WI: England keeps Normandy

[GauchoBadger]

What would be the consequences of England, despite failing to conquer all of France, managing to retain control over the region of Normandy in the aftermath of the Hundred Years’ War?
Would the English kings from there on in oversee the strengthening of Normandy as a military province in (likely naive) hopes that they’ll manage to conquer France in the future? Would Calais be more defensively secure ITTL?
How would the Norman language develop? Could it turn out less mutually intelligible with French as a result of more political isolation?

 

[FasterThanRaito]

England never had Normandy, it was Normans that had England.
Also, Normandy never stopped being a part of France, at least legally.
So eventually, France would centralize, and the duchy would be re-incorporated into French governance.

The English lacked the military power to maintain a presence on the continent, and also lacked the legal pretext to officially detach Normandy from France.

So unless there’s some serious rewriting of European geopolitics in the 13-14th centuries, it’s not very plausible...

 

[bbctol]

Also, Normandy never stopped being a part of France, at least legally.

It was certainly claimed by Henry V, with at least an attempt at legitimacy. The kings of England had been the acknowledged dukes of Normandy until 1259, and after his invasion, Henry V re-opened the "Norman Rolls," administrative records from the time the land had been governed by his predecessors. The rolls indicate lots of land being given out to English commanders and settlers, but also the return of property to Norman citizens who acknowledged Henry as their king.

I think if Henry V doesn't die as early, it's certainly plausible that he consolidates a firm, legitimate hold on Normandy without being able to take all of France. However, I don't think it's as likely as a scenario where England retains Gascony but doesn't take France; Gascony was clearly a possession of the English kings even before the war, and as I understand it, the initial impetus for war was more about shoring up the English claim to Gascony than attempting to take all of France.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Engand intervened militarily in Brittany in Elizabethan times, as well as in the Netherlands, it would certainly manage to redirect some of that towards holding Normandy. Alliances were always key, and Protestantism would always leave England at a weakness when the Empire, Spain, and France were Catholic. But religion was not everything.

However, really to be certain of how to do an answer to this question you have to game it out from Henry VI holding Normandy - since that would not have so badly have undermined his own rule. OK, even if it was the Duke of York who saved Normandy, he would be doing it as a servant of the Crown - and not as a rival to it.

Henry VI has a perfectly capable son, Edward, so in holding Normandy he is at most seeing conflict between rivals for the position of his favourite, rather than the start of am indictment of the king's rule.

So in this, Edward IV is the son of Henry VI, while OTL Edward IV becomes the next Duke of York. There's a good timeline in this, but it's difficult to precis it as it's not been written yet!

 

[FasterThanRaito]

It was certainly claimed by Henry V, with at least an attempt at legitimacy. The kings of England had been the acknowledged dukes of Normandy until 1259, and after his invasion, Henry V re-opened the "Norman Rolls," administrative records from the time the land had been governed by his predecessors. The rolls indicate lots of land being given out to English commanders and settlers, but also the return of property to Norman citizens who acknowledged Henry as their king.

I think if Henry V doesn't die as early, it's certainly plausible that he consolidates a firm, legitimate hold on Normandy without being able to take all of France. However, I don't think it's as likely as a scenario where England retains Gascony but doesn't take France; Gascony was clearly a possession of the English kings even before the war, and as I understand it, the initial impetus for war was more about shoring up the English claim to Gascony than attempting to take all of France.

The kings of England were dukes of Normandy as A French vassal, not as a English fief.
The Kings of England tried to get themselves recognized as king in France as the king of France, not as a king of England.

All the fiefdoms in France, such as gascony, Aquitaine, Normandy, etc were part of the French kingdom as much as York and Cornwall were part of the English kingdom.
This is complicated because the same French nobles who, through marriage, claimed to be rightful kings of France, also happened to have their own, separate kingdom overseas.

But make no mistake, it was never as simple and England vs France, just French noble elites squabbling over titles and state centralization.

 

[bbctol]

All the fiefdoms in France, such as gascony, Aquitaine, Normandy, etc were part of the French kingdom as much as York and Cornwall were part of the English kingdom.

Sure, but things change. The kings of England were dukes of Aquitaine as a French vassal, not as an English fief. Then they won a bunch of battles, the French king signed the Treaty of Brétigny, and poof: now they ruled Aquitaine as an English fief, and it was no longer under the French crown. With an army at your back, there's more than enough legal precedent in the age to accept a transfer of a duchy from one sovereign lord to another.

This is complicated because the same French nobles who, through marriage, claimed to be rightful kings of France, also happened to have their own, separate kingdom overseas.

But make no mistake, it was never as simple and England vs France, just French noble elites squabbling over titles and state centralization.

The idea that the Hundred Year's War was really just a French struggle between two French dynasties is very ahistorical, and applies much more to the Capetian-Plantagenet struggles of the earlier century. By the time Normandy was conquered, the kings of England had been born and raised in England for generations, and all of them from Henry IV onwards had spoken English as a first language. The House of Lancaster was certainly not "French noble elites"; they were kings of England, who also possessed land in France in a complicated and ambiguous relationship with the French crown. Resolving that ambiguity was the point of the Hundred Years' War, and while in OTL it was resolved by the French king taking those lands, it's entirely in keeping with medieval law that they could have ended up English duchies.

 

[SenatorErnesto]

If Normandy was securely incorporated into the English realm, its going to be a heavily fortified one. Not to mention, English worries will be much focused on Continental issues. At least I would think so. I think it would weaken the English overseas power too, for now a lot more resources have to go to keeping Normandy being overturn at a moments notice from the French, instead of having a nice wooden wall on the ocean to dissuade French projections into the country.