WI: John Lackland Dies 1199-1203, All Hail King Arthur!?

[Alex Zetsu]

The issues that caused the Magna Carta will come to a head to a rebellion with the first king that meets these requirements

1) No control over Normandy (it's hard to overstate the loss of legitimacy this was viewed as)

2) Needs to raise taxes

3) Is a weak king (which probably caused the first one)

John Softsword meets all these requirements. Even if you take the typical revisionist "He was an above average tactician but an unlucky general" (a stupid view given that he lost every fight he was commander of, yes there was bad luck in some of them but still) that still leaves plenty of evidence he was a weak king.

I don't know why it was a Baronal war and not the War of the Earls. I mean, a few Earls supported the rebellion while most twiddled their thumbs, doing nothing but shooing rebels from looting their own land ("don't plunder my estate, but you're free to rebel cousin" I can imagine one earl to a rebel). Many of the nobles were related which might explain why earl A might be reluctant to put down rebel A, but then why doesn't earl A just join the revolt?

 

[The Professor]

I don't know why it was a Baronal war and not the War of the Earls. I mean, a few Earls supported the rebellion while most twiddled their thumbs, doing nothing but shooing rebels from looting their own land ("don't plunder my estate, but you're free to rebel cousin" I can imagine one earl to a rebel). Many of the nobles were related which might explain why earl A might be reluctant to put down rebel A, but then why doesn't earl A just join the revolt?

Because they had more to lose being more immediate to the Crown. The rebellion does count as treason after all.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

There may be something milder 30 years later.
A lot will depend how he and Phillip deal with lords holding land in each kingdom; and how much land Arthur loses to Phillip.

Why specifically 30 years?

And most likely Artie will lose some land to Philippe. I don't know if he can keep Anjou, Aquitaine, Normandy and Brittany, and Philippe's just gonna say "oui, oui, mon frere, keep everything". But, admittedly, if he and Philippe have a better relationship than Philippe-John did OTL, the losses could be kept to a minimum, although Philippe's gonna be a sort of Indian giver with most of it, I think?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

The issues that caused the Magna Carta will come to a head to a rebellion with the first king that meets these requirements

1) No control over Normandy (it's hard to overstate the loss of legitimacy this was viewed as)

2) Needs to raise taxes

3) Is a weak king (which probably caused the first one)

IDK. Weak kings are more a case of luck of the draw, you can't predict that a king like Edward I is going to be followed by Edward II, or Henry V by Henry VI, for instance. So, even if Artie is a relatively strong king, the chances that it'll be undone the moment his son/grandson is a roi-faineant exists.

That said, I think John generally suffers from an unfortunate position in history. He was regent during Richard I's absences, and it's unlikely that Richard would've actually acted any differently to Johnny-boy (at least that's my opinion, Richard tended to see England solely as his platinum credit card), but because it was John doing these things in Richard's name, it was easy to demonize John and paint Richard as a sort of hero "if only good king Richard knew what was happening!". If Richard hadn't been away on crusade most of the time, and imprisoned the rest of it (I know that wasn't all he did) or hadn't even survived to be king, chances are that John would be given less short shrift.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

IDK. Weak kings are more a case of luck of the draw, you can't predict that a king like Edward I is going to be followed by Edward II, or Henry V by Henry VI, for instance. So, even if Artie is a relatively strong king, the chances that it'll be undone the moment his son/grandson is a roi-faineant exists.

That said, I think John generally suffers from an unfortunate position in history. He was regent during Richard I's absences, and it's unlikely that Richard would've actually acted any differently to Johnny-boy (at least that's my opinion, Richard tended to see England solely as his platinum credit card), but because it was John doing these things in Richard's name, it was easy to demonize John and paint Richard as a sort of hero "if only good king Richard knew what was happening!". If Richard hadn't been away on crusade most of the time, and imprisoned the rest of it (I know that wasn't all he did) or hadn't even survived to be king, chances are that John would be given less short shrift.

Well, let's say John was a strong king that only lost Normandy because the King of France convinced Denmark and Scotland to side with him and the Holy Roman Emperor (john's... uncle?) abandoned him. The loss of Normandy would be a huge blow to Plantagenet dynasty. John will keep control, but the next time we have someone like Henry VI (who was a weak king even without the "vanilla" insanity he had early on and the Alzheimer's like symptoms in the last three years of his reign) who also needs to raise taxes, yeah there is going to be a rebellion.

Next let's go with Artie the strong King. The Plantagenet hold on Normandy is a bit awkward. Phillip being their superior legally gives them a few headaches. John had 12.5% more income to spend on military than Richard, but the fact is that only good leadership and a defensive posture along strong castles held it together. So Arthur of Brittany, now King of England and family head of the Plantagenets will likely hold everything together. If he dies with a child who is much like John, that successor will not face a revolt as long as Normandy and England remains in the hands of the successor. That successor, if weak, better have someone find a good ally or Normandy will be a ripe fruit. If a more competent ally makes the Capets back off, that king is OK, even if he needs to raise taxes (as long as he's a weak king like John doesn't go insane like Henry VI). If the Capets snipe off Normandy then we get John's situation again.

Henry I saw himself as the leader of Normans who happened to have a platinum credit card across the channel, so Richard's not very original in that regard. John does sit in an unfortunate position in history and many of the administrative necessities would have probably done by Richard if there wasn't something more impressive for Richard to be doing. John is lacking in charisma however. When Richard told his earls he needed to temporarily increase the taxes because of John's rebellion, they merely grumbled. When John asked for an increase a third of that amount, the earls didn't rebel, but the barons did. Almost all the contemporary chronicles agreed that Richard, when he was actually home, was charismatic and a jolly fellow while John had he basic court politeness and... that was it. I'm not arguing against you that John was in a very unfavorable circumstance, much worse than Richard. I'm also not arguing they would have done things different on administration or domestic policy. However, if John's personality was Richard I 2.0 on the inside, I think the situation could be saved for that generation, yes he'd start out with "if only the good King Richard was still alive" but I think he could have held off Phillipe.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Out of curiosity, why (sorry if I sound extremely dumb here) did the baron's actually rise up against John? I get that it was a bunch of things that he was doing that they weren't okay with, but I read it was essentially for pretty selfish reasons. But France (to name but one example) that I'm aware of had a whole bunch of shit going on, and there was normally more than a couple nobles pissed at the king, yet the king (even if he was a weak one) was never compelled to sign a thing similar to the Magna Carta.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I have no idea. I guess in England they're used to more noble privileges?

 

[JonasResende]

I wonder about Arthur. I don't think he would be this great king (of course he could very well be), but then again, to be better than John doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination. I think if he knows how to keep the nobles in line - sort of that the earls have the fear of God struck in them (since, as pointed out, earl A didn't stop baron Z from revolting, just as long as the baron left the earl's lands alone) to maybe do something when the barons start clamouring. John's support sort of melted away when he went to deal with the barons (I don't say that his supporters became theirs, just that he didn't have the charisma to win them over when he wasn't there), so if Arthur can sort of ensure that there's a powerful royal center (something that I think was lacking both with Richard I and John), (I'm also not sure how he would do this), he might be able to hold his own against the barons. But this isn't really my area of expertise, so I could just be trying to force it into lines I have drawn in my head.

 

[vandevere]

I wonder about Arthur. I don't think he would be this great king (of course he could very well be), but then again, to be better than John doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination. I think if he knows how to keep the nobles in line - sort of that the earls have the fear of God struck in them (since, as pointed out, earl A didn't stop baron Z from revolting, just as long as the baron left the earl's lands alone) to maybe do something when the barons start clamouring. John's support sort of melted away when he went to deal with the barons (I don't say that his supporters became theirs, just that he didn't have the charisma to win them over when he wasn't there), so if Arthur can sort of ensure that there's a powerful royal center (something that I think was lacking both with Richard I and John), (I'm also not sure how he would do this), he might be able to hold his own against the barons. But this isn't really my area of expertise, so I could just be trying to force it into lines I have drawn in my head.

William Marshall is still alive. So he can help Arthur do what needs to be done...

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Okay so we have Artie-the-Average-but-better-than-John, with William Marshall onside to help him. Would this be enough to stall the barons? And how might Marshall affect Artie's reign?

 

[ByzantineLover]

Okay so we have Artie-the-Average-but-better-than-John, with William Marshall onside to help him. Would this be enough to stall the barons? And how might Marshall affect Artie's reign?

William Marshal could be a useful regent for when Arthur is away from England, which, in keeping with his grandfather and uncle, may be quite often. As for the barons, if Arthur can prove his worth, there might be a similar arrangement as with Richard I - "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone."

I also have a few ideas as for who Arthur and his siblings could marry:

Arthur - either Margaret of Scotland, Eleanor of Aragon, Constance of Toulouse, or Richeza of Denmark. Personally, I prefer Margaret of Scotland. IOTL, during the 1220s, Henry III considered marrying her, but then dropped it to try, and fail, to marry Yolanda of Dreux.
Eleanor - either Theobald VI of Blois, Peter of Dreux, King Alfonso II of Portugal, or King Peter II of Aragon.
Alice of Thouars - King Alexander II of Scotland.
Catherine of Thouars - either King Sancho VII's son (according to the chronicle of Charles, Prince of Viana, Sancho had a legitimate son who predeceased his father when he died in an accident aged fifteen). Or if Sancho's son still dies aged fifteen, Theobald IV of Champagne, Sancho VII's nephew and future King of Navarre.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

William Marshal could be a useful regent for when Arthur is away from England, which, in keeping with his grandfather and uncle, may be quite often. As for the barons, if Arthur can prove his worth, there might be a similar arrangement as with Richard I - "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone."

I also have a few ideas as for who Arthur and his siblings could marry:

Arthur - either Margaret of Scotland, Eleanor of Aragon, Constance of Toulouse, or Richeza of Denmark. Personally, I prefer Margaret of Scotland. IOTL, during the 1220s, Henry III considered marrying her, but then dropped it to try, and fail, to marry Yolanda of Dreux.
Eleanor - either Theobald VI of Blois, Peter of Dreux, King Alfonso II of Portugal, or King Peter II of Aragon.
Alice of Thouars - King Alexander II of Scotland.
Catherine of Thouars - either King Sancho VII's son (according to the chronicle of Charles, Prince of Viana, Sancho had a legitimate son who predeceased his father when he died in an accident aged fifteen). Or if Sancho's son still dies aged fifteen, Theobald IV of Champagne, Sancho VII's nephew and future King of Navarre.

I like the string of Iberian matches, sort of makes sense given England's warmer relations with Iberia and frostier relations with France, but I wonder if Artie won't try for Constance of Toulouse? If only as a warning shotto France? She had no kids by hubby no. 1, but about 6-7 with her second husband.

 

[ByzantineLover]

I like the string of Iberian matches, sort of makes sense given England's warmer relations with Iberia and frostier relations with France, but I wonder if Artie won't try for Constance of Toulouse? If only as a warning shot to France? She had no kids by hubby no. 1, but about 6-7 with her second husband.

I'd have thought Richeza of Denmark would have been more of a warning shot to France. Philip Augustus had, a few years earlier, married Richeza's older sister, Ingeborg, only, for some reason, to find her repulsive, lock her away and marry another woman. The issue took decades to resolve IOTL (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingeborg_of_Denmark,_Queen_of_France).

 

[kasumigenx]

William Marshal could be a useful regent for when Arthur is away from England, which, in keeping with his grandfather and uncle, may be quite often. As for the barons, if Arthur can prove his worth, there might be a similar arrangement as with Richard I - "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone."

I also have a few ideas as for who Arthur and his siblings could marry:

Arthur - either Margaret of Scotland, Eleanor of Aragon, Constance of Toulouse, or Richeza of Denmark. Personally, I prefer Margaret of Scotland. IOTL, during the 1220s, Henry III considered marrying her, but then dropped it to try, and fail, to marry Yolanda of Dreux.
Eleanor - either Theobald VI of Blois, Peter of Dreux, King Alfonso II of Portugal, or King Peter II of Aragon.
Alice of Thouars - King Alexander II of Scotland.
Catherine of Thouars - either King Sancho VII's son (according to the chronicle of Charles, Prince of Viana, Sancho had a legitimate son who predeceased his father when he died in an accident aged fifteen). Or if Sancho's son still dies aged fifteen, Theobald IV of Champagne, Sancho VII's nephew and future King of Navarre.

I think Peter II of Aragon would work if the POD is before his marriage to Maria of Montpellier, Theobald will not be approved by Pope Innocent which leaves us with Alfonso of Leon the Divorcee, Robert of Dreux, Alfonso II of Portugal..

 

[JonasResende]

I think Peter II of Aragon would work if the POD is before his marriage to Maria of Montpellier, Theobald will not be approved by Pope Innocent which leaves us with Alfonso of Leon the Divorcee, Peter of Dreux, Alfonso II of Portugal..

Pedro was Marie of Montpellier's second husband if I remember correctly, first hubby was the something de Marseilles. So I think just causing husband no. 1 to live longer (IDK too much about him, so dunno if that's plausible) or just to have the pope find that her remarrying to the king of Aragon is against canon law somehow (again, slightly ASB), but popes have worked with less and in the medieval mindset, they were God on earth, so if the pope says no, who's she gonna ask? The patriarch in Cosntantinople?

 

[ByzantineLover]

I think Peter II of Aragon would work if the POD is before his marriage to Maria of Montpellier, Theobald will not be approved by Pope Innocent which leaves us with Alfonso of Leon the Divorcee, Peter of Dreux, Alfonso II of Portugal..

I only put Peter of Dreux up because IOTL he married Alix of Brittany. Philip arranged it because he wanted someone weak on the ducal throne of Brittany. If Arthur becomes King, I wonder how much influence he would still have with/on Arthur. As well as that, until Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile had children, Peter was fourth or fifth in line for the French throne. I'm not sure if the next in line for the English throne after Arthur would have been his sister Eleanor or his cousins in Brunswick.

Basically, a marriage between two people potential close in the succession of their respective realms might be agreeable to Philip, but maybe not to Arthur.

 

[kasumigenx]

I only put Peter of Dreux up because IOTL he married Alix of Brittany. Philip arranged it because he wanted someone weak on the ducal throne of Brittany. If Arthur becomes King, I wonder how much influence he would still have with/on Arthur. As well as that, until Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile had children, Peter was fourth or fifth in line for the French throne. I'm not sure if the next in line for the English throne after Arthur would have been his sister Eleanor or his cousins in Brunswick.

Basically, a marriage between two people potential close in the succession of their respective realms might be agreeable to Philip, but maybe not to Arthur.

I actually mean Robert of Dreux..who is the third line..

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I've been reading, and apparently Eleonore ACTUALLY left Normandy for Normandy in December 1194, but turned back when hearing of the death of Leopold V (her fiancé's father). So, if we manage to push the marriage through (maybe Leopold lasts a bit longer, or maybe they hear conflicting sources about the duke's death), what does that mean for the future? For now Johnny boy still has no kids, and Artie is his heir. Artie has diplomatic ties to Austria, so I could see him wanting an alliance for himself to somewhere in Europe that's closer to England - Denmark or Scotland sound good - or English France -maybe a French princess? - to sort of balance it out. This is the Babenbergs not the Habsburgs, so IDK how powerful Austria was, but I'm guessing not enough to make France quake in its boots

 

[The Professor]

William Marshal could be a useful regent for when Arthur is away from England, which, in keeping with his grandfather and uncle, may be quite often. As for the barons, if Arthur can prove his worth, there might be a similar arrangement as with Richard I - "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone."

Don't forget the Earls of Leicester have a right to the Stewardship of England (once Arthur has got around to confirming Montfort of course!)

For his marriage is there an available Blesevin girl?

 

[ByzantineLover]

For his marriage is there an available Blesevin girl?

The issue isn't going to be availability but consanguinity. All the current Angevins/Plantagenets are descended from Eleanor of Aquitaine, and all the mainline Blesevins are descended from Theobald V of Blois and Henry I of Champagne, whose wives were Eleanor's daughters with Louis VII. And this is also the age of Pope Innocent III.