what if England never lost her French Lands

If somehow a joint Anglo-French KIngdom could have emerged, it would have been one Hell of a power for quite some time... Supposing it goes for colonial expansions with the same impetus that the two divided nations did, at its peak it could control over a third of the planet. In Europe, Russia or an Austro-Russian alliance would have been the only power able to challenge it.

Working on this there empire would look something like this

png.gif
Anglo-French Empire Map

Anglo-French Empire.png
 
The empire looking like that: How?

actually, the channel islands were seized by eustace the piratical monk during the period 1205-1212, while employed by england to raid the french coast.
ironically, he was made an outlaw by king John for raiding the english coast as well, and while employed by the french for this period, attacked folkestone in revenge of his own seizure of the channel islands!:D:eek::D

I can find nothing on this in the brief history of the Channel Islands. They're just the remainder of Normandy.
 
Last edited:
<attentionwh> No comments on my Lancaster/York pact as a conclusion to the HYW? I rather liked it. </attentionwh>

An interesting thought, but the Yorkist claim to the throne came at a point when the English grip on France was essentially unrecoverable. They still held Calais and a rump Gascony, but by this point it was clear that the English weren't going to turn the tables. If we step back to a time when the English can conquer France, the Dukes of York just don't figure at all.

Also, your idea somewhat depends on the era. Henry II, of the Angevin Empire timeframe, supported the idea of promoting his children to different titles to create a federal country with the oldest child the superior, and it's plausible that around his era and a bit afterwards - maybe up to about Edward III - this idea could happen. But really, by Henry V this wouldn't be the case. The English mindset changed to a very centrally-controlled idea with one King reigning supreme, and at this point, the thrones would definitely be shared by one man, at least at first. It's possible that the state could become ungainly, be divided between two sons later down the line, and ultimately become two separate, warring kingdoms again, of course.
 

Susano

Banned
*Sigh*. Okay, what bit of pedantry are you using to justify this statement?
Well, I have been corrected that tiny parts of France were annexed to England for small amounts of time, but basically:
During the Angevin period, Gascogne etc. were still part of France, just that their feudal lord also happened to be King of England - a personal union with no more connection between the two, so the lands werent English.
During the 100YW, the English Monarch held the territories he hold not as King of England, but as (claimant) King of France, so de jure again only a personal union, and no English lands in France.

Working on this there empire would look something like this

Would somebody please think of the butterflies:rolleyes:
 
Working on this there empire would look something like this

png.gif
Anglo-French Empire Map
some problems:
-war with spain. pretty much inevitable. so, where are the massive ammounts of spainish empire that the frenglish have conquered?
- luxembourg has not been taken, as well as large chunks of germany, switzerland, italy, and spain(see above). why not?
- why are the borders like that?
-why are the holdings in the americas where they are?
-why is belgium but not the belgian congo taken, as you seem to be just adding stuff logically. belgium is taken, so...
-why do the frenglish hold hanover?
-why are colinisation patterns exactly the same as OTL?
and many more, but i can'tbe bothered to list them all.
 
An interesting thought, but the Yorkist claim to the throne came at a point when the English grip on France was essentially unrecoverable. They still held Calais and a rump Gascony, but by this point it was clear that the English weren't going to turn the tables. If we step back to a time when the English can conquer France, the Dukes of York just don't figure at all.

Also, your idea somewhat depends on the era. Henry II, of the Angevin Empire timeframe, supported the idea of promoting his children to different titles to create a federal country with the oldest child the superior, and it's plausible that around his era and a bit afterwards - maybe up to about Edward III - this idea could happen. But really, by Henry V this wouldn't be the case. The English mindset changed to a very centrally-controlled idea with one King reigning supreme, and at this point, the thrones would definitely be shared by one man, at least at first. It's possible that the state could become ungainly, be divided between two sons later down the line, and ultimately become two separate, warring kingdoms again, of course.

Kind of what Susano said. I don't think Henry V could have possibly have tried to unite the kingdoms outright into one super-state. You had two very different systems of local government, law, and custom, and a lack of precedent besides; Normandy and England were never actually united. Add to that the fact that the succession dispute was already brewing during the time of Henry V, and granting the kingdom to a cadet branch seems a very judicious, very medieval way of handling things.
 

Susano

Banned
Oh, a permanent personal union of both countries is definitly possible. I mean, look at Poland-Lithuania, or at Prussia and Austria, both pretty much collections of personal unions. But just as we dont call Austria Bohemia or Hungary, this entity would probably rather be called France than England...
 
Oh, a permanent personal union of both countries is definitly possible. I mean, look at Poland-Lithuania, or at Prussia and Austria, both pretty much collections of personal unions. But just as we dont call Austria Bohemia or Hungary, this entity would probably rather be called France than England...

Possible yeah but I think its less likely than so.
As said it would be powerful, others wouldn't want it to remain so strong. And given the English tendency for revolution and individualism...
Also unlike Poland-Lithuania there's the channel standing in the way of any armies going from one to the other. At sea is the area where private enterprise can really challenge the government in the era.
 
Right. That pesky channel would definitely be a hindrance. Add to that the fact that France itself had not seen unitary authority since the early days of the Carolingians. Henri/y would have his hands full simply trying to govern France, let alone England.

Now, if he were the French king, the royal domain would suddenly be quite large. That would strengthen his position somewhat - just as it did the French kings in OTL when they acquired the Plantagenet lands.
 
Kind of what Susano said. I don't think Henry V could have possibly have tried to unite the kingdoms outright into one super-state. You had two very different systems of local government, law, and custom, and a lack of precedent besides; Normandy and England were never actually united. Add to that the fact that the succession dispute was already brewing during the time of Henry V, and granting the kingdom to a cadet branch seems a very judicious, very medieval way of handling things.

I never said one super-state. It would definitely be a Personal Union, like England and Scotland down the line. And they would be administered differently, for sure. Down the line, they would become more similar as parts of the government of one were adapted for the other, but they'd be different. For a start, I personally doubt that France would ever properly get over the powerful nobles - down the line, say in about 1700 or 1800, where England would probably be like as in OTL with important nobles with ultimately no local power, you'd likely still have a locally important Duke of Albret, Duke of Orleans, etc. Sure, they'd have their power to control their courts quashed, probably most or all of their law rights removed but they'd surely still control land ownership, have monopolies on certain trades, maybe even control things like their local mints, etc, totally unlike England.
And the considered English inheritance - Normandy, Gascony, etc, wouldn't be properly English either, even if Normandy did resemble England more than some parts of France. In fact, Gascony would probably consistently be one of the last parts in France to adopt every government reform and improvement, and certainly the last to accept centralising measures. Indeed, I think this idea of some parts of France accepting reforms at completely different times to others would be another defining feature of France over England. France would always speak French, England always English, etc. But the union of the crowns could last through all of this.

By the way, personally for my part I believe that if Henry had lived and continued to rule France, he wouldn't have ended up with what we today consider to be France. England was running out of patience with sending Henry taxes to pay for his armies, so too were Charles the Dauphin's southern French supporters tiring of the war and demanding that he enter into negotiations. More likely Henry would spend the rest of the 1420s consolidating his rule while le Dauphin attempted to rebuild what he still had; any ensuing conflict would more than likely be ended by the Burgundians ending their involvement in the conflict and pushing for independence. Likely the HYW would end in a nominal English victory, with Henry's rule of northern France uncontested as he wins over the last doubters in France (there were actually a number of French nobles receptive to Henry being King) while the Dauphin's ironic title 'King of Bourges' would likely become more or less adopted as Charles' options and resources likely wouldn't be too favourable for a reconquest. So to my mind, any union of the crowns under Henry would see him take ownership of no more than everything north of Burgundy plus Gascony, anyway. In my mind I'm writing a TL around it, except that the later stages of it involves too much random chance for me to get away with posting
it on this forum.
 
I'd like to see it. I bet there are worse timelines by far. Stick a disclaimer at the top and say "I know about the random chance at the end, so save it."

So Burgundy & Languedoc are permanently separated from France? I loke that too.
 
Top