WI. Henry V lives longer.

[Elfwine]

Not going to make any difference. Under mediaeval law, a child was considered to be the lawful off spring of his mother's husband unless it could be clearly shown that either they weren't actually married at all ; or, that it was physically impossible for the husband to have had access to the woman at the necessary time. Note, that meant physical access, he had to be overseas or something, with no possibility of a secret return, bonk and away again. Even acknowledged impotence wasn't sufficient.

So for instance, "in Jerusalem", but not say, "in the southern part of France". Interesting.

They never did. Not even now. Consider, William, Duke of Cambridge; Edward Earl of Wessex.

Earls replaced eoldermen, but a long long time ago.

Though to answer what I think might be the intent of the question, we first see English dukes in the 14th century - Edward III's sons. Nonroyal dukes took a while longer, but I'm not sure exactly when.

 

[Velasco]

"The title of Duke of Ireland was created in 1386 for Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford, the favourite of King Richard II of England, who had previously been created Marquess of Dublin." He only kept the title for two years. He was also married to the King's first cousin.

Before that in 1351 Henry of Grosmont was made Duke (and Palatine) of Lancaster, but he was the King's second cousin and agnate so at least partially royal.

William de la Pole became Duke of Suffolk in 1448, the lowest-born to become duke at this point I believe. He married Alice Chaucer, a cousin of the Beauforts (on the non-royal side). His son married Margaret Beaufort (annulled early on) and then Elizabeth of York, sister of Edward IV and Richard III. His son was then called the White Rose and came close to inheriting the throne until Henry Tudor messed things up.

(Aaaaand I'm completely off topic, apologies )

 

[JedidiahStott]

So for instance, "in Jerusalem", but not say, "in the southern part of France". Interesting.

Yes. The law reports right down into C18 contain many reports of cases around exactly this point. "Begotten whilst her husband was in the Holy Land" was a common theme. Along with "whilst her husband was a prisoner in Castle X " . Along with much learned argument about whether it would have been physically possible for Lord Chinless to have gotten from {FarOffPlace} to London (or wherever) and back again between between DateTime X and DateTime Y. Which depended of course on the time of year, state of the roads, etc etc. Note that it was not at all necessary to show the Lord C did or did not make or attempt to make any journey. Just could someone possibly have done it.

There =were many of the nobility and not a few royalty that everyone knew were bastards , but it could not legally shown that it was impossible for the husband to have done the deed. Interestingly also, neither the husband nor the wife , nor the putative father were allowed to give evidence !

 

[Thoresby]

Lets sketch out a scenario, Henry V falls ill at the siege of Meaux but recovers after a fortnight in his tent. Meaux falls after a few more weeks of siege and Henry V returns to Vincennes where he learns that Charles VI has died in Paris, a city under English occupation and control. Both Henry V and the Dauphin Charles immediately move to proclaim themselves King of France. Henry V is in control of Paris, the dead Charles VI's body, the Royal Regalia including the sacred oils, the Treaty of Troyes and the Cathedral of Rheims, the traditional site of French Royal coronations. The Dauphin Charles has Bourges and lands to the South and the status as the "French" claimant.
The only lands directly under the control of Charles and his party is Bourbon Armagnac, Orleans and the parts of Gascony and Guyenne that had traditionally been English but were under their control. Everywhere else is under the control of magnates who effectively are going to be forced to make a choice. Henry V who is supported by the might of England, Burgundy and Northern France, has the Treaty of Troyes to wave around and the sacred regalia plus he will have received a legitimate Rheims coronation. Add to that his brilliant military record. Next to all that the Armagnacs look a pretty poor bet, if you genuinely think patriotic beliefs are going to trump self interest and arse covering in medieval magnates then fair enough. I'm going to bet that most of the major French nobles and going to want to be on the winning side above all else, and that looks like Henry V. If he dies or if he suffers a major reverse they'll drop him like a stone and flock back to the Dauphin. But until then he's fine.

 

[Elfwine]

if you genuinely think patriotic beliefs are going to trump self interest and arse covering in medieval magnates then fair enough. I'm going to bet that most of the major French nobles and going to want to be on the winning side above all else, and that looks like Henry V. If he dies or if he suffers a major reverse they'll drop him like a stone and flock back to the Dauphin. But until then he's fine.

I genuinely think that if the French nobility was so eager to flock to "the winning side", the Dauphin's support would have withered away to nothing before 1429.

There is a lot of France still not under Henry's control as of his death, and that and the shortage of English resources to continue the war is going to make a big difference to whether or not he's in a position to sway the French nobility on the basis of self interest over hostility to England.

People keep talking about how he's such a brilliant general as if that's going to summon up victories when the crown is in debt up to its ears.

http://www.xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hywmap01.htm How much better is Henry V really going to be able to do than this (which appears to be later than I first thought, but that just strengthens the point that there is a lot of France to conquer from 1422-whenever)?

 

[JedidiahStott]

I genuinely think that if the French nobility was so eager to flock to "the winning side", the Dauphin's support would have withered away to nothing before 1429.

There is a lot of France still not under Henry's control as of his death, and that and the shortage of English resources to continue the war is going to make a big difference to whether or not he's in a position to sway the French nobility on the basis of self interest over hostility to England.

Well that depends on what is meant by 'France'. On the basis of today's borders, perhaps so. But a large chunk of what is now France was not so clearly 'French' back then.

Take out Brittany; take out Burgundy; take out Guienne; take out Navarre; take out Alsace ; take out Lorraine; take out Picardy ; take out Artois.

Now take away the northern areas controlled by Henry.

Not actually such a lot left. Of course, which way some of those territories would roll, is debatable.

We must always be careful off assuming that territorial designations meant the same centuries ago as they do today.

 

[Faeelin]

Why are we taking Guyenne out?

 

[Elfwine]

Well that depends on what is meant by 'France'. On the basis of today's borders, perhaps so. But a large chunk of what is now France was not so clearly 'French' back then.

Take out Brittany; take out Burgundy; take out Guienne; take out Navarre; take out Alsace ; take out Lorraine; take out Picardy ; take out Artois.

Now take away the northern areas controlled by Henry.

Not actually such a lot left. Of course, which way some of those territories would roll, is debatable.

Look at the map I posted - that's what is meant by "France". Over half the country is not in English hands (and Burgundy's devotion to the Lancasterian cause is hardly unquestionable).

We must always be careful off assuming that territorial designations meant the same centuries ago as they do today.

Who said we were doing anything of the sort?

 

[tallthinkev]

Money has been mentioned, it may not be as bad as it seems. Henry now has twice as much land to tax. If he can give some kind of, 'tax brakes' to the new French he could be quids in.
One thing that might a bit of a sticky wicket is the church. Who would be in charge? English church in England and French church in France? Or would the be a power fight? And could his title be an issue? King of England and France or King of France and England? Edward III had a problem with that.

As for the question I asked about dukes and earls I know they are both used now, but at one point there were only earls. Any idea when duke was first used?

 

[Elfwine]

Money has been mentioned, it may not be as bad as it seems. Henry now has twice as much land to tax. If he can give some kind of, 'tax brakes' to the new French he could be quids in.

It is quite as bad as it seems - and more fighting will make that worse. The tax situation is based on the OTL problems of the monarchy with control of the area of France shown on the map.

As for the question I asked about dukes and earls I know they are both used now, but at one point there were only earls. Any idea when duke was first used?

Edward of Woodstock (the Black Prince) being made Duke of Cornwall in 1337.

 

[Thoresby]

It is quite as bad as it seems - and more fighting will make that worse. The tax situation is based on the OTL problems of the monarchy with control of the area of France shown on the map.

I fully agree that Henry V faced horrific fiscal problems. But so did the Dauphin, so did basically every medieval King, bankruptcy was the norm and as that map you so nicely provided shows Henry V has more people to tax. He can't squeeze Normandy has hard has the Dauphin can squeeze Armagnac but then Henry V doesn't have to worry about he core tax base being conquered. While Henry V is going to have to periodically go onto the defensive due to financial problems that when you launch a chauvache, a self funding way of trashing the Dauphin's tax base. Though it does rather clash with the whole making yourself loved thing so it's a tactic to use sparingly.

 

[tallthinkev]

Anybody wish to make a TL story out of this? I'd read it. Any help I could give.....

 

[Falastur]

Money has been mentioned, it may not be as bad as it seems. Henry now has twice as much land to tax. If he can give some kind of, 'tax brakes' to the new French he could be quids in.
One thing that might a bit of a sticky wicket is the church. Who would be in charge? English church in England and French church in France? Or would the be a power fight? And could his title be an issue? King of England and France or King of France and England? Edward III had a problem with that.

Money was always a major issue for Henry. He refused to tax the French, and the English were unwilling to fund him even when he was successful. Heck, if I recall correctly, the time he returned to England in 1421 and got Catherine de Valois pregnant with Henry VI he originally returned solely because he heard that in his absence Parliament had grown bold and had cut off most of his subsidies and were refusing to send the troops that they'd promised to. This was less than a year after he'd gotten himself recognised as heir to the French throne. Just because he was doing well did not mean that the English were willing to keep funding him - in fact as he did better, they became more stringent and tried harder to force him to end the war by strangling his money supply...

Edit: forgot to address the Church bit. The Church in Paris was independent of England, and always would be. Rheims had an Archbishop, and so did Rouen. Both of these were under English control IIRC - Rheims because they'd captured the Archbishop and Rouen because the Archbishop had actually defected, hoping to play the system and win power in Normandy. There won't be a power struggle.

The only lands directly under the control of Charles and his party is Bourbon Armagnac, Orleans and the parts of Gascony and Guyenne that had traditionally been English but were under their control.

You're forgetting the Languedoc and the private estate of the Dauphins - Dauphine - which together probably made up half of what Charles VII had left under him - so that instantly makes him a bigger landowner than all the rest of his vassals put together, which kind of turns your point on its head. The Languedoc committed a fairly substantial part of his tax revenue too, so he's got a stable, if diminshed, source of income there too...

I fully agree that Henry V faced horrific fiscal problems. But so did the Dauphin, so did basically every medieval King, bankruptcy was the norm and as that map you so nicely provided shows Henry V has more people to tax. He can't squeeze Normandy has hard has the Dauphin can squeeze Armagnac but then Henry V doesn't have to worry about he core tax base being conquered. While Henry V is going to have to periodically go onto the defensive due to financial problems that when you launch a chauvache, a self funding way of trashing the Dauphin's tax base. Though it does rather clash with the whole making yourself loved thing so it's a tactic to use sparingly.

This is indeed the problem. Henry refused to tax any French lands - even the traditional English "de jure" lands of Normandy and Gascony - because he wanted to win the French over to his side and, well, provide them as little incentive as possible to rebel. That means that the English alone are funding the entire military campaign of Henry V. That isn't going to change. As I mentioned before, the Burgundians were doing most of the actual garrisoning of northern France but they were starting to hurt financially too and Duke Philip wanted Henry to take over much of the responsibility - something Henry was literally incapable of accepting by way of not having the men to spare on garrison duty.

Whether Henry could conquer the south is not just a question of whether Charles VII would flee or whether he could win some more battles - it's a question of where he's going to get the men to keep marching south from, and the money to pay them, too.

 

[Thoresby]

Well in OTL the Regency did successfully raise tax and troops from Normandy at a practical rate so Henry V's tax exemptions was clearly a transitory policy while he was still establishing his authority. By the 1420's his position (and it's not an English possession as he will be ruling Normandy as King of France and Duke of Normandy) will be secure enough that he can follow the course of Bedford and start levying taxes and in the face of considering weaker assemblies than the English Parliament.
If Henry V can prevent a major disaster and keep nibbling away at the Dauphin's territory a war of attrition should see him win. While the Dauphin's French possessions will raise him more money than Henry V's thanks to Burgundy and Brittany keeping what they raise for themselves Henry can top himself up from England. By 1425 he will be able to raise more money while taxing at lower rates than the Dauphin and that means he should win a war of attrition. Of course it could be decided by a big Agincourt/Crecy sized battle but that also favours Henry V.

 

[Falastur]

Well in OTL the Regency did successfully raise tax and troops from Normandy at a practical rate so Henry V's tax exemptions was clearly a transitory policy while he was still establishing his authority. By the 1420's his position (and it's not an English possession as he will be ruling Normandy as King of France and Duke of Normandy) will be secure enough that he can follow the course of Bedford and start levying taxes and in the face of considering weaker assemblies than the English Parliament.
If Henry V can prevent a major disaster and keep nibbling away at the Dauphin's territory a war of attrition should see him win. While the Dauphin's French possessions will raise him more money than Henry V's thanks to Burgundy and Brittany keeping what they raise for themselves Henry can top himself up from England. By 1425 he will be able to raise more money while taxing at lower rates than the Dauphin and that means he should win a war of attrition. Of course it could be decided by a big Agincourt/Crecy sized battle but that also favours Henry V.

It's not a war of attrition for Charles though - it's a war of survival, and those who have their backs to the walls can usually be expected to come up with the extra funding and manpower when they need it, because there is simply no other option. The English, on the other hand, are going to have to deal with an ever-growing Peace Faction at court, who are going to be pressing for a treaty to end the war and recognise Charles as King In The South. The English Parliament (and progenitors) may be lauded as having given the world the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, but it also had a nasty habit of sabotaging English campaigns on the continent when it was tiring of war - and no, Normandy couldn't even be expected to take over a quarter of the funding that England was putting in. For this era, England was a minor miracle in how much tax revenue it could produce from so small a population, largely down to Parliament's role as negotiators for the people.

The fact that England so rarely had to fight a war on the defensive on English soil meant that Parliament had an overconfident sense that, no matter how stupid its sudden swing towards refusing to contribute, it never seemed capable of factoring in that its actions might actually spell disaster for English ambitions - or rather, they didn't care enough since no English towns were being burned to the ground and no English nobles losing estates to a foreign invader.

 

[Elfwine]

And if Henry tries to get his French subjects to pay a significant share of things to make up for Parliament getting recalcitrant and the crown's huge debts - their interest in supporting him is going to be diminished at best.

And of course, any chauvache is going to stir up considerable ill will - probably even to some extent amongst his current French subjects. Lukewarm loyalists and tight fisted Parliamentarians are a poor basis to support his intentions.

 

[Thoresby]

It's not a war of attrition for Charles though - it's a war of survival, and those who have their backs to the walls can usually be expected to come up with the extra funding and manpower when they need it, because there is simply no other option.

I agree, Henry isn't going to get the proportional tax rates from any part of his domains that Charles can get from his. However remember the parable of the golden goose, Charles can't keep squeezing indefinitely, sooner or later really high taxes are going to start producing diminishing returns both financially and politically. If we are talking 10 years+ that comes into play.

The English, on the other hand, are going to have to deal with an ever-growing Peace Faction at court, who are going to be pressing for a treaty to end the war and recognise Charles as King In The South. The English Parliament (and progenitors) may be lauded as having given the world the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, but it also had a nasty habit of sabotaging English campaigns on the continent when it was tiring of war

Absolutely however if you look at OTL strong Kings could keep the peace faction in line if they had conquests to show for it. As long as Henry can keep winning victories he can keep raising taxes. Though there is a limit due to the lack of existential danger. He does have another advantage over Charles, his taxes are much more efficiently raised and a lot less is "lost" between the peasant and the treasury.

Normandy couldn't even be expected to take over a quarter of the funding that England was putting in. For this era, England was a minor miracle in how much tax revenue it could produce from so small a population, largely down to Parliament's role as negotiators for the people.

Absolutely, Henry's possessions in France in 1421 produce less tax revenue then either England or the Kingdom of Bourges. However they do still have significant taxable potential, potential that can be gradually used as Lancastrian rule solidifies. They aren't going to win a war of attrition on their own. They can tip the balance onto the Lancastrian side and relieve the financial pressure on England and thus undermine the peace party.

The fact that England so rarely had to fight a war on the defensive on English soil meant that Parliament had an overconfident sense that, no matter how stupid its sudden swing towards refusing to contribute, it never seemed capable of factoring in that its actions might actually spell disaster for English ambitions - or rather, they didn't care enough since no English towns were being burned to the ground and no English nobles losing estates to a foreign invader.

Completely agree, one of Henry's biggest risks is that if he does too well parliament might say "well as you're winning you clearly don't need more money and anyway tax the French more". Henry isn't facing an easy victory. However if he outlives Charles VI by 20 years I personally think most of modern day France will be Lancastrian and he will be generally recognised as King of France. He might have to concede de facto independence to Provence and Burgundy and it might well fall apart as soon as England has a less competent Monarch (imagine the Wars of the Roses spread over two Kingdoms) but the odds favour him.

 

[Faeelin]

As I mentioned before, the Burgundians were doing most of the actual garrisoning of northern France but they were starting to hurt financially too and Duke Philip wanted Henry to take over much of the responsibility - something Henry was literally incapable of accepting by way of not having the men to spare on garrison duty.

Don't forget the Burgundians weren't eager to see the French replaced with an enormous Anglo-French monarchy, either.

The fact that England so rarely had to fight a war on the defensive on English soil meant that Parliament had an overconfident sense that, no matter how stupid its sudden swing towards refusing to contribute, it never seemed capable of factoring in that its actions might actually spell disaster for English ambitions - or rather, they didn't care enough since no English towns were being burned to the ground and no English nobles losing estates to a foreign invader.

Hey, this is only stupid if you see the realm's job as paying for the king's bid for European conquest.

 

[Falastur]

Don't forget the Burgundians weren't eager to see the French replaced with an enormous Anglo-French monarchy, either.

Very true. I still hold to my belief that, after a while, the Burgundians would start to push for being made their own kingdom as just payment - let's not forget that at one point the Burgundians actually fancied themselves for Kings of France. It would be disastrous if that request were accepted, too, since they were given much of Blois and Champagne by Henry in the Treaty of Troyes, so that would effectively mean ceding the majority of French royal estates in the north - and one of the most profitable areas of France, not to mention an area where English Kings would not have to deal with troublesome vassals wanting extensions of their rights to rule as semi-independent mini-Kings.

Hey, this is only stupid if you see the realm's job as paying for the king's bid for European conquest.

...or if you realise that cutting funding while your side is winning both produces a nasty mess for your monarch in the short term, and guarantees that a repeat of the war will need to be fought again in a decade's time in the long term

It's a bit like your child begging you for funds to pay for their University course, and then you agreeing, only to pull all funding in their third year resulting in them being taken off the roll of students, failing to get their qualification, and being chased for money by the Uni debt collection company for a while, only for the child to then demand to do their course all over again a few years later when they finally forgive you.