What if the French had won the Hundred Year War against Edward the III

[cimon]

How? The most France could hope for was all the English Continental possessions. Edward III was a fairly legitimate claim to France, if Salic law is ignored. The House of Valois had no such claim and back in the middle ages, that's pretty damn important. Not to mention the logistics of Crossing the Channel with enough troops to conquer England, and getting the population not to revolt against them. The most France could do would be to put a puppet on the throne, but even then, deposing a Monarch outside of Byzantium at the time was essentially taboo.

No claim is strong unless it is adequately backed,and that claim,as it turned out wasn't.

 

[Elfwine]

Well. Joan of Burgundy, the firstborn daughter of Philip V, has à son Philip bien in 1323.

And there was a logic in the access to the throne of Philip of Valois : the principle that only men could transmit rights to the throne. And folliwing this line, Philip of Valois was the rightful heir (firstborn male by the elder male line). Whereas Edward III was in no way of an elder/firstborn line : neither by the male line, nor by the female line.

Edward III still has a stronger claim by primogeniture or proximity of blood than Philip VI.

Philip of Burgundy has a stronger claim by primogeniture, but Philip VI's only claim by blood requires ruling out succession via females.

Well, yeah, pre-plague the equation is different. My thinking was that the plague would put additional stress on the realm, while also making England substantially less valuable. Though looking at the numbers, they're not really precise enough to say how it changes the balance between France and England. France seems to be around 40% mortality rate, while England is between 1/3 and 2/3, which is of course quite the difference. Assuming the higher number, England would certainly look like a more acceptable loss post-plague. Though I guess that could go either way, depending on the skill of the king. Either he's incapable of holding everything, in which case letting England go comes naturally, or he wants to hang on to everything since he has already lost so much wealth.

Do you have a source for that (on France's mortality rate)?

Not arguing, just that I'd like to see more on this for my own purposes.

E: Maybe the weakened England just resigns itself to a French king, like how Norway was devastated by the plague and became dominated by its two neighbors for about 500 years?

Not going to happen. Norway was crippled by the plague, England wasn't.

It's actually a pretty interesting idea, come to think of it. Perhaps instead of getting a new king that can effectively push them around, the nobles of England decide that a weak king on the other side of the Channel is pretty nice? Which would basically make France just a bunch of nobles from Yorkshire to Narbonne, who de jure pledge their fealty to Paris, but don't really take it that seriously. Even more interesting if there was some degree of settlement from France, as French peasants move to extremely depopulated England. I don't know how realistic the latter part is, but if any country in Europe has the capacity to refill England (to some degree) it's certainly France. At that point, you're truly sending European history on a completely different track.

A weak king with no legitimacy . . . yeah, that's going to work really well.

 

[Gorm the Old]

Do you have a source for that (on France's mortality rate)?

Not anything beyond what a quick googling can find. I can't vouch for the accuracy, though I guess that's going to be true for most numbers from/regarding that period. The Norwegians back in the day apparently claimed 2/3 died, which people seem have estimated as being too high. (Real number closer to 40-50%.)

Not going to happen. Norway was crippled by the plague, England wasn't.

Yeah, that was assuming a mortality rate beyond OTL.

A weak king with no legitimacy . . . yeah, that's going to work really well.

Hey, France bounced back in OTL!