WI : Philip Augustus and Ingeborg of Denmark

[Yorel]

In 1193, Philip II Augustus, King of France, remarried to Ingeborg of Denmark. Ingeborg was one of the prettiest maiden of the time according to the time's chronicles. Despite this, for reasons known only to Philip Augustus, he asked to annull his marriage the day after the wedding ceremony.

This led Philip to face many troubles with the Papacy as the Pope didn't wish to grant annullment. Philip had French bishops annull the marriage for him, but the Pope never recognized this as an official annullment. Lastly, Philip remarried to Agnes of Merania, leaving the Pope to consider him as a bigamist as Ingeborg was still alive. For this, Philip was shortly excommunicated. In the end, Philip accepted to take Ingeborg as his wife after the death of Agnes of Merania, on the conditions the Pope legitimated his children from his marriage with Agnes (Philip Hurepel and Marie).

Assuming that Philip Augustus doesn't ask for annulation of his wedding, and has children with Ingeborg, how will that affect history?

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

In 1193, Philip II Augustus, King of France, remarried to Ingeborg of Denmark. Ingeborg was one of the prettiest maiden of the time according to the time's chronicles. Despite this, for reasons known only to Philip Augustus, he asked to annull his marriage the day after the wedding ceremony.

This led Philip to face many troubles with the Papacy as the Pope didn't wish to grant annullment. Philip had French bishops annull the marriage for him, but the Pope never recognized this as an official annullment. Lastly, Philip remarried to Agnes of Merania, leaving the Pope to consider him as a bigamist as Ingeborg was still alive. For this, Philip was shortly excommunicated. In the end, Philip accepted to take Ingeborg as his wife after the death of Agnes of Merania, on the conditions the Pope legitimated his children from his marriage with Agnes (Philip Hurepel and Marie).

Assuming that Philip Augustus doesn't ask for annulation of his wedding, and has children with Ingeborg, how will that affect history?

I am more concerned about why did Philippe repudiated Ingeborg the day after the marriage. That's been making me think of a large array of possibilites, most of them about them in bed, and Philippe discovering something he didn't expect.

Very strange, very strange. Funny that at the same time, John Lackland was kidnapping Isabelle of Anglouleme, who was to marry count Hugh of Lusignan. This gave Philippe the perfect casus belli against John. Silly John, what were you thinking?

John was not stupid. His government shows that he had solid wits, although he was rather naive when it came to apply his good ideas. Besides, he's one of the few Medieval monarchs who understood the rules of strategy, and you can clearly see him playing with movements and raids in the 1213-1214 campaign. He lost, but that's just because his ally sucked and he was facing one of the most successful and important kings of France.

 

[Yorel]

I am more concerned about why did Philippe repudiated Ingeborg the day after the marriage. That's been making me think of a large array of possibilites, most of them about them in bed, and Philippe discovering something he didn't expect.

To this day, it remains a mystery. There are several hypothesis, but the only one to know the reason was Philip Augustus and he never told anyone why he wanted to repudiate Ingeborg.

Very strange, very strange. Funny that at the same time, John Lackland was kidnapping Isabelle of Anglouleme, who was to marry count Hugh of Lusignan. This gave Philippe the perfect casus belli against John. Silly John, what were you thinking?

Some said it was love at first sight. John Lackland seems to have deeply cared for Isabelle in his life when they were married.

John was not stupid. His government shows that he had solid wits, although he was rather naive when it came to apply his good ideas. Besides, he's one of the few Medieval monarchs who understood the rules of strategy, and you can clearly see him playing with movements and raids in the 1213-1214 campaign. He lost, but that's just because his ally sucked and he was facing one of the most successful and important kings of France.

I don't know much on John Lackland, but isn't he partially responsible for the defeat at the Roche-aux-Moines? Learning Prince Louis was coming, he panicked and fled, leaving behind all his siege weapons. At least that's what I read.

On a side note, I'd say John was not facing one but two great Kings of France : Philip II Augustus, who was awesome, and his son Louis (late Louis VIII). Louis VIII was a rather competent monarch, but his reign was too short (3 years) for people to see it.
In fact, from Louis VI to Philip IV, Direct Capetians had a line of rather good Kings :
Louis VI (1101-1137) was an able administrator and increased the size of the Royal Dosmaine.
Louis VII (1137-1180) had huge failures (Failed Second Crusade and Mariage with Eleanor) but did great on the Administrative side.
Philip II Augustus (1180-1223) was simply awesome : he transformed France from a backward Kingdom to a Major Power in Europe.
Louis VIII (1223-1226) ruled shortly but was a competent soldier and was very well councelled by his wife, Blanche of Castille.
Louis IX (1226-1270) simply pursued his grandfathers' policies and made France as the First among the Christian Nations. Plus, he was a very kind and wise figure.
Philip III (1270-1285), though he had a weak personna (he was said to be easily influenced), did a pretty good job in ruling France.
And lastly Philip IV (1285-1314) made great reforms in Administration and Economy.

 

[LSCatilina]

Louis IX (1226-1270) simply pursued his grandfathers' policies and made France as the First among the Christian Nations. Plus, he was a very kind and wise figure

Jews, cathars, faidits, etc beg to differ.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

Yes, Phillip Augustus did oppress a lot of relgligious minorities, most notably the Cathars and Jews, but he is still in my opinions, the most important French king of the middle ages. These actions were horrible and inexcusable, but we must judge them in the context of the time, when a challenge to god was a challenge to all forms of power and Jews were considered evil. This are both totally false, but it is impossible to interpret medieval actions and figures without understanding their perspective on the world. Although kings before did begin to centralize and administer better, by France without him is almost inconcievable. Before him French kings had hardly any power outside the Royal Domain. His use of feudal law, military strategy and general cleverness gave the french kings authority in much of the kingdom, broke the "Angevin Empire" and laid the groundwork for the French monarchy and in some ways the french state that still exists today.
(sorry for the ramble, I'm a huge Phillip Augustus fan and a fairly radical leftist, these things are somewhat hard to reconcile without a detailed justification)
Scipio

 

[Elfwine]

I think the problem is that while you can argue that a king is a strong monarch and an effective leader (and that monarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing), you can't call someone kind and loving as Yorel did of St. Louis while they persecute nonorthodox (small o) believers viciously.

Speaking as a leftist, a monarchist, and an opponent of the idea that because it was normal in the Middle Ages to kill heretics that this is proof of anything other than that evil men were common.

Related to this thread's main topic, I imagine the impact on later French kings is huge, but I don't know what happens in Philip's own lifetime. Probably strengthens his position a little (no controversy with the pope).

 

[Domenic]

The impact on history, including later French kings, might have been quite small, actually. The two children Philip had by his bigamous marriage to Agnes of Meran were of almost no significance except to themselves and those who knew them, who is to say that any children by Ingeborg wouldn't have been the same? Louis VIII was already born before Ingeborg came on the scene, he was the son of Philip's first wife.

I tend to think of Philip as an evil, unscrupulous bastard of surpassing cleverness and tireless energy who enormously advanced France, in many ways was the maker of it, as posts above argued. John on the other hand I think was an evil unscrupulous bastard of considerable cleverness who so far from being of tireless energy was lazy, feckless and self-indulgent, so things didn't go so well for him. I don't say for England; I don't regret him losing most of the French possessions, only that he didn't manage to lose the lot, so that our kings could concentrate entirely on their proper business, England.

 

[Elfwine]

The impact on history, including later French kings, might have been quite small, actually. The two children Philip had by his bigamous marriage to Agnes of Meran were of almost no significance except to themselves and those who knew them, who is to say that any children by Ingeborg wouldn't have been the same? Louis VIII was already born before Ingeborg came on the scene, he was the son of Philip's first wife.

Well, to look at wikipedia (I'm sure it sucks, but...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_I,_Count_of_Boulogne

He was the son of Philip II of France and his controversial third wife Agnes of Merania. Illegitimacy shadowed his birth and career. He was married in c. 1223 to Matilda II, countess of Boulogne (d. c. 1260), the daughter of Ida, Countess of Boulogne and her husband Renaud de Dammartin, count of Boulogne.
Young Philip, in right of his wife, became count of Boulogne, Mortain, Aumale, and Dammartin. Count Philip Hurepel revolted against his sister-in-law Blanche of Castile when his elder brother Louis VIII died in 1226. When count Philip died in 1235, Matilda continued to reign and was married to Alphonse, second son of King Alfonso II of Portugal, younger brother of King Sancho II of Portugal.



Application of bold italicizing is mine.

If Philip* of this timeline isn't illegitimate, and if he doesn't die at thirty-four, he might be a bigger deal, and his own kids and their descendants might be a big deal.

Having him live another fifteen or twenty years, without any cloud of illegitimacy - who knows? Maybe it doesn't impact the kings directly, but it does mean a close-to-the-direct-line Capet branch.

Marie* is probably still minor, but who knows.

 

[Domenic]

Who knows, indeed? I am just saying that because children get born with a different mother under different circumstances doesn't automatically mean that there will be more than small changes; effectively none, in the broader sweep of history. If they're born in direct line to a throne that's another matter, but any children by Ingeborg would not have been for France (nor would they have had a claim to Danish succession later, I checked).

If they were people of unusual energy or ability then they might have made a difference anyway, but just being born of Ingeborg rather than Agnes wouldn't have guaranteed that. Could happen, but so could anything. Or if they had passed on their genetic heritage a later generation might have made a difference (or might not); anyway the children of Agnes left no traceable descent, maybe those of Ingeborg wouldn't either. Essentially you are replacing people of no import with people of unknown import. A few squabbles here and there as cited are definitely of no import, if they hadn't happened something else like them would.

Likewise Philip's troubles with the Pope. He was the sort that was always going to have troubles with the Pope, you just had to wait to see what it would be, and if it hadn't been this it would have been something else. I don't want to insult Yorel, who from what I have seen knows his stuff better than me, but as PODs go I reckon this one is something of a non-event. Maybe he raised it because Philip's rejection of Ingeborg is an intriguing mystery. It is, but unfortunately it's the kind we'll never have an answer to.

 

[Elfwine]

Who knows, indeed? I am just saying that because children get born with a different mother under different circumstances doesn't automatically mean that there will be more than small changes; effectively none, in the broader sweep of history. If they're born in direct line to a throne that's another matter, but any children by Ingeborg would not have been for France (nor would they have had a claim to Danish succession later, I checked).

No, but it does mean that there might be such changes - we don't know enough (or at least most of us don't) about Ingeborg to know if she would have made a difference, genetically or otherwise.

If they were people of unusual energy or ability then they might have made a difference anyway, but just being born of Ingeborg rather than Agnes wouldn't have guaranteed that. Could happen, but so could anything. Or if they had passed on their genetic heritage a later generation might have made a difference (or might not); anyway the children of Agnes left no traceable descent, maybe those of Ingeborg wouldn't either. Essentially you are replacing people of no import with people of unknown import. A few squabbles here and there as cited are definitely of no import, if they hadn't happened something else like them would.

Likewise Philip's troubles with the Pope. He was the sort that was always going to have troubles with the Pope, you just had to wait to see what it would be, and if it hadn't been this it would have been something else. I don't want to insult Yorel, who from what I have seen knows his stuff better than me, but as PODs go I reckon this one is something of a non-event. Maybe he raised it because Philip's rejection of Ingeborg is an intriguing mystery. It is, but unfortunately it's the kind we'll never have an answer to.

I think the problem is that "if it wasn't this it would be something else" is ignoring that such a something else might well be something significant enough to care about. Obviously we can't answer that with certainty, but we can't answer with certainty what would have happened if Henry VI of the HRE lived another twenty years, either.

So unless your point is that Ingeborg is not, um, different enough - rather than that we just can't guess - I think we have agreeably disagree on this.

 

[Domenic]

Half the time we don't know with certainty what did happen, never mind what might have. So we can certainly agreeably disagree on this.

 

[Yorel]

I think the problem is that while you can argue that a king is a strong monarch and an effective leader (and that monarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing), you can't call someone kind and loving as Yorel did of St. Louis while they persecute nonorthodox (small o) believers viciously.

Speaking as a leftist, a monarchist, and an opponent of the idea that because it was normal in the Middle Ages to kill heretics that this is proof of anything other than that evil men were common.

I understand your point about the "persecuting minorities" part. However, I said St. Louis was kind based on his life. I didn't ignore the fact he introduced the Rouelle (which can be ranked as an ancestor of the Nazis' Yellow Star) for Jews, burned Talmuds and also let the Inquisition deal with the Cathars.
It's just that when I looked at St. Louis' life, I saw a zealous Christians in every meaning of the term. Louis IX wasn't declared a Saint because of his persecution of Jews and Cathars, but because he was very kind and caring for the poor and the sick. If I remember correctly, he created numerous hospitals and offices for them, and did several times the toucher des écrouelles (don't know how it's called in English, sorry), a ceremony where he tended to the sick (including lepers).
He took his role as "lieutenant of God on Earth" extremly seriously, and that's one of the reasons he improved Justice in France.
Lastly, there is a fact he was extremly popular in Europe at the time because he was seen as Kind and wise. Henry III sought his advice in a dispute between him and the English Barons. Louis IX was even friend with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, despite extremly different personnalities.

All of what I mentionned can be found in biographies of Saint Louis : it's not just a Christian myth. Considering all of this, I think St Louis was a kind figure, despite his persecutions of Jews and Cathars.
Maybe I tend to to think of his persecutions of Jews and Cathars as normal for the period, but I think this can apply to a man that was probably the most zealous and religious monarch of his time.

I tend to think of Philip as an evil, unscrupulous bastard of surpassing cleverness and tireless energy who enormously advanced France, in many ways was the maker of it, as posts above argued

Well, that's what befalls on those good at politics generally .
I can understand that vision of Philip II Augustus. I tend to have it sometimes, but I can't help but be amazed by what he accomplished.

I don't want to insult Yorel, who from what I have seen knows his stuff better than me, but as PODs go I reckon this one is something of a non-event. Maybe he raised it because Philip's rejection of Ingeborg is an intriguing mystery. It is, but unfortunately it's the kind we'll never have an answer to.

Well, Philip's bigamous marriage was one of his biggest problems during his life. Thus, I was wondering what would have happened if that problem had never showed up, which is the reason why I aked for the consequences of Philip not wishing to repudiate Ingeborg.

I thought this could get rid of Papal opposition (or at least lower it) to some of Philip's decision, and even play a slight part in his conflict with John Lackland. Seems I overestimated the effects of the POD.

 

[Elfwine]

I understand your point about the "persecuting minorities" part. However, I said St. Louis was kind based on his life. I didn't ignore the fact he introduced the Rouelle (which can be ranked as an ancestor of the Nazis' Yellow Star) for Jews, burned Talmuds and also let the Inquisition deal with the Cathars.
It's just that when I looked at St. Louis' life, I saw a zealous Christians in every meaning of the term. Louis IX wasn't declared a Saint because of his persecution of Jews and Cathars, but because he was very kind and caring for the poor and the sick. If I remember correctly, he created numerous hospitals and offices for them, and did several times the toucher des écrouelles (don't know how it's called in English, sorry), a ceremony where he tended to the sick (including lepers).
He took his role as "lieutenant of God on Earth" extremly seriously, and that's one of the reasons he improved Justice in France.
Lastly, there is a fact he was extremly popular in Europe at the time because he was seen as Kind and wise. Henry III sought his advice in a dispute between him and the English Barons. Louis IX was even friend with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, despite extremly different personnalities.

So he was kind and affectionate - as long as you weren't a Jew or a heretic.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Louis might have been the kindest man this side of Christ to those he didn't persecute, but persecuting minorities - however normal for the period - isn't the work of someone I can consider kind.

Wise, sure, I can believe that. Louis was a pretty capable monarch.

Not sure what the term you put in italics translates as exactly, but I think I know what you're referring to well enough.

All of what I mentionned can be found in biographies of Saint Louis : it's not just a Christian myth. Considering all of this, I think St Louis was a kind figure, despite his persecutions of Jews and Cathars.
Maybe I tend to to think of his persecutions of Jews and Cathars as normal for the period, but I think this can apply to a man that was probably the most zealous and religious monarch of his time.

I'm sure it can, but its sort of like saying that someone loved their sons dearly and abused their daughters.

If that metaphor makes any sense at all.

Neglecting one half to focus on the positive does not give a complete picture.

Now, that Louis was - as he saw it to mean -a sincerely devout Christian, that's probably true.

 

[Domenic]

"Touching for the King's Evil". The last English monarch to do it was Anne (Samuel Johnson was touched by her as a child, no cure alas). I believe Charles X did it in France, so it carried on longer there, but the general view seems to be that it originated in England. I am not aware of any other monarchies with the practice.

My point all along has been that this change might produce far-reaching consequences, but they don't inevitably flow from it, as they would if say you snuffed out the infant Louis VIII and therefore all succeeding kings, thus giving some urgency to Philip II's marriage to Ingeborg and consummation thereof. The change might also have not made much of a difference except in detail, is all I'm saying.