Richard I has a son

Basically,you need a king that's as arrogant as John,have a country that's repeatedly taxed,and lose a lot of wars at the same time.

To be fair the taxations already started to fund Richard I's campaigns and later to pay his ransom. John might have been arrogant and not so talented as a military commander, he did devote more time to governing than Richard ever did.
I'm not saying John did a good job, but one shouldn't forget that Richard basically was an absentee monarch.
 
To be fair the taxations already started to fund Richard I's campaigns and later to pay his ransom. John might have been arrogant and not so talented as a military commander, he did devote more time to governing than Richard ever did.
I'm not saying John did a good job, but one shouldn't forget that Richard basically was an absentee monarch.

Very true, he also speak english as well
 
To be fair the taxations already started to fund Richard I's campaigns and later to pay his ransom. John might have been arrogant and not so talented as a military commander, he did devote more time to governing than Richard ever did.
I'm not saying John did a good job, but one shouldn't forget that Richard basically was an absentee monarch.
Difference is that Richard was a successful military leader,John was not.That makes up all the differences.
 
Brittany was a sovereign duchy until the treaty of Verger.Before then,it was never conquered by the Franks nor the French.Normandy whereas was originally a fief granted by the West Frankish King to Rollo.

Now I understand what you meant and I can explain precisely what your mistakes are .

You are mixing up 4 different things :
- being independant/sovereign (Britanny ceased being independant/sovereign around 940, becoming a duchy inside the kingdom of Francia occidentalis),
- being a duchy not incorporated in the royal domain and held by an autonomous dynasty and ruled by this autonomous dynasty (which was the case for Britanny from 936/939 to 1491),
- being a duchy not incorporated in the royal domain but personnally held by the king or his wife or his son, (which was the cas for Britanny from 1491 to 1547),
- being a part of the royal domain (which was the case from 1547 on).

The other mistake you're making is the analogy between England and France.

These 2 kingdoms were not established the same way and their respective ruling dynasties did not get the throne the same way.

In England, William the conqueror conquered an existing kingdom of England. He did upset most of the local nobility and establish his own nobility, which made possible for him to build the most precocious and most centralized State that existed in western Europe.

There never was something like the domesday book in the kingdom of France.

France did not exist when the small frankish dynasty of the Merovingians appeared and became a significant actor. The Merovingian dynasty just happened to rule a part of the rather small germanic tribe called the franks. And they were able to take a part of what had been the gallic provinces of the crumbling roman empire.
They did not conquer it.
They just happened to be federate soldiers at the service of the dying west roman empire.
They were just the remaining soliders of the roman empire in their part of Gaul. And they made alliance with the local gallo-roman aristocrats. And they fought and conquered other rivals that had done the same thing in other parts of Gaul, as well as in parts of non roman territories, on the east bank of the Rhine.

"King" was just the title that qualified the power of the Merovingian dynast on the frankish tribes.
The power exerted by the king of the franks over the territories he controlled was first a de facto power (going through the rather classic ways of the local roman administration system) that gained some formal recognition by the sole remaining roman emperor (the one standing in Constantinople) through titles such as Patricius.

It took a long time of ruling on these territories by this frank dynasty that the word "franks" began designating other people than just the members of this tribe and that Francia became the name of a territory.

There are other subtle details about the evolution of the geographic meaning of the name "Francia".
 
Difference is that Richard was a successful military leader,John was not.That makes up all the differences.

A successful military leader but a just a dynast (which could best be described as a french dynast) that had almost nothing in common with England.

Do you think that John is the sole responsible for the fall of the Plantagenet "empire" just a few years after he became king ?

The situation was a bit more complicated.

The sons of Henry II had rebelled several times against their father, especially Richard I, which had made Henry II hesitate for a long time over who should inherit what among his sons. Which made the principle of male primogeniture fragile and explained to a large extent why John could overthrow and kill his 16 years old nephew Arthur.

So if you want Richard I's son to be king of England, you need Richard not to die in 1199 but to live at least ten more years.
 
A successful military leader but a just a dynast (which could best be described as a french dynast) that had almost nothing in common with England.

Do you think that John is the sole responsible for the fall of the Plantagenet "empire" just a few years after he became king ?

The situation was a bit more complicated.

The sons of Henry II had rebelled several times against their father, especially Richard I, which had made Henry II hesitate for a long time over who should inherit what among his sons. Which made the principle of male primogeniture fragile and explained to a large extent why John could overthrow and kill his 16 years old nephew Arthur.

So if you want Richard I's son to be king of England, you need Richard not to die in 1199 but to live at least ten more years.


Aye that was the base of principle of this story, the Lionheart lives until 1207, and recognising some of the faults he and his father made, has taught his son how to charm and how to fight. His son the later Richard II does spend a bit of time in England coming to know his future people.
 
Even though similar documents exist in other countries, what's there to say it would exist in England? England is not a sheep, to follow blindly, not at this point anyway.

I didn´t say it must come about, I said it might come about.
 
Aye that was the base of principle of this story, the Lionheart lives until 1207, and recognising some of the faults he and his father made, has taught his son how to charm and how to fight. His son the later Richard II does spend a bit of time in England coming to know his future people.

Oups ! Sorry.:)
 
A successful military leader but a just a dynast (which could best be described as a french dynast) that had almost nothing in common with England.

Do you think that John is the sole responsible for the fall of the Plantagenet "empire" just a few years after he became king ?

The situation was a bit more complicated.

The sons of Henry II had rebelled several times against their father, especially Richard I, which had made Henry II hesitate for a long time over who should inherit what among his sons. Which made the principle of male primogeniture fragile and explained to a large extent why John could overthrow and kill his 16 years old nephew Arthur.

So if you want Richard I's son to be king of England, you need Richard not to die in 1199 but to live at least ten more years.
Jack is responsible for the fall of the Plantagenet empire.In the end,it wasn't actually a military defeat that cost him the empire,but wholesale defections.He managed to alienate most of his vassals by cheating,lying and humiliating them.
 
- being a duchy not incorporated in the royal domain and held by an autonomous dynasty and ruled by this autonomous dynasty (which was the case for Britanny from 936/939 to 1491),
-.

Isnt this exactly what darthfanta said ? That Arthur Duke of Brittany would not be able to vote for Richard II as King of France ?
 
Top