WI: Plantagenet Norway?

One (common?) POD for the British Isles is that Margaret, the Maid of Norway, survives the trip to Scotland and marries Edward II of England while ruling Scotland in her own right.

Margaret was, at the time of her death, the only child of King Eric II of Norway. IOTL, he married the sister of Robert the Bruce and had another daughter but was succeeded by his brother, Haakon V, who was in turn succeeded by his grandson, uniting the thrones of Norway and Sweden.

Assuming Eric II and Haakon V still die without legitimate male issue, would an ambitious younger son of Edward and Margaret (let's call him Eric, after his maternal grandfather) see any value in pushing his claim to the Norwegian throne?
 
One (common?) POD for the British Isles is that Margaret, the Maid of Norway, survives the trip to Scotland and marries Edward II of England while ruling Scotland in her own right.

Margaret was, at the time of her death, the only child of King Eric II of Norway. IOTL, he married the sister of Robert the Bruce and had another daughter but was succeeded by his brother, Haakon V, who was in turn succeeded by his grandson, uniting the thrones of Norway and Sweden.

Assuming Eric II and Haakon V still die without legitimate male issue, would an ambitious younger son of Edward and Margaret (let's call him Eric, after his maternal grandfather) see any value in pushing his claim to the Norwegian throne?

One problem, Norway back then was an elective monarchy.
Also, the other rulers may see this mega Plantagenet empire as a threat and try to break it up using war.
 
One problem, Norway back then was an elective monarchy.
Also, the other rulers may see this mega Plantagenet empire as a threat and try to break it up using war.

Actually, I was thinking something more along the lines of Sicily/Naples under Charles of Anjou and his descendants, not a "mega Plantagenet empire".
 
One problem, Norway back then was an elective monarchy.
Also, the other rulers may see this mega Plantagenet empire as a threat and try to break it up using war.

But to be a candidate you had to have royal blood. Besides after Haakon Haakonson it was pretty much hereditary to avoid further civil war.

Actually, I was thinking something more along the lines of Sicily/Naples under Charles of Anjou and his descendants, not a "mega Plantagenet empire".

He would probably try to claim it but it may just cement the newly hereditary factor of the Norwegian Crown thus OTL.
A lot would depend on the latter reign of Haakon V and his relations with his grandnephews
 
Actually, I was thinking something more along the lines of Sicily/Naples under Charles of Anjou and his descendants, not a "mega Plantagenet empire".

In that case, how are they to split the Plantagenet inheritances?

And somewhere along the line we'll probably get a much bloodier ATL version of the War of the Roses.
 
Her not dieing might mean no invasion by the English in order to claim the throne, and if the Scottish and Norwegians are under the same dynasty then Man and the Earldom of Orkeny might stay with the Norwegians. She was to be married to the Prince of Wales, right? Though apparently might have been a bit of strong arming on that. Would the English/Normans go to a lot of trouble to keep Norway in a union with them, if they could even get over there? And would the French King at the beginning of the Hundred Years War be too cowed by someone who would be the King of England, Scotland, and Norway to risk trying to treat him, in his position of King, as being someone who had to grovel to him and snag his land? I also wonder on the economics of this and if the Norwegians would be brought in as auxilleries for fighting and possibly be given land in France or Ireland to settle. Back to the economics though, would the resources of Norway be promising for the coffers of the King, or is it the Baltic trade where the money is at?
 
In that case, how are they to split the Plantagenet inheritances?

And somewhere along the line we'll probably get a much bloodier ATL version of the War of the Roses.

If they manage to keep half of France or more then perhaps it would even become like the wars of the Habsburg inheritances. In fact, I would be surprised if they married into their Burgundian allies sometime.
 
Her not dieing might mean no invasion by the English in order to claim the throne, and if the Scottish and Norwegians are under the same dynasty then Man and the Earldom of Orkeny might stay with the Norwegians. She was to be married to the Prince of Wales, right? Though apparently might have been a bit of strong arming on that. Would the English/Normans go to a lot of trouble to keep Norway in a union with them, if they could even get over there? And would the French King at the beginning of the Hundred Years War be too cowed by someone who would be the King of England, Scotland, and Norway to risk trying to treat him, in his position of King, as being someone who had to grovel to him and snag his land? I also wonder on the economics of this and if the Norwegians would be brought in as auxilleries for fighting and possibly be given land in France or Ireland to settle. Back to the economics though, would the resources of Norway be promising for the coffers of the King, or is it the Baltic trade where the money is at?

I suspect having the crowns of Scotland and England united would be more important in that Scotland could not be counted upon to "distract" the English with northern campaigns rather than any manpower or financial advantages to the English King.

Also, Norway was very lightly populated at this time and probably not going to materially affect the balance of power.

An interesting question would be if the Norwegian and Scottish people and/or ruling classes would accept this as well as the Scots did when James I to inherited England.
 
You mean very angry that he was ditching them in favor of a greater prize, like most kings and queens of Scotland tried to do?
 
I'm not sure everyone quite understands what I meant. What I meant was for Margaret and Edward II to have at least two sons. After their parents die, the eldest becomes King of England and Scotland while the second or younger (depending if they survive childhood) tries to claim the throne of Norway by right of his mother after the deaths of Eric II and Haakon V. Similar situations include Charles of Anjou becoming King of Sicily/Naples and John of Gaunt's attempts to claim the Kingdom of Castile by right of his wife, the daughter of Peter the Cruel.
 
I'm not sure everyone quite understands what I meant. What I meant was for Margaret and Edward II to have at least two sons. After their parents die, the eldest becomes King of England and Scotland while the second or younger (depending if they survive childhood) tries to claim the throne of Norway by right of his mother after the deaths of Eric II and Haakon V. Similar situations include Charles of Anjou becoming King of Sicily/Naples and John of Gaunt's attempts to claim the Kingdom of Castile by right of his wife, the daughter of Peter the Cruel.

I understood :cool:.

Anyways it will depend on Haakon V's later years as it comes clear that he has no sons. I suspect that he will need to declare whether his grandson is his heir or his older brother's grandson.
In the event there isn't a declaration then I expect OTL Magnus to win out despite some backing from Edward II (or his successor). Edward would probably be more interested in obtaining/confirming Norwegian territory in the Isles than setting up his younger son as King of Norway.
 
The English prince could become King of Norway. He'll have to fight Sweden and Denmark over it (both wanted the Norwegian throne, Denmark is in a really bas position at the time though). The Hansa might also want Norway to remain independent, as it will be good for their domination of North Sea trade and may support anyone but the English prince.

The problem is that having Norway will not do him any good, unless he can sieze church lands. The peasants and sailors of Norway were free men, and by the allodium law, land ownership reverted to the family working the land after six generations (reduced to 60 years in 1247) unless claimed by the original owner. The crown seized the commons and gave away a lot of the land to the church, and in 1350, the church owned 41% of the land, the crown 7%, the nobility 15% and 37% were held by free-holding farmers.

The plague eradicated the Norwegian nobility - 50-80% of the population of Norway died, and the noblemen that survived had to revert to be free farmers on their own land, as all their tenants moved to unworked land and claimed it as their own.

The King of Norway do not get taxes from free-held land either - instead he gets soldiers in the fylkir system - free men were required to own and train with arms and come when the king called. However, this created by the 1200s a force of medium infantry that were unmodern, often unmotivated and unable to stand against Norman style cavalry charges.

So this English prince might be crowned, but he has no revenue except from the 7% of the arable land of one of the worst agricultural countries of Europe at the time, a mediocre force of medium infantry, the size and motivation of which is hightly dependent on his current popularity with his subjects and enemies in Sweden, among local nobilityt with aspirations on the throne and the Hansa, and eventually, as Valdemar rises in Denmark, in Denmark as well.
 
The English prince could become King of Norway. He'll have to fight Sweden and Denmark over it (both wanted the Norwegian throne, Denmark is in a really bas position at the time though). The Hansa might also want Norway to remain independent, as it will be good for their domination of North Sea trade and may support anyone but the English prince.

The problem is that having Norway will not do him any good, unless he can sieze church lands. The peasants and sailors of Norway were free men, and by the allodium law, land ownership reverted to the family working the land after six generations (reduced to 60 years in 1247) unless claimed by the original owner. The crown seized the commons and gave away a lot of the land to the church, and in 1350, the church owned 41% of the land, the crown 7%, the nobility 15% and 37% were held by free-holding farmers.

The plague eradicated the Norwegian nobility - 50-80% of the population of Norway died, and the noblemen that survived had to revert to be free farmers on their own land, as all their tenants moved to unworked land and claimed it as their own.

The King of Norway do not get taxes from free-held land either - instead he gets soldiers in the fylkir system - free men were required to own and train with arms and come when the king called. However, this created by the 1200s a force of medium infantry that were unmodern, often unmotivated and unable to stand against Norman style cavalry charges.

So this English prince might be crowned, but he has no revenue except from the 7% of the arable land of one of the worst agricultural countries of Europe at the time, a mediocre force of medium infantry, the size and motivation of which is hightly dependent on his current popularity with his subjects and enemies in Sweden, among local nobilityt with aspirations on the throne and the Hansa, and eventually, as Valdemar rises in Denmark, in Denmark as well.
Vast Church holdings that generate no revenues? Sounds like English Norway is ripe for Lollardy.
 
I suspect having the crowns of Scotland and England united would be more important in that Scotland could not be counted upon to "distract" the English with northern campaigns rather than any manpower or financial advantages to the English King.
Assuming that they have a son to continue the personal union aside from strangling the Auld Alliance in its cradle and securing England's northern flank it's also going to have major social changes on Scotland and its development. Starting this early I have to wonder whether this Scotland might end up like Wales was until fairly recently in our timeline technically being an independent entity but without a separate parliament, the same laws as England, and much less distinct identity than Scotland had. After a few generations provided they had the strength I could see the head of any continuing union push through an earlier Acts of Union.
 
Top