The Union of the Two Crowns

Actually I've deliberately left him out so far, he's not dead in this timeline because I felt t was a bit of a stretch that he was captured so easily in the original timeline. He's going to become more relevant as time goes on but for now we can assume he's been without Henry, first in Ireland and then in England and then in the Holy Roman Empire. That said, I should have specified where he's been all this time.
His survival is going to be the most significant divergence from the first TL I think. After Henry III's death (if he still dies in same conditions), we are not talking anymore about restoring the infant Henry Otto whose claim relies on his mother's blood. Still, I was curious to see where that was going to end since Henry Otto aka Henry IV was seemingly on the road to become Holy Roman Empire (being the last legitimate son of Frederick II).
If he still becomes King of Romans, he would have more time to spend in Germany unlike IOTL, and perhaps become Emperor. Also, I wonder about the possibilities offered by the crusade he took part in IOTL and maybe also ITTL (in the aftermath of his brother's death, he could do as a way of 'recovering God's favor').
 
Chapter 8: A French King on the English Throne (1230-1240)
King Louis VIII of France and I of England
Chapter 8: A French King on the English Throne (1230-1240):

The period between Louis' victory at Petersfield in 1230 and his death in 1244 was, by on large, one of the most peaceful periods in the early years of Capetian England, contrasted starkly against the previous struggles between Louis and Henry for the throne and the subsequent chaos of Louis IX's early years. It is also the first real period in which we can definitively say that Louis was King of England, having been crowned as such during the Capetian Resurgence and having no physical rival in England for the time-being, given Henry's exile in Germany as of 1230. Interestingly enough, Henry's choice to go into exile in Germany actually served to further undermine his legitimacy in the eyes of the European monarchs as he was now effectively taking refuge in the court of a man who had recently been excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX. This legitimacy would only be further undermined by Louis' fervent moves towards stabilising England in the wake of his rival's defeat. The loss of England following his initial conquest and the success of more lenient policies in France had taught Louis a lot about reconciliation (a policy his successor would famously use to great effect) in regards to dealing with the nobility. The first step, of course, in securing England once and for all was to turn his attention to the North, the same region Henry had initially landed in, and to set up a number of friendly lords in the region who could help stabilise it and extend royal authority. Before we can really go on, however, we need to look a bit at the state England was in in the 1230s because this situation will come to play a major role in the events to come, especially in regards to Louis IX.

England had been consumed by warfare on and off for a decade and a half and the result of this was that, by 1230, royal authority in many regions had grown very weak indeed. The North had fallen far from Louis' control and he would spend much of the 1230s trying to keep it in check while Wales wouldn't be fully reigned in until well into Louis IX's reign. Ireland, comparatively, was even worse because the loss of the Plantagenet Kings in the region as well as the preoccupation of the new Capetian Kings in English affairs for the time being, effectively left the entire region out in the cold and, in particular, the Anglo-Irish lords. The warfare of the last 3 years and Henry's use of Anglo-Irish soldiers in the wars in England had cost many of those very Anglo-Irish lords dearly back home as the native Irish lords pushed their distracted and weakened foes back, leading to a resurgence of the native Irish lords throughout the 13th and early 14th Centuries. Two of those Anglo-Irish lords, however, were Walter and Hugh de Lacy as well as Margaret de Braose, Lady of Trim, all of whom came under attack throughout the late 1220s and early 1230s. The difference for the House de Lacy and the House de Braose was that both had ultimately stood by Louis at various points in the latter portion of the Capetian-Plantagenet War and all three had the benefit, as a result, of being rewarded for their actions by the new, victorious King Louis VIII. Now, despite his preoccupation with English politics and securing his throne, Louis was not entirely blind to the events in Ireland and nor did he have any intention of just letting the region fall from his grip and both he and his heir, King Louis IX and II, would fight to secure their position against the Irish lords and the House de Lacy would come to be a very major player in Irish politics in years to come. Indeed, during the 1230s it was through the Lacy family that Capetian influence actually survived in Ireland despite the chaos in England of the 1210s and 1220s.

In many ways, this situation was only exacerbated by the situation existing at a much more local level throughout England. 15 years of warfare had very much taken its toll on those regions of England that had seen the majority of the fighting, primarily the South-East. Lincoln, having been contested between the pro-Plantagenet and pro-Capetian forces no less than three times since 1217, had suffered especially badly at the hands of the various forces that had fought over it time and again. Kent and Cornwall, meanwhile, had been fought over almost continuously since 1224 with the latter having been captured by Henry only shortly before Louis returned and recaptured it. Not only had the land and agriculture of these regions been ruined by the constant presence of the armies but local government and justice systems had been heavily disrupted. Arguably the greatest damage had been done to the local economic and trade systems across England, as the warfare often prevented travel which ultimately severely curtailed trade and commerce. That is not to speak of the damage to infrastructure, with roads having often been ruined by passing armies and the damage inflicted to cities and castles during sieges, or the simple loss of life, both of those called to actually fight in the conflict as well as of civilians killed by the passing armies. Ultimately, this devastation was far less pronounced in the areas further from Louis' control such as Northern England, Wales and Ireland as these areas had seen less fighting since 1215 as compared to the South and South-East of England.

The effective result of this was that not only was Louis' England far poorer in 1230 than it had been in 1215 but far less politically stable as well, with local justice having been severely compromised by the war. To add to this, the sometimes volatile nature of political loyalties in Medieval Europe and the divisions caused by the recent civil war had undermined a lot of local political unity, a situation that would soon be worsened by growing disputes amongst the higher nobility throughout the 1230s and 40s in response to recent events. This, in turn, not only limited and undermined the political authority of the new king, but further destabilised the region and led to greater violence, especially amongst some of the lower nobility, a nobility that was neither high enough to be kept in check by Louis' relatively limited powers in 1230 but that couldn't be kept in check by the compromised judicial system. Further, the devastation and exhaustion of 15 years of warfare had led to more than a little discontent amongst some of the lower ranks of the nobility, who were less able to actually recover from the conflict and devastation than their higher counterparts. This was especially pronounced given the gains that some of those higher counterparts made as a result of the conflict such as Quincy and Clare, both of whom gained an extra Earldom and the revenue they brought. In local areas, many appointments had changed hands multiple times as the conflict shifted back and forth between the two competing parties. For example, the Sheriff of Herefordshire in 1215 had been Engelard de Cigogne who sided with John and Henry until Louis' victory in 1219 when he was displaced from that position until 1224 when Henry de Bohun surrendered to the returning Plantagenet force, leading Henry to reappoint Engelard as Sheriff to place a loyal figure in the position of sheriff and thus help keep Hereford in line. With the return of Louis in 1227 and Bohun's subsequent defection to Louis, Engelard was once again deposed and the office actually remained vacant for another 3 years until after Henry's flight to Germany when it was filled with none other than Walter de Lacy, who held significant estates in Weobley in Herefordshire. This was very much the situation all across the country, with local posts such as that of Sheriff often switching hands or even being left vacant for periods of time during heavy conflict. In fact, in 1230, the nominal High Sheriff of Wiltshire was still William II Longespee (son of the former Earl of Salisbury who had been killed during Louis' return to England). Needless to say, this simply served to undermine the authority of many of these positions and very much damaged the means by which Louis could actually transmit his authority throughout the country. In turn, this effectively meant that the period of 'peace' between 1230 and 1244 saw much of England with significantly higher crime rates and significantly more disorder than prior to 1215. It also meant that much of England was a hotbed for potential conflict, especially between the petty nobility or even between some of the higher and lower nobility.

In turn, it was here that tensions began to boil in English politics, the same tensions that would become endemic in later English politics as events began to develop. The situation, for many, was only exacerbated by Louis himself, a king whose legitimacy was based on having been asked to come to England by the nobles and whose claim to the throne was resting upon his victory over Henry and Papal support for his rule. This was far from a steady base upon which he could build his reign, especially since he was still relying on the loyalty of the same nobles who had deposed the last king. The lack of royal authority in much of England and the regions beyond combined with the political instability and local tensions throughout England effectively left some areas with little in the way of actual governance and simply helped to facilitate growing conflicts in the regions. This, along with the fear of Henry making another attempt to seize the throne of England, were quite clearly issues that, even by 1230, Louis was well aware of, as evidenced by the much quicker reconstruction and repairs of castles and fortifications as compared to other infrastructure. Lincoln, for example, wouldn't be fully rebuilt until the late 1240s whereas Lincoln castle had been rebuilt and further fortified by 1234. By turning his attention towards fortification, Louis was quite clearly making a determined effort to both protect his gains and to make preparations in case local discontent and conflict should spill over into more general warfare. It seems, as well, that the large uptake in the number of peerages and titles handed out in the 1230s was in an attempt to help establish local control throughout England by placing loyal nobles in charge of large portions of England. In 1230, those who had lost lands to Henry's resurgent Plantagenet forces in 1224 were reinstated in their Earldoms, including the House de Clare in Pembroke and the House de Bohun (under Henry up until his death in 1235) in Chester. Peter of Dreux (former Duke of Brittany) was officially confirmed as the Earl of Richmond in the same year. Thomas of Perche and Amaury de Montfort were the first in a series of French nobles who were given English peerages in return for their services, both in men and money, and were followed in 1230 and 1231 by Peter of Dreux and John Tristan, who was made Earl of Salisbury in place of the now-deceased William Longespee (and taking into account the exile, with Henry, of his son) and in 1233 by Erard of Champagne who was made the 1st Earl of Lancaster and Robert Capet (his son, born in 1216) who was made the Earl of Northumbria. It seems likely that the local disorder in much of England, as well as the loss of royal authority in control in many regions, was exactly what prompted such a large divestment of titles and lands to the nobility, in an attempt to reestablish authority across the country and to further spread his authority in the North (hence why so many of the Northern Earldoms were passed to French nobles rather than their English counterparts).

In the short-run, Louis' divestment of lands and titles was exactly what was needed and his treatment of those nobles who had defected back to him (such as Mandeville) and even those who had been captured (such as Hugh de Vere) was exactly what was needed in England. Through reconciliation with them, Louis was able to slowly bring regions that had rebelled in 1224 back into the fold and establish his authority in these regions. Hugh de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was pardoned in 1232 and allowed to retain the Earldom of Oxford, on the condition that upon his death, the title (but not Vere's other estates) would revert to the crown. Ferrers was pardoned on similar terms. Those who had fled with Henry, such as the House de Redvers and William Longespee II, were branded traitors and their estates and titles revoked. Interestingly enough, Devon was one of the few Earldoms that Louis would retain right up until his death in 1244 as Redvers, as of 1230, had nobody to actually pass the Earldom on to and was in exile as a traitor. Mandeville, Earl of Essex, remained the Earl until his death without heirs in 1231 when the title reverted to the crown. Furthermore, much of England could be further stabilised and any attempts by Henry to actually return to England post-1230 came at much greater risk, given the loss of noble support after his defeat at Petersfield and and greater numbers of nobles throughout England. But the long-term effects of this policy, while not bad as such, were very different to what Louis probably expected or even hoped. With so many nobles and the natural tensions that existed in the wake of a civil war, the various nobles throughout England found themselves exceptionally prone to further conflict amongst themselves. In particular, the 1224 to 1230 period had done a lot to inflame tensions between those who had fought on either side of the conflict at various points.

In Wales, the period of 1224 to 1228 had seen the Welsh under Reginald de Braose and Llywellyn the Great arrayed against Henry de Bohun and Gilbert de Clare throughout Wales and this conflict had served only to sow distrust between the various Welsh and Marcher lords. These tensions would become particularly pronounced in 1228 with the defection of Bohun and Clare and the subsequent recapture of Southern Wales by the joint Welsh and English forces under Braose and Clare. This became especially pronounced when, in reward for his services in the conflict, Braose was made Lord of Glamorgan in 1231, effectively putting a wedge between Pembroke and Gloucester. More than that, Braose's links to the powerful Prince Llywellyn only stoked the already existing fears held by both Clare and Bohun of the growing power of Gwynedd in Welsh and Marcher politics. What it, in basic terms, came down to in Wales was distrust sown by the previous conflict and the fears of growing Gwynnedian power in local politics. This was a situation mirrored throughout England, as the 6 years between Henry's return and the Capetian Resurgence had sown the seeds of mutual distrust between those who had fought for Henry and those who had fought for Louis, a situation worsened by the frequent defections of the period. By adopting a policy of reconciliation, Louis secured his bases much better than in the 1219-1223 period but he was also welcoming the very people who had defected against him back into English politics, a move that was both unpopular and fraught with tensions, especially since many of those who held major peers by the 1230s had been enemies only a few years previously. Another source of tensions arose, almost inevitably, between the older families in English politics and those newcomers had come along with Louis' arrival. In this regard, Perche and Montfort are relative curiosities because they were ultimately much more respected in English politics, probably as a result of their actions in the 1224-1230 period, than latecomers such as Peter of Dreux and John Tristan. While initially less pronounced in the initial damage and chaos in the wake of Henry's defeat, these tensions between the English and French nobility would continue to grow throughout the 1230s and 40s. It would also come to have an interesting effect on English politics for a long time to come given that, from the 1230s, large swathes of Northern England were presided over by French nobility rather than their English counterparts.

English Secular Peers in 1239:

Earl of Surrey: Saer de Quincy
Earl of Winchester: Saer de Quincy
Earl of Cornwall: Walter Fitzwalter
Earl of Kent: Thomas of Perche
Earl of Warwick: William Maudit
Earl of Arundel: William d'Aubigny*
Earl of Leicester: Amaury de Montfort
Earl of Lincoln: William d'Aubigny*
Earl of Richmond: Peter of Dreux
Earl of Chester: Humphrey de Bohun
Earl of Hereford: Humphrey de Bohun
Earl of Gloucester: Gilbert de Clare
Earl of Pembroke: Gilbert de Clare
Earl of Salisbury: John Tristan
Earl of Lancaster: Erard of Champagne
Earl of Northumbria: Robert Capet
Earl of Oxford: Hugh de Vere
Earl of Derby: William de Ferrers
Earl of Norfolk: Hugh Bigod

The introduction of a number of French nobles into English politics after 1230 such as Erard of Champagne or John Tristan had one peculiar effect in how, despite what Louis likely intended by granting them titles in England, it ultimately helped stabilise French politics at the expense of English politics. In France, a number of nobles now held lands and titles in England which gave them a vested interest in the region and helped calm any political backlash and remaining resentment in France at the time in regards to Louis' focus and campaigns in England. But in England, the entire affair led to a great deal of resentment felt by some of the 'older' English nobility such as Quincy and even Montfort as both families had held titles in English politics for a long time and even the newer arrival of Thomas of Perche had ended up fighting alongside Quincy and others during the 1224-30 period. In comparison, men such as Erard and Tristan were seen to have only actually jumped into the conflict in the last few years whereas others such as Montfort and Perche had fought in England during the entire 1224-30 period and it was felt that a lot of those who had played very vital roles in the conflict were not amply rewarded for those roles in favour of men who had only come along right at the end. Particular animosity seems to have been felt between Erard and Montfort, an animosity built upon, it seems, power disputes in both England and France. In France, Erard's possession of the powerful County of Champagne was one that had catapulted the former minor lord to an important and powerful position in French politics, a situation that led to a significant amount of resentment amongst other French lords. This, in turn, manifested itself back in England where Erard's unpopularity with the English lords, as a newcomer from 1230, as well the resentment already felt by some others such as Montfort himself in France, led to Montfort becoming a relatively natural rallying point for those bitter and resentful about the rise of 'new' French lords. In turn, Montfort's power as the High Steward, combined with the lengthy absences of the king while he was in France, only led to the increasing exclusion of Erard and other nobles from politics from 1233 onward. Louis' inability to spend all his time in England led to prolonged absences from 1234-6 and 1239-42 while he spent time back home in France.

It was during these absences that the rifts between the various lords and peers of England began to grow. Without the king present, the numerous and increasingly powerful English nobility proved much harder for Louis to keep in check and their subsequent conflicts and dissent much harder for Louis to combat. In turn, his answer was to increasingly rely upon certain members of the nobility and, in particular, his High Steward, Amaury de Montfort. Already, as of 1234, complaints were levied against Montfort for his arrogance in his dealings with a lot of his peers and, while nobody went so far as to outwardly claim so, there were some suggestions that Montfort wouldn't accept being 'just' High Steward forever. In part, these complaints very definitely had some basis in Montfort's steadily growing power in English politics. His position as High Steward already brought with it a lot of influence and power in the running of English government, especially in the absence of the king but the 1224-1230 conflict had done a lot for him as well. During the period, Montfort had had a large hand in commanding and governing not only Leicester but Warwick as well (since William Maudit wouldn't come of age until 1235). Strictly speaking, Montfort was never appointed to the position of regent of Warwick but he had emerged from the conflict with a lot of influence in the Earldom and, in later years, Maudit would become an important supporter and advocate for Montfort's cause. This would become especially important because Montfort, in turn, had a very clear hand in securing the title of 'Chamberlain of the Exchequer' as well as Lord of Hanslope (a hereditary title that was held by William de Maudit, the Earl of Warwick's father). Montfort was also said to have built up strong relations with Thomas of Perche, Earl of Kent, possibly building on a shared dislike of the increasing power of Erard back in France.

Since Louis was leaning on Montfort to keep order during his absences and continue to extend royal authority, the feeling amongst many of his peers was that he was becoming interventionist in their own affairs. This was most pronounced, of course, in the areas where royal control was weakest and, incidentally, most of his enemies were situated. During Louis' first absence in 1234-1236, Montfort made a distinct attempt to help bring the allegiance of some of the Northern lords back towards London as, during the chaos of the Barons' War, a lot of Northern lords had started doing homage to King Alexander of Scotland. With Louis' authority, Montfort travelled North in 1234 and spent time in Northumbria. Given what had happened with Maudit down in Warwick, many soon began to feel that Montfort was simply using the trip in order to try and influence the young Robert Capet (14 in 1234) in his own favour and thus to increase his own influence in the North. In turn, Louis was soon forced to send orders for Montfort to return to Leicester later that year amidst a series of complaints about Montfort's conduct as High Steward. These complaints only worsened as Montfort became, as the king's main representative in England, the arbitrator of a series of noble disputes. Most prominently was a dispute between Gilbert de Clare and Llywellyn the Great of Gwynedd in late 1235. When Montfort gave his support for Clare's claims over those of Llywellyn, the result was backlash both from Montfort's critics in the North and from Llywellyn and the House de Braose in Wales. The former claimed that Montfort was simply using his position to help out his friends and supporters rather than actually dispensing justice in such disputes while Llywellyn and Braose both felt that Montfort's decision was unjust and went so far as to even suggest that Montfort was acting without the proper authority of the king. Later complaints, particularly during Louis' second absence, were levelled at what seemed to be Montfort's attempts to actually secure the Earldom of Devon for his younger brother, Simon de Montfort.

As the complaints continued to mount against Montfort and, even, slight stirrings of conflict began to build towards the end of 1235, Louis found himself increasingly pressured to return to England to put things in order once again. In March 1236, Louis cut his time in France short and returned to England, where he would stay until the very end of 1239 while he restored order to the best of his ability. Upon arriving, Louis made his way straight to London where he remained until March 1237 before spending the rest of 1237 touring the country and, in particular, the North and the Welsh Marches. He then returned to London and spent 1238 focusing on administration within England before returning to France in 1239. This was a short period of time defined by a number of important events in English politics as, while Louis tried to slow what was becoming an increasingly fast train moving towards anarchy, the political system only continued to fall apart. Having landed at Dover in March, Louis was greeted almost immediately by Amaury de Montfort, Thomas of Perche and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The office of Archbishop of Canterbury had been held by Stephen Langton until 1228 and then by Richard le Grant until 1231 and was now, as of 1236, held by Ralph Neville who had formerly been a Keeper of the Seal before being made a bishop in the late 1220s and then being elected Archbishop of Canterbury after Richard le Grant stepped down. Neville is an important character in the events to come because not only was he a Keeper of the Seal, but he was now the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chichester, positions which all put him in close political and geographical proximity to either Montfort or his ally and supporter, Perche. Furthermore, he was then made Chancellor in 1233 by King Louis. This is where issues began to arise because, while Neville has since become known for his impartiality, many of Montfort's political rivals felt that Neville was nothing more than another example of what Montfort had been doing all throughout the 1230s, attempting to monopolise government. It was felt that Neville, since his bishopric was within Kent and due to his political proximity to Montfort, was most likely yet another of Montfort's supporters and this, in turn, led to Neville becoming a figure of huge political controversy during the 1230s, especially from 1236 onward due to growing fears of Montfort's power in English politics. First and foremost were accusations that Neville was little more than a puppet of Montfort although his actions as Lord Chancellor from 1233 onward show the very opposite and he was praised for his impartiality in the chancery as well as instituting a number of reforms within the chancery. On the contrary, other accusations claimed that Neville was far too independent from King Louis' authority due to his tendency to issue writs on his own authority and his own growing influence which led to his involvement in both the exchequer and the appointment of royal justices. Some, in particular, noted a strong correspondence between Neville and Roger Niger, Bishop of London and Lord High Treasurer which some went so far as to suggest actually implied Neville's hopes to influence important areas of government. What really, ultimately, worried many was Neville's perceived ties to Montfort and Perche although Perche himself had a fair number of issues and minor conflicts with Neville throughout the 1230s, as Neville strongly defended the rights of his see.**

On an episcopal and religious level, the criticism was largely levelled at him on the basis that Neville had been criticised in some circles in Rome upon his election for being, apparently, unlearned, although his literacy had actually already been proven when he was made Bishop of Chichester in the 1220s. More worryingly, for some, was that Neville had been previously criticised by none other than Stephen Langton for being unlike a priest and more like a courtier who wished to free England from the papacy. However, while many of these accusations did exist before 1234, they didn't actually become pronounced until Louis' first absence and the growing fears of Montfort's power in conjunction with Neville's appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1233. But these accusations would, in turn, prove to be Neville's downfall and the growing controversy around him by 1236 led to his, likely forced, resignation in November that year. The downfall of Ralph Neville in 1236 was one that shook English politics, both for Montfort and for his rivals throughout the country. While, in truth, Montfort's growing power wasn't actually tied to Neville's own influence within the government, the very act of bringing Neville down only served to further facilitate the growing rifts between Montfort and his rivals. Montfort took it as an attempt to strike out against him by Erard's faction while Erard's faction, in turn, felt that Montfort's anger at Neville's fall from power was a clear sign that the two had been working together to oust Erard and his supporters from English politics. This was only aggravated by the fact that, until 1237, Louis was largely in the presence of Montfort, Perche and Neville while down in London and the South-East and had spent most of his time in what amounted to Montfort's political power-base. Erard's support was in the North of England where Louis wouldn't visit until 1237 and where Louis wouldn't return, after 1237, until 1240. This meant that Erard and his supporters, who were mostly based in the North, only found greater issues with Montfort's political influence of the day because he seemed to be in a position, both politically and geographically, to actually influence King Louis against Erard.

These fears were by no means baseless and we know Montfort was a growing power at the time and had very real reasons to want to influence and dominate English government and we know from later events that Erard did have reason to fear Montfort's power in England, especially as the rifts and divisions widened between the two. More notably, we do see that there was some bias shown by King Louis towards Montfort, either as a result of his political and geographical proximity towards Montfort or as a result of Montfort's direct attempts to influence him. While we can't say for certain whether or not Montfort had any intentions to oust Erard from politics in the 1230s, his power was certainly growing and enough to be resentful of and as his enemies became more opposed to him, there was reason to fear that he was attempting to oust them from politics. In turn, we need to be aware that Erard wasn't trying to simply get fair share of government and he too probably wanted to rise to the top and influence government to whatever degree he could. In effect, the growing conflicts between Montfort and Champagne were not a struggle to avoid the monopolisation of power and influence by one group but a power struggle between two groups who wanted that power and influence for themselves. This was a power struggle that festered on weak royal authority, tensions caused by a recent civil war, a breakdown in local justice systems and the absence and inability of Louis to constantly be in England to watch over the nobility. But the issue was that the weakened royal authority led to greater conflict which, in turn, weakened royal authority ever further and led to greater conflict.

In January 1237, Louis was there to preside over the election of the new Archbishop of Canterbury before leaving London in March to tour the country. Initial plans were to involve Montfort joining him for the tour which would travel up along the East coast of England towards Northumbria before Louis would meet with King Alexander of Scotland at the border for discussions related to those Northern lords who had began paying homage to Alexander after 1215. He would then turn around and make his way back down the West of England and through the Welsh Marches before returning to London. As he moved through the country, he would take up the usual duties of a king on tour, dispensing justice and using the opportunity to be physically present before the noble lords in England. As far as his schedule, the tour went off without a hitch but was marked by a number of troublesome circumstances. When Louis met with Alexander that year, the entire meeting and diplomatic exchanges were fraught with tension due to a number of complaints by Alexander about the actions of certain Northern lords and their tendencies to raid across the border into Scotland. Needless to say, this was an issue created and further exacerbated by Louis' relatively weak royal authority in the region and the diplomatic exchanges avoided any distinct problems emerging between the two kings. Furthermore, his stay with his own son, Earl Robert of Northumbria was one filled with its own tensions, not between Louis and Robert but between Robert and Montfort. Robert had been put in the North-East as a method of extending royal authority in the region by placing a lord of the king's own family there but his distance from London and the general hostility felt by other Northern lords towards Montfort as well as Robert still being young in the early 1230s had ultimately helped to turn Robert against Montfort. Robert Capet, being Louis' son, will come to be a name that will crop up time and again in the political conflicts to come as he was, in effect, one of the most important political pieces that Erard had on the board given the young lord's family ties to the king and unique position to influence the king in the Erard faction's favour.

These tensions only grew worse in Lancaster and the near-open hostility between Erard and Montfort, especially due to Erard's anger at Montfort's seemingly constant presence around the king, led to Montfort eventually being sent back to Leicester. For Montfort, being sent away from the king was a very politically damaging move and one that only facilitated further conflicts and rifts between him and Erard whereas, for Erard, it was an event of great importance and one that would give Erard his own chance to influence and win over the king. What it is important to remember is that Louis was by no means just a blank figure not involved in the conflicts developing around him and his entire trip was a very clear attempt to try and close the rifts that were tearing England apart. By sending Montfort away in 1237, it seems likely that Louis was hoping to show Erard and his supporters his own impartiality towards the various lords and trying to ease resentment felt at Montfort's power. In turn, Louis also spent an extra month in Lancaster and the North than he had initially intended and spend the time listening to complaints and grievances held by the various local lords as well as helping to dispense justice and strengthen his influence in the region. The problem that Louis really faced in 1237 was that he couldn't hope to please everyone because nearly every lord was resentful of someone else and if he acted to appease one group then he simply angered another. By lengthening his stay in the North he appealed to Erard and his supporters but led to accusations by some who felt resentful of the 'newcomer' French lords such as Fitzwalter whose Earldom wasn't even on the schedule for Louis to visit. By sending Montfort away, he helped soothe fears of Montfort's influence amongst some other lords but angered Montfort and his supporters, who felt that Louis was being influenced by those lords and began to fear being distanced from politics themselves.

What we have to bear in mind is that these political conflicts were not organised divides between two distinct groups but were, rather, a series of personal divides between various nobles which, in some cases, drew in other nobles. Most notably, at the time, was Erard and Montfort's conflict which brought in a number of other lords but we have to remember that Erard's supporters were supporting him because of their own issues with Montfort at the time while Fitzwalter, initially, had issues with Erard for sometimes different reasons to why Montfort had issues with Erard. But, by 1237, the conflict between Erard and Montfort and their respective supporters was the one that was beginning to increasingly draw in other nobles and other, smaller, conflicts between those nobles. Ultimately, the 1237 tour of the country had both served to further divide the noble lords while also, simultaneously, giving Louis much more context and information about those very divides which resulted, after his return, in a series of attempts to fix the administration and close the divides in 1238. Louis' 1238 'reforms' (although the term here is relatively loosely used), were mostly defined by Louis' attempts to effectively balance out the powers of Montfort within English politics. At the same time, he hoped to enforce his authority in the North and to put an end to the cross-border raids in the region and to end a number of other local conflicts and issues between various groups of nobility. Ultimately however, Louis quite quickly found that he couldn't just remove Montfort or his supporters (or others for that matter) from positions in the government as easily as he hoped without risking their own enmity and further dislike and distrust as they, inevitably, blamed their opponents in the North. He also found that the disputes he had hoped to solve were not so easy to actually resolve without risking further conflicts between the various nobles. As a result, these 'reforms' of 1238 ended up floundering and going nowhere and even Louis' success in stopping cross-border raids in 1238 ended up falling apart when he returned to France in 1239 (not willing to risk spending too long in England to his own detriment in France and given the political issues in Italy and on the Continent at the time). As it was, with the arrival of 1240 and Louis' second absence from England, the conflicts remained not only unresolved but actually widened and increasingly dangerous and, across the country, the divides began to spiral and the fragile political stability of the country began to fall apart.

Notes: *Do not conflate these two 'William d'Aubigny's' as one was the Earl of Arundel prior to Louis' ascension while the other was a rebel who fought against King John and was a surety of the Magna Carta.

**Side note about the 1230s: In 1231, likely due to the negotiations and agreements between Louis and Pope Gregory towards the end of the 1220s, Louis officially freed the Bishops of Durham from the authority of the Sheriff of Northumbria, thus concluding a long running dispute between the two and establishing an episcopal lordship in Durham.
 
Last edited:
Great update.

We see now the biggest difference so far between the two versions.
It's sad not to see Henry III's death at Amesbury in 1236 (if I remember correctly) and Henry Otto failed restoration and would be accession to emperorship which gave the Plantagenet storyline a somewhat Shakespearan tone. But this way is also intriguing.
The Fitzwalter are quite less visible here.

I just wonder what Henry and his brother are up to now they have lost England. Crusading to regain either god's or the Pope's favors?
 
Great update.

We see now the biggest difference so far between the two versions.
It's sad not to see Henry III's death at Amesbury in 1236 (if I remember correctly) and Henry Otto failed restoration and would be accession to emperorship which gave the Plantagenet storyline a somewhat Shakespearan tone. But this way is also intriguing.
The Fitzwalter are quite less visible here.

I just wonder what Henry and his brother are up to now they have lost England. Crusading to regain either god's or the Pope's favors?

Yeah, Henry didn't die at Amesbury ITTL but I have something different planned. I felt that, given his very recent attempt at the throne (1224-1230) and the fact that he currently has very little left to take the throne with by himself, it's unlikely he'll be returning quite so quickly. As for the Pope, I doubt that Henry is going to be really securing his support quite yet. As it stands, Gregory is effectively too preoccupied with Frederick to really contest anyone's right to rule England if they actually hold the country itself. As it stands, it is Louis who has England. The problem for Henry is that he is currently taking refuge with another great rival of Louis' and a man who undoubtedly has little interest in a stronger French Kingdom, Frederick II, Pope Gregory's enemy. In turn, it seems highly unlikely that Gregory would have any interest in supporting Henry's claim to the throne of England while he already has a viable rival to Frederick who holds both thrones. Unless Henry could prove that he would be better for Gregory were he to hold the throne, unlikely since Louis has already reached a deal with the Pope and, as we'll see, is already involved on Gregory's side of the dispute, I wouldn't bet on Gregory supporting Henry any time soon.

Rather, I think Henry knows that and his best bet is to appeal to Frederick. In effect, what we're going to see here is an extension of the very dispute that the HRE and the Popes have been in for centuries over who actually holds the power in Christendom and this will meld with and incorporate the concurrent dispute over England. So as it stands in 1240, Gregory has little interest in seeing Henry back on the throne because Henry seems likely to support Frederick, if just as a counterbalance to Louis' power on the continent, to try and distract Louis from retaking England yet again while Frederick has little interest in seeing Louis remain on the throne because Louis is both a rival for power in Christendom and is supporting Gregory in the Investiture Conflict. The next two updates are really going to focus on Italy (with the Guelph-Ghibelline Conflict) and on Henry but to basically explain what Henry is doing: He's making firm ties with Frederick in the hope of getting soldiers to return to England.

As it stands, nobody in England really wants more warfare because it has been devastated enough by 1230 and Henry doesn't really have that much support left so Frederick is his best bet at getting enough support for an actual return, especially since neither Scotland, Ireland nor England is a safe bet to lead a campaign from so he'd be starting almost from scratch here. The delay of the 1230s is mostly while he gathers what support he has and due to Frederick's preoccupation with the crisis in Italy and possibly some hope held by Frederick that he and Louis might still avoid more conflict and rivalry as good relations would generally free Frederick up to focus on Italy. This is especially true because in 1230, Henry won't seem like a particularly great bet given his failures both in 1219 and in 1230. But if Henry gets Frederick to begin supporting him at the turn of the 1240s, well then he may be on track to take advantage of the growing disputes and discontent amongst the nobility as well as the ascension of Louis IX, which seems set to be tumultuous in England...

As for Fitzwalter, it was just the way it ended up being written this time around. Given Montfort's prominent position in English politics and the fact that he's a foreigner it seemed obvious that he would be on one side of the conflict but I felt that Erard would be a pretty obvious other side given his growing power in France as well as England.
 
Last edited:
Top