitaine in a Principality.

BTW, in france, Marquis is a very strange Title. Sometime, it was attached to the elder son of a duke ( but not always ), but, as a rule, it wasn't liked to a land ( again in France ).

Going back to Aquitaine, if it manages to get independent under Alienor ( and I don't really see how ), there's a very interesting possibility later on.

Is an alliance of Aquitaine+Toulouse+Provence strong enough to beat back the albigionese Crusade? If so, and if they later merge, along with either savoy or Navarre, you have the basis for a stable country which can later turn in a nation. That could completely change the map of medieval western Europe.

Of course, it all is based upon an independent Aquitaine. ANyone has an idea on how to achieve that without too earlt a PoD?
 
BTW, in france, Marquis is a very strange Title. Sometime, it was attached to the elder son of a duke ( but not always ), but, as a rule, it wasn't liked to a land ( again in France ).
Untrue. The title of "marquis", like every other noble title in France before the revolution, was a feudal one. No noble titles existed that were not attached to a fief of the same name. Even courtesy titles were derived from real, legal titles, they being considered "loaned" to the holder so-to-speak, with the fief staying in the hands of the owner (i.e. the eldest son of the duc d'Orléans might be called "duc de Chartres" but that fief was still legally possessed by his father). Fiefs were property, essentially.
While it is true that a great deal of titles were unlawfully assumed during the ancien regime, and many nobles did assume the title of "marquis" especially without the legal basis to do so, it must be remembered that these titles always derived from a fief, and even though comte de X might call himself "marquis de X" he was still legally "comte de X" no matter how he was addressed in society (even the king calling him such without issuing any letters patent to the effect did not change things). Besides, there were still many legal marquisats in France; and anyway, the French nobility was never as structured and regulated as the English peerage system, and if a family had called themselves by a title for generations, that was usually considered only a small step below actually possessing it (if not the same thing, though a jurist may disagree to the contrary...).
Even after the revolution, the title of marquis was granted and it remained an integral title of the French nobility.
I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that it didn't exist? :confused:
 
The question of independence de jure is something of an irrelevance - medieval France had many powerful vassals who were de facto independent. Aquitaine was one of the most powerful of these, not least because it had a longer history than most and its ruling line was not a cadet of the Capetians

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The question of independence de jure is something of an irrelevance - medieval France had many powerful vassals who were de facto independent. Aquitaine was one of the most powerful of these, not least because it had a longer history than most and its ruling line was not a cadet of the Capetians

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. If an area has de jure independence then its independence rests on more than just continuing to come up lucky on the genetic gamble of European feudal politics. For instance, Aquitaine was de facto independent, and ended up playing a very important role in the struggle over the French crown between the Capets and the English Kings, but it never played an independent role in that struggle. It was always a dependent territory, never having the legal ability to rise above that role. So although you could spin out a timeline with a particularly Burgundian bent (ie royal cadet line makes that gets lucky for a few generations attempts to create new polity) it probably doesn't end well (Aquitaine lacking the strong merchant-cities that allowed the Dutch to end up creating their own polity out of the ruins of the Burgundian Inheritance).

De Jure Independence MATTERS!
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Maybe is a crazy idea, but WI Eleanor marries Sancho VI of Navarre instead of Henry, creating then a Navarre-Aquitaine union?

Nothing is too crazy at this forum. She would anyway have been better of not marrying Henry. However I would really like to see a TL where she and her sons succesfully rebel against Henry, creating numberous problems;
1. Henry's own wife and sons have rebeled against him
2. Henry's sons were not known for getting along very well, how soon afterwards would they plot againt eachother
3. Who would get the english crown after henry, when his sons are traitors.
 
Top