The Great Northern Empire

Because:

It's clear you haven't done any research besides "Hey Margaret of Scotland was going to marry Edward II-to-be" and a couple peaks at wikipedia.

Your writing is riddled with issues (Example: "When Emperor Edward VII of England dies in 1522 at the age of 71, he outlived his only surviving legitimate son Richard." Changing tenses in mid sentence is a no-no.)

You have paid no attention to the issues raised with Edward II trying to make his son King of Norway.

You have paid no attention to Edward II's own reign, despite the fact that would have a huge impact on his son's.

And that's just the beginning.

The concept of Edward II and Margaret of Scotland marrying and having issue is fascinating, and a good timeline could certainly be written on it. It is even possible that Edward III might press a claim to the throne of Norway TTL. That would be interesting, even if unsuccessful.

But this isn't that "good timeline".

Seconded.

And aside from all this, what also doesn't seem to be understood here is that the very idea of a king suddenly proclaiming himself 'emperor' and creating a new political entity ex nihilo would not only be foreign to the fourteenth century mindset, but utterly preposterous.

A king can't just 'create' new political institutions in his realms and territories. 'States' at this time (and I use that term in the loosest sense) were, for the most part, patchwork collections of territories and entities, often with numerous regional languages, identities and laws, all of whom happened to share the same nominal feudal overlord, nothing more. Ruling several realms in personal union multiplies the limitations to be overcome--and that's to say nothing of the various entities in each realm who may or may not possess conflicting interests and who are going to be furious at anyone entrenching upon their respective privileges (e.g. nobles, royal towns and burghs).

And furthermore, it would be impossible for any Christian prince to claim the title of 'Emperor' unless he had been crowned by the Pope--an act requiring election by this time as German king (the precedent having already been long established). Full stop. At this time, there was only one emperor in Catholic Europe, and that was the Holy Roman Emperor, who held his title, with the support of the Church, by virtue of his position as perceived legal successor to the Roman Emperors.

I'm sorry, but it is impossible for any 'Great Northern Empire' to exist as a political entity at this time in history. You may have several kingdoms held in personal union by the Plantagenets, but even that is going to be rather difficult to achieve at this time in history. Hell, a lasting Anglo-Scottish union in the fourteenth century would have been pretty damn hard as it was, let alone one that included Norway and various other countries. And, as Elfwine and others have said, you still have not given us any of the details as to how exactly this is achieved, let alone how it is maintained ITTL for even the reign of Edward III.

So, in short, 'no'. It's not ASB, but it's damn close to impossible.
 
A king can't just 'create' new political institutions in his realms and territories. 'States' at this time (and I use that term in the loosest sense) were, for the most part, patchwork collections of territories and entities, often with numerous regional languages, identities and laws, all of whom happened to share the same nominal feudal overlord, nothing more. Ruling several realms in personal union multiplies the limitations to be overcome--and that's to say nothing of the various entities in each realm who may or may not possess conflicting interests and who are going to be furious at anyone entrenching upon their respective privileges (e.g. nobles, royal towns and burghs).

I have to respectfully disagree. You couldn't effectively liquidate a kingdom (or several) and create a new one from the ground up...but that's not what the OP is proposing. What he said is that he's just suggesting a new overarching ruling structure joining the kingdoms together. If you say that can't be done, I think that the Kingdom of Spain, the union of Austria and Hungary, the Kalmar Union, the English Principality of Wales, the Empire of All The Russias, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the incorporation of Croatia into Hungary, even the creation of England itself, all effectively refute your argument, and that's just off the top of my head. There are issues with this TL, but that ain't one of 'em.

Re: needing the Pope's permission to create an Imperial title - this is true...but you can have de facto Empires with no Emperor, which sidesteps the issue.

OP - I agree that the TL needs reworking but it's not a lost cause. One suggestion, though. The incest story - don't go there. There's no way they'd get away with it and that in itself would cause the excommunications of the half-siblings and then a particularly bloody civil war that would tear the country apart. And the incest marriage doesn't even produce the desired effect (regaining control of the empire) which just makes it worse.

Oh, and under strict inheritance laws Sarah (not a very mediaeval name) is the heir to England too, not the children of Elizabeth and the King of Navarre.
 
I have to respectfully disagree. You couldn't effectively liquidate a kingdom (or several) and create a new one from the ground up...but that's not what the OP is proposing. What he said is that he's just suggesting a new overarching ruling structure joining the kingdoms together.

I understand this. What I'm trying to say is that in Medieval Europe there was a great deal more that went into forming unifying political institutions for realms held in personal union by a single monarch than it seemed was appreciated in the OP. There is a great deal more that goes into forging a lasting personal union. In most cases (in fact, all that I can think of), the individual interest groups in each realm were opposed to any encroachment upon, or alteration of, their specific liberties, privileges, etc. There also had to be established precedent or extraordinary law allowing the creation of such institutions.

If you say that can't be done, I think that the Kingdom of Spain...

The Crowns of Castile and Aragon were united in 1479. Up until the Nueva Planta decrees after the War of Spanish Succession, there were neither any organs of state nor any political institutions that had jurisdiction over the whole of what we think of as Spain--the one exception being the Inquisition, which was established by papal bull in any case.

the union of Austria and Hungary,

Again, didn't exist as a unified state until the nineteenth century. The Habsburgs governed their dominions through the various native institutions. It wasn't even until the eighteenth century that serious centralisation occurred. None of the Habsburgs before this time just up and decided 'Hey, summoning all of these councils and assemblies for each of my duchies is a pain in the ass. I'm going to create one for all of them.' It wouldn't even be possible, as, legally, such an entity didn't exist.


the Kalmar Union,
I have to admit, I don't know enough about the political structure of the Kalmar Union to agree or disagree here.


the English Principality of Wales,
Originally created as a massive appanage in 1301, which would have been well within the Crown's power. It wasn't even fully integrated into the Kingdom of England until after the Reformation. And even that required various acts of parliament--or, in other words, the assembled estates of the realm granting permission to alter the fundamental laws of the realm.

the Empire of All The Russias,
I was only talking about Catholic Europe in the Middle Ages. This is a bit of a different case, considering the social, political and cultural history of Russia.

the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,
Which, again, was only achieved in extraordinary circumstances that were largely in the vested interest of the landed magnates, long after a personal union under the Jagiellons had already been achieved.

Re: needing the Pope's permission to create an Imperial title - this is true...but you can have de facto Empires with no Emperor, which sidesteps the issue.
Agreed. I'm just saying, it would be impossible for there to be any other monarch with that specific title in Catholic Christendom at this time.

EDIT: Sorry for the rant, I don't mean to be an arse. I could go on, but basically, what I'm saying, is that there is a lot more at work. In any case, I'm not even certain that we disagree completely on this. It just always irritates me when internal political development is glossed over without explanation in a TL this complex. I feel that the OP does not understand pre-modern political thought.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all of you that this timeline needs work, a lot of work. However I most agree with Falastur because judging by his description and name, he seems to know the most about medieval Northern Europe than anyone here. I personally think the whole Empire concept can work so I'm not right now going to eliminate it entirely. I'm just going to change how it works so it is more plausible. About the incest story, Charles and Sarah receive special permission from pope Julius III for this to happen. Julius makes an exception for them because he also hates Robert III for being a protestant and wants Catholic kings back in Britian. Also I know Sarah was not a medieval name but she is not a medieval queen either. She was born in the year 1527 which in OTL was about 70 years after the medieval era ends (due to what you call "butterflies" in this timeline it ends about ten to twenty years earlier than IOTL). By then people, especially the English, have moved away for more traditional names such as Matilda (which was very popular during the Middle Ages) and instead focused on more biblical names such as Elizabeth, Anne, Mary and Sarah.
 
The Kalmar Union was not a state. It was a clusterfuck, pure and simple. It was three kingdoms, three crowns, three set of laws and three traditions under one King (and not very often).

After the Engelbrekt rising of 1434, the Union was in essence, dead. Every Danish King after Erik of Pommerania had to invade Sweden to force it to crown him King. The Union was a drain on the Danish King's resources, and the only reasons it lived so long was that Norway was gutted by the plague (the nobility more or less ceasing to exist, 60% of the population dead) and that Sweden spent half the time fighting a civil war and the other half fighting the Danes (and their supporters in even more civil wars).

Like the Kalmar Union, this Great Northern Empire (or set of crowns with one King) will have enemies. The French (wanting the English lands in France), the Hansa (resenting English influence in Norway and encroachment of their trade in the North Sea) and later the Dutch (competing for North Sea trade) and the Danes (with ambitions on Norway) will support any revolt of any part of the collection of crowns.

The end result will be the English King rushing back and forth, either having to give the various crowns so much autonomy that he might as well not rule them at all, or use all the resources of England to try to keep them in line, which he will be resented for everywhere.

What you need to do is to explain how this large personal union is created, how it manages to stick together in the face of opposition, both internal and external and how on earth the English Kings are making Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Norway a net gain on their resources instead of a drain. It is possible, but you need to make it believable. Right now, they just inherit the thrones and keep ruling as if nothing ever happens.
 
And from what you've had to say, I get the impression that even if the Danes have a stronger crown (none of OTL's disasters), weaker noblity, and a stronger free peasantry . . .

The King will be very busy trying to deal with how extraordinarily . . . independent. .. the Swedish peasantry is.

No king in this era is prepared to deal with a peasantry that can and will tell his tax collectors to bugger off. And Denmark by any possible POD after say, 1200 (when it was riding high for a while) is not going to be an exception.
 
What you need to do is to explain how this large personal union is created, how it manages to stick together in the face of opposition, both internal and external and how on earth the English Kings are making Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Norway a net gain on their resources instead of a drain. It is possible, but you need to make it believable. Right now, they just inherit the thrones and keep ruling as if nothing ever happens.

What you said is exactly true. The reason I joined the forum was so people like you who are way more experienced with Alternate History than I am can help me make my timelines much better. Now with this timeline, I'll try my best to explain to you what I have so far and then you can fill me in on how I can change what I have to make it better.

Anyway, the first event that triggers the formation of the Empire in this timeline is the birth of Edward the Great to of Margaret Queen of Scots and Edward II of England in the year 1307. From the moment of his birth, he already is the heir apparent of the Kingdom's of both England and Scotland. However, Edward becomes a king before he ascends to either one throne. In 1319 when Edward is only twelve, his great-uncle Haakon V of Norway dies and Edward is elected the new king over his second cousin Magnus who becomes king in OTL (the reason why he is elected over Magnus you and other more knowledgebale people about this area can help me). One year later in 1320, Edward's mother Margaret Queen of Scots dies causing the now thirteen year old Edward to ascend to the throne of Scotland. In Egland, Edward's father Edward II is still the king. For five years until he turns eighteen in 1325, the regent for Edward, King of Scots is his distant relative Edward Balliol. Edward Balliol was the close friend (and by some accounts the lover) of King Edward's mother Margaret. Edward was also the son of Margaret's own regent John Balliol who ruled from her arrival in Scotland in 1290 until her eighteenth birthday in 1301. I still haven't figured out who would be Edward's regent in Norway. When Edward's father dies in 1331 (living a little longer in this TL because he doesn't have an angry French wife who shoves a red hot poker up his ass) Edward becomes king of England. By 1339, the seemingly all powerful Edward is now also in control of all of Wales and Ireland and with the permission of pope Benedict XII unites his territories into "the great northern empire" (similar to what Charlemagne did when he created what became the Holy Roman Empire) while also keeping the sovereignty of the countries that comprised the empire. I know I have to add a lot more details on how he became emperor, maybe you can help me in what I can add.
 
For five years until he turns eighteen in 1325, the regent for Edward, King of Scots is his distant relative Edward Balliol. Edward Balliol was the close friend (and by some accounts the lover) of King Edward's mother Margaret. Edward was also the son of Margaret's own regent John Balliol who ruled from her arrival in Scotland in 1290 until her eighteenth birthday in 1301. I still haven't figured out who would be Edward's regent in Norway. When Edward's father dies in 1331 (living a little longer in this TL because he doesn't have an angry French wife who shoves a red hot poker up his ass) Edward becomes king of England. By 1339, the seemingly all powerful Edward is now also in control of all of Wales and Ireland and with the permission of pope Benedict XII unites his territories into "the great northern empire" (similar to what Charlemagne did when he created what became the Holy Roman Empire) while also keeping the sovereignty of the countries that comprised the empire. I know I have to add a lot more details on how he became emperor, maybe you can help me in what I can add.

Okay, as one of the people here who has studied medieval England, I'm going to throw in my two bits.

1) Why Edward Balliol? And why is he a close friend and rumored lover of Margaret?

2) How are the Bruces taking this?

3) How are the Comyns taking it, for that matter? They're on good terms with the Balliols, but they have their own interests.

4) Why does Edward II's reign get skipped over? And what does he die of - he's only 47, and his father and son OTL both lived to be in their mid-sixties.

It's entirely possible to have him die young-ish, but "It just happens so I can skip over to Edward III" is not encouraging.

5) "Seemingly all powerful"? Edward II and I is going to have his hands full with managing England, Wales, Scotland, and the Plantagent territories in France.

So that brings us to . . .

6) How is he managing to assert effective control over any of Ireland, let alone all of it?

7) What Charlemagne created is not similar to this at all. That was a pope crowning Charles Emperor of the Roman Empire for reasons that are worth looking up.

8) Again, why are you so eager to skip over Edward II's reign (and the remainder of Edward I's)?
 
What you said is exactly true. The reason I joined the forum was so people like you who are way more experienced with Alternate History than I am can help me make my timelines much better. Now with this timeline, I'll try my best to explain to you what I have so far and then you can fill me in on how I can change what I have to make it better.

Anyway, the first event that triggers the formation of the Empire in this timeline is the birth of Edward the Great to of Margaret Queen of Scots and Edward II of England in the year 1307. From the moment of his birth, he already is the heir apparent of the Kingdom's of both England and Scotland. However, Edward becomes a king before he ascends to either one throne. In 1319 when Edward is only twelve, his great-uncle Haakon V of Norway dies and Edward is elected the new king over his second cousin Magnus who becomes king in OTL (the reason why he is elected over Magnus you and other more knowledgebale people about this area can help me). One year later in 1320, Edward's mother Margaret Queen of Scots dies causing the now thirteen year old Edward to ascend to the throne of Scotland. In Egland, Edward's father Edward II is still the king. For five years until he turns eighteen in 1325, the regent for Edward, King of Scots is his distant relative Edward Balliol. Edward Balliol was the close friend (and by some accounts the lover) of King Edward's mother Margaret. Edward was also the son of Margaret's own regent John Balliol who ruled from her arrival in Scotland in 1290 until her eighteenth birthday in 1301. I still haven't figured out who would be Edward's regent in Norway. When Edward's father dies in 1331 (living a little longer in this TL because he doesn't have an angry French wife who shoves a red hot poker up his ass) Edward becomes king of England. By 1339, the seemingly all powerful Edward is now also in control of all of Wales and Ireland and with the permission of pope Benedict XII unites his territories into "the great northern empire" (similar to what Charlemagne did when he created what became the Holy Roman Empire) while also keeping the sovereignty of the countries that comprised the empire. I know I have to add a lot more details on how he became emperor, maybe you can help me in what I can add.

Fine. But what could the English offer the Norwegian strongmen and free peasants that was a better deal than what a local strongman or a Swedish King can offer, to get enough support to be elected King, and above all, KEEP the throne. During the elective monarchy eras of Sweden, Denmark and Norway, Kings were often replaced repeatedly. The thing or riksdag had the right to elect a King - but also to depose him.

As for the English King becoming Emperor, it might be possible. If the pope is fighting the Holy Roman Emperor and refusing to crown him King, if English cardinals are influential and there's lots of bribery, if the French King somehow have lost all his influence with the papacy and the pope is DESPERATE for English support and participation in a crusade, perhaps, perhaps the pope would agree to crown the English King Emperor. But the idea of only one Emperor was pretty much fixed in the catholic world at this time, and I suspect the French King will fight it to the last drop of blood (an English monarch holding lands in France OUTRANKING him? Unthinkable!) and so will anyone elected (but not crowned) Holy Roman Emperor.

And how will they do it? The French King can claim the English lands in France. The Holy Roman Emperor can promise the Hansaetic League some benefits and have them support a local strongman as King in Norway. The French and Germans might join together to create an anti-pope.

The title of Emperor might cost the King of England a LOT in blood and gold for a VERY long time.

Far easier would be to claim a title of protetstant Emperor or something similar during the reformation - that will only anger the pope and the Habsburgs, both of which are likely quite angry already.
 
Top