What If: King John hadn't died?

In October 1216 King John of England died, this led to his rebelling Baron's to suddenly turning their loyalty from Prince Louis to Henry III of England. After a further year of warfare Louis was finally beat and relinquished the half of England he'd previously held. 7 years later Louis became King Louis VIII of France, he never forgave the Baron's of England though for changing their allegiance so rapidly.

However what-if King John hadn't died and instead he survived to be beaten by Prince Louis? Obviously the Prince would become King Louis I of England as I doubt after gaining that much power the Baron's would then go against him anyway, however to make it simple let's say John's son Henry dies of a childhood disease through butterflies. With King Louis I of England how would we see relations between Louis and his father King Philip II of France develop? Would Louis cede the various Duchies to his father in order to secure the French throne as well rather than risk his father giving the throne to another family member (likely his younger brother Philip whom would be 22 by 1223).

What would Anglo-Scottish relations be like? King Alexander II of Scotland paid homage to Louis in 1216 thus might we see Louis rewarding him with a slip of land in the North of England? Also how would Louis interact with the various Welsh Kingdoms, I expect he'd try and keep the King of Gwynedd happy seeing as he was the most powerful and Louis would need many allies to help him in case of rebellion.

Let's say in 1223 King Louis I of England also becomes Louis VIII of France, let's say that for that moment in time all is silent in both England and France maybe using a bit of handwavium or simply good diplomacy from King Louis I & VIII. However in 1227* some dissatisfied English nobles rebel in favour of the 18 year old Richard, son of previous King John I of England. This 'Second Baron's Revolt' is put down by King Louis VIII whom wishes to keep his English holdings however he needs the help of Welsh and Scottish troops, for this help he hands out minor portions of land to these monarchs.**

Thus with King Louis I beating off any major opposition for the time being he's secured as King of England. However in order to secure his throne in England he marries his eldest son Prince Louis to the English Princess and daughter of previous King John, Isabella whom IOTL married the Holy Roman Emperor in 1235.

What do you think? Plausible with a small-amount of handwavium? Or is that not even required? Should I make a TL of this?

*Although IOTL Louis VIII died in 1226 ITTL butterflies lead to him not suffering from dysentery.

**This is a point ITTL I was thinking of having another kind of 'Harrying of the North' just maybe in Southern England. With hundreds-of-thousands dead we could see an influx of French settlers in order to 'Franco-fy' Southern England and thus create and Anglo-French England. However I haven't included this in the bulk as it was only a small thought for a long lasting Anglo-French Union.
 
There was once a timeline with a POD of John dying later or being defeated by Louis before his death. The name was Clavis Angliae : A history of Capetian Kings in England. Sadly, it was discontinued...

If John Lackland dies later, it is highly possible that the Plantagenêt loose the Crown of England and maybe the Dukedom of Aquitaine. And we thus get a Capetian England with Louis I as you said.

Relations between Louis and his father Philip Augustus were quite okay. Philip was a bit weary of Louis at the beginning because he feared his son could be a threat to him. Turns out that Louis was one of his fathers' best and loyalest military commanders in the end. Thus, I think Louis could remain heir to the French throne against his half-brother Philip Hurepel.

But would France and England remain in personnal Union after that? Louis VIII gave several apanages to his sons in his will : while the eldest surviving son, Saint Louis IX, received France, he gave Artois to his second surviving son, Robert, Anjou and Maine to his third surviving son, John, and Poitou and Auvergne to his fourth surviving son, Alphonse.*
While England is not an apanage but a crown, who says Louis VIII & I wouldn't give it to one of his sons?

Also, Louis IX wasn't the eldest son of Louis VIII : he had an older brother, Philip, who was born in 1209 and died in 1218. Butterflies could lead to this son surviving.

One thing you also have to take into account would be the Cathar Crusade. Louis VIII caught dysentria while he was fighting the Cathars. With two kingdoms to manage, he might be busiest and not go, but you would still have Simon of Montfort and his crownies making a mess in Southern France.

Anyway, if you're planning to make a timeline on this, do it. It's plausible and could be awesome :D

*His two youngest sons, Philip Dagobert (died 1232 at age 10) and Charles (born shortly before his fathers' death) received nothing as they were too young. Charles received Anjou after the death of his brother John.
 
Thanks for the feedback Yorel. It's a good point about splitting England off from France to go to another son of Louis VIII, however couldn't you argue that the Capetian's, like OTLs Lancastrians in France would allow their eldest son to inherit both Kingdoms? Or do you think Louis VIII would just not do this?

That's a good point about his son Philip not dying, thus we could see a King Philip III of France and a King Louis II of England? If so and we say that butterflies don't stop 'Louis II' from becoming a great centralizer what might his policies in England be to centralize power?

On the Cathar Crusade couldn't we see Louis VIII's younger brother Philip I of Boulogne join the Crusade and command it? My reasoning behind this is that Louis I of England has proven to their father Philip II that he's a decent military commander, so maybe Philip I would want to prove himself to their father and so join the Crusade? If he did then that would mean there would be a good leader in the Crusade who wouldn't be attached to either the Crown of France or England.

I would like to do a TL on it, however I'm just trying to get all the details ironed out before I do, thanks for the support though :)
 
TheNordicBrit said:
Thanks for the feedback Yorel. It's a good point about splitting England off from France to go to another son of Louis VIII, however couldn't you argue that the Capetian's, like OTLs Lancastrians in France would allow their eldest son to inherit both Kingdoms? Or do you think Louis VIII would just not do this?

To be honest, everything is possible. In my opinion, given the many apanages Louis VIII gave to his sons OTL, he would probably split his domains, giving France to his eldest son and England to his cadet. However, nothing would forbade him to create a Dual Kingdom of England-France by having his eldest son become King of both realms, like the Lancastrians did (well, at least tried to do) OTL.

The best answer I can give you is that, as the one who will write your timeline, you get to decide wether France or England remain in Personnal Union after Louis VIII & I's reign. If you want an Anglo-French kingdom, do it, if you don't want, do not.

TheNordicBrit said:
That's a good point about his son Philip not dying, thus we could see a King Philip III of France and a King Louis II of England? If so and we say that butterflies don't stop 'Louis II' from becoming a great centralizer what might his policies in England be to centralize power?

If you go with the survival of Louis VIII's son Philip and then the split, it is likely we would get Philip III of France and Louis II of England as you mentionned in this scenario.

As for how Louis would centralize England, I'd say he would use similar methods to those he used OTL in France : implementing Justice and pursuing the administrative reforms of his grandfather Philip Augustus. The religious zeal of Louis could also play a part : Louis' piety made him OTL as the model christian princes and made him seen as a wise, just, and good king. Being seen as such rarely leads to outright opposition.

The only problem I see would be the Magna Carta. There were no such things in France and, if memory serves me well, Louis VIII had to sign it when he tried to claim the English throne OTL. ITTL, Louis II would face a much stronger nobility than the French one, at least in terms of political power.
Of course, he could apply the same strategy the Capetians used in France : OTL, via several marriages, they collected the French fiefs one by one up until the Royal domaisne became France itself. Louis would thus have to use the same policiy with the great English Barons.

TheNordicBrit said:
On the Cathar Crusade couldn't we see Louis VIII's younger brother Philip I of Boulogne join the Crusade and command it? My reasoning behind this is that Louis I of England has proven to their father Philip II that he's a decent military commander, so maybe Philip I would want to prove himself to their father and so join the Crusade? If he did then that would mean there would be a good leader in the Crusade who wouldn't be attached to either the Crown of France or England.

That does seem logical.
 
To be honest, everything is possible. In my opinion, given the many apanages Louis VIII gave to his sons OTL, he would probably split his domains, giving France to his eldest son and England to his cadet. However, nothing would forbade him to create a Dual Kingdom of England-France by having his eldest son become King of both realms, like the Lancastrians did (well, at least tried to do) OTL.

The best answer I can give you is that, as the one who will write your timeline, you get to decide wether France or England remain in Personnal Union after Louis VIII & I's reign. If you want an Anglo-French kingdom, do it, if you don't want, do not.
While I personally would prefer a long lasting Anglo-French Union I can't get away from the fact that Louis VIII IOTL did divide lands up between his sons, so while I may not like it the most plausible route would be the division of lands. However in my TL that's a little while away yet.
As for how Louis would centralize England, I'd say he would use similar methods to those he used OTL in France : implementing Justice and pursuing the administrative reforms of his grandfather Philip Augustus. The religious zeal of Louis could also play a part : Louis' piety made him OTL as the model christian princes and made him seen as a wise, just, and good king. Being seen as such rarely leads to outright opposition.
Ah thank you, I wasn't sure what he did IOTL so thank you.
The only problem I see would be the Magna Carta. There were no such things in France and, if memory serves me well, Louis VIII had to sign it when he tried to claim the English throne OTL. ITTL, Louis II would face a much stronger nobility than the French one, at least in terms of political power.
Of course, he could apply the same strategy the Capetians used in France : OTL, via several marriages, they collected the French fiefs one by one up until the Royal domaisne became France itself. Louis would thus have to use the same policiy with the great English Barons.
Yes the Magna Carta is an interesting aspect to all this, thanks for the tips on how Louis II (and ptentially I) of England could deal with this problem.

Also, seeing as this thread is best served as a discussion thread on my TL my next question is who were the rebels? Also could we see Robert Fitzwalter become an Earl?
 
Top