WI: Richard the Lionheart sells London

this may well actually be anecdotal and i don't have any sources, but i read a while back the Richard the Lionheart actually tried to sell London in order to finance his crusade, but the main reason it didn't happen IOTL is because he just couldn't find a buyer. i'd like to get some second opinions on this, particularly who could potentially buy it and what effects it could have on history from then on and what the immediate effects on London could be
 
this may well actually be anecdotal and i don't have any sources, but i read a while back the Richard the Lionheart actually tried to sell London in order to finance his crusade, but the main reason it didn't happen IOTL is because he just couldn't find a buyer. i'd like to get some second opinions on this, particularly who could potentially buy it and what effects it could have on history from then on and what the immediate effects on London could be

Richard sold everything he could.

Most probably if he sold London one of two things would happen.

1 the buyer would be a noble and get the title 'Duke of London' perhaps an English noble that had the funds available or a foreign noble that had a few good years of ransoms and was cash rich wanting an investment.

2 the buyer is a consortium of rich merchants. London becomes a self governing city with minimal state control and influence (like many Germany cities) joins the Hanseatic league and experiences a slight uptick in trade.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I never heard of this, but it's very interesting. To fully understand the implications, we'd have to know whether he intended to sell it off as a fief within his kingdom (with the buyer getting the right to tax and otherwise exploit the city, but staying a subordinate lord within England), or whether he'd be willing to sell it away entirely... thus making it entirely sovereign. The latter is less likely, I'd say, but ultimately far more tantalising from an AH perspective.
 
I never heard of this, but it's very interesting. To fully understand the implications, we'd have to know whether he intended to sell it off as a fief within his kingdom (with the buyer getting the right to tax and otherwise exploit the city, but staying a subordinate lord within England), or whether he'd be willing to sell it away entirely... thus making it entirely sovereign. The latter is less likely, I'd say, but ultimately far more tantalising from an AH perspective.
A lot of nobles were selling cities so we can only assume that it would have been similar. Selling as a fief or self government (town charter) to the city merchants.

It happened regularly when nobles were preparing to go on crusade.
 
What exactly does it mean to sell London? Would it no longer be part of England?

He did do that. He sold berwick and Edinburgh to Scotland to fund his crusade.

Later he sold cyprus, after capturing it from a byzantine renegade, to the templars.

This thread seems to be based around the fact he's supposed to have said 'I would sell London if only I could find a buyer' but that's more a, dubiously sourced, witticism than an actual plan.

Any attempt to sell it to another country would have been very difficult politically.
 
He did do that. He sold berwick and Edinburgh to Scotland to fund his crusade.

Later he sold cyprus, after capturing it from a byzantine renegade, to the templars.

This thread seems to be based around the fact he's supposed to have said 'I would sell London if only I could find a buyer' but that's more a, dubiously sourced, witticism than an actual plan.

Any attempt to sell it to another country would have been very difficult politically.
yeah, selling it to a countryman or also-English council is probably the most realistic--both are very interesting and sound equally plausible
 
Could he even sell London? I thought London was Corporation, with ancient rights guaranteed by William the Conqueror? Does Richard even own it?
 
Could he even sell London? I thought London was Corporation, with ancient rights guaranteed by William the Conqueror? Does Richard even own it?
We're they not revoked at some point and regranted by Richard's successor in the Magna Carta.

The right to have a mayor was actually first granted by the Crown during Richard's reign. Perhaps London was actually sold at this time (to the city council).
 
Top