WI: The King of England and France

[Thermopylae]

Before the end of the Hundred Years' War (1453) , the kings of England had claim to all of France. In fact, "King of France" was in the official title of the British monarch until George III decided to drop the title after the Act of Union 1800.

So what if the Hundred Years' War had been won by England? That is to say, the defeat of the French people is total. The French recognize the kings of England as their rightful rulers and the English by 1453 dominate all of France? HOw might subsequent history be affected? What is trhe best possible PoD for this outcome?

 

[stevep]

Before the end of the Hundred Years' War (1453) , the kings of England had claim to all of France. In fact, "King of France" was in the official title of the British monarch until George III decided to drop the title after the Act of Union 1800.

So what if the Hundred Years' War had been won by England? That is to say, the defeat of the French people is total. The French recognize the kings of England as their rightful rulers and the English by 1453 dominate all of France? HOw might subsequent history be affected? What is trhe best possible PoD for this outcome?

Probably the best bet would be before the 100 years war proper, during Henry II's time. He was a considerable warrior and ruler but seemed to be very volatile and clashed with virtually all his sons, along with Eleanor, as well as the famous confrontation with the church over Thomas Becket's death. Possibly if he and Richard had been more stable, hadn't quarrelled so much and Richard hadn't got himself trapped in Austria coming back from the 3rd crusade. Then they would have ruled enough land that they could probably have defeated the French kings and overthrown them. At that time it was far less a England v France thing as both states were ruled by overwhelmingly French aristocracy. Such a state, if it survived, would probably have clashed with the HRE and or possibly controlled Spain as the Muslims were driven out.

An alternative might have been no 100 years war. That came about because the king of France died without a clear heir. Edward III of England had a strong claim via his mother's side. However the council considering the matter was headed by a French noble who interpreted Salic law as excluding such inheritance. That meant that the next claimant was, that same French noble.

If say someone else had headed the council and it had found in Edward's favour. There would probably have been some bloody fighting as his desire for the same centralised control he had in England clashed with various feudal nobles but, presuming they were defeated you could have had a formidable state again and after a period of recovery probably a very powerful one. Possibly say a later crusade, backed by a united kingdom with sound finances might have made a difference in the east?

Steve

 

[Raymond]

Henry II's time is the best place for a POD. Let's say Louis VII second wife couldn't give him a son either, or that young Philip Augustus dies in childhood (common enough back then, even for Royals). So Richard marries Alys, as originally planned, and inherits both crowns. Of course, he may still die without issue. Perhaps he avoids going on crusade and concentrates on organizing his vast dominions. And hopefully takes more interest in impregnating Alys than he did Berengia.

This is a fairly unlikely scenario for Richard, it requires him to be the equal of his father, rather than the incompetent administrator he was.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
But what country would he be king of first? I think that as much as you (englishmen) like the general idea, you would not liked to be ruled by some frenchy . (though for some reason you consider guys like John and Richard and... english, though why escapes as there was hardly any english thing about them )

 

[Tyr]

The generally accepted answer to 'England' wins 100 years war scenarios is France becomes strong earlier and every few decades has a bit of trouble with those damned English revolting.

After about 100 years the king's of England were pretty English, by the 1300s this was quite total with their Frenchness being quite forced. Of course this would change if they took their rightful crown of France.

Bear in mind- there was no English before the Norman conquest. 'English' isn't just a alternative name for anglo-saxon, it requires the French influence too as regretable as it may be

 

[Thermopylae]

@Leej

What exactly do you mean by the French getting stronger for the English winning the HYW? I'm sorry, your wording's just a tiny bit confusing...

 

[Tyr]

@Leej

What exactly do you mean by the French getting stronger for the English winning the HYW? I'm sorry, your wording's just a tiny bit confusing...

France was the larger, more prestigious, richer kingdom. If the crowns were united the French side would soon become dominant with the monarch spending most of his time there.
Even though France is usually seen as winning the HYW and England loosing it things could be seen quite the opposite way- England became a independant nation throwing off its connections to France and France remained a big horrible disunited feudal mess for some time to come.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

[quote="Leej']France was the larger, more prestigious, richer kingdom. If the crowns were united the French side would soon become dominant with the monarch spending most of his time there.[/quote]

I agree that it would turn out much like what happened when the Scottish Stuart line inherited England's throne; fairly soon France would uttelry dominate England in the union, very possibly leading to eventual rebellions from England.

"Frangland" (or would it be Franglaterre? It is French-dominated after all...) would have to deal with the usual difficulties of fusing two very different governmental systems. I would imagine they might also face some aggressive neighbors hoping to take advantage of their internal difficulties. Assuming they survive the early days more or less intact, one can expect Frangland to have policies much closer to France's than England's, which has some major implications for the Americas. Religion is a difficult question for Frangland, assuming the populace falls much as it did in OTL there will be no shortage of choices.

 

[Earling]

It would depend how the state would be run.

After all, modern France didn't exist untill after the hundred years war in any recognisable form. If you can fight off the general pangs of nationalism (negligiable untill the hundred years war, and argueably hardly insurmountable afterwards) there doesn't seem any reason the state would be doomed barring major incompetance on the part of it's leaders.

After all, most would have thought the union of England and Scotland was doomed to failure and judging by their history a union which would never last. Due to it becoming the most successful power in Europe (if not the world) few involved had a major problem with it. Well.. there are likely to be some, but as the case with the Highlanders, they are likely to be dealt with largely by Englanders who are benefiting from the union.

You will have rebellion, but minor rebellion seems almost universal everywhere at this point of history. On the otherhand it depends, French absolutism is probably doomed to failure...

 

[Gladi]

French absolutism is probably doomed to failure...

Bright day
Sorry, but what French absolutism? In the timeframe we are discussing the only term apt to call french system is utter mess.

 

[Tyr]

I don't think it would be run as one state, that wasn't the done thing. There are only a few occasions where nations have merged due to the same monarch holding them.
England and Scotland had the same monarch for 100 years before coming one.
Charles V ruled half of Europe but kept them all as seperate nations.

The thing with England rebelling is it won't just be the peasents, you will get a lot of nobles deciding to rebel using the French opression as a excuse- this will probally even happen with French nobles given lands in England if the potential gain is great enough.

I'd imagine England would break off at some point via some noble or other reaching a deal with Spain (or one of the nations there at the time) or the HRE or Burgundy.

 

[Rick Robinson]

I generally agree with Leej - les rois plantagenét of France would likely go native, and the English would gradually come to see them as foreign rulers. If the POD is late - e.g., Henry V lives - you probably get a Yorkist pretender rising against les lancastriens. If the POD is earlier, there is still likely to be a separation at some point.

I disagree with Leej on a slightly OT point, though:

Bear in mind- there was no English before the Norman conquest. 'English' isn't just a alternative name for anglo-saxon, it requires the French influence too as regretable as it may be

Not so. There were never people who called themselves Anglo-Saxons, nor a language called Anglo-Saxon. The pre-Conquest name for the land was Englalond, and the people spoke Englisc. (The -isc was pronounced "-ish", not "-isk"; the only difference from our pronunciation is that the E was pronounced as in Edward, not as "Inglish.")

-- Rick

 

[Tyr]

I wasn't referring to the name, I was on about the English people as we would know them.

 

[Earling]

Sorry, but what French absolutism? In the timeframe we are discussing the only term apt to call french system is utter mess.

I was refering to post hundred years war statement made by Leej.

By 1453, France might be described as chaotic.

However 20, 25 years later France under Louis XI had not only drawn a line under the hundred years war with the favourable treaty of Picquigny in 1475, regained the territories of Provence, Maine, Anjou and Normandy but through various machinations brought abou the end of Burgundy. At this point Modern France is born. Feudalism was replaced by a strong centralised monarchy.

England on the otherhand is still going through the turmoil of the wars of the roses which shall end with Henry Tudor.

Obviously this is all irrelevent if Henry II defeats and aquires the historic lands of France almost 300 years earlier. Still, some form of central authority is required to end Feudalism and strong centralism is probably impossible for a single man both sides of the Channel.

Then again, as people have said, Charles V managed it to a degree. If anything communications between England and France shall be alot easier than between Spain, the Netherlands and Vienna.

 

[Iñaki]

Another interesting POD would be that Henry V had been more succesful than in OTL in crushing the french resistance, althoug possibily Jeanne d´Arce was only a moral symbol, this symbol was sufficient to the french to decide continue to resist Henry in Orleans and we know that the siege of Orleans was the crucial point that shows all the french that English army could be defeated, after Orleans it seems that french had gained the initiative.

A combination of a more succesful Henry V and less popular Jeanne d´Arc could have ended with the conquest of Orleans by the english, after this well with an alliance of England and Burgundy and the french in total moral fall after the english conquest of Orleans, the english have all the odds to conquer the rest of France.

After this, well no doubt that the new joint kingdom of England and France would be a very important factor in Europe, apart of this England is allied with Burgundy, so this could means an initial position to help Burgundy in a possible expansion that could colide with the Holy Roman Empire in Germany, in these moments there is confrontation between Segismund, the holy roman emperor, and the habsburgs, Burgundy and England could profit this situation.

So in the future if this alliance England-Burgundy continues we will see interesting times in Europe, and if England decide to continue the traditional french politic of ingerence in Italy it could colide too with the interests of Aragon in Italy.

 

[benedict XVII]

Burgundy was bound to oppose Henry V at some point. A unified Frangland would have been much too formidable a neighbour.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Burgundy was bound to oppose Henry V at some point. A unified Frangland would have been much too formidable a neighbour.

Burgundy would probably not be alone in their concerns, I can certainly see the Bretons also switching sides if England starts doing too well, and Aragon is not likely to ignore the English threat either. The Scots might choose to take more direct action than sending a few mercenary units to France if England is doing too well; they have to be aware that Frangland could crush them like a bug.

 

[Wendell]

Why give England ALL of France?

Suppose we took Thermopylae's map, and gave all of the yellow areas to England, and then the rest of Northern France to Burgundy? Might the English attempt to suppoer the Breton culturally against their francophone neighbors?

 

[Faeelin]

Burgundy would probably not be alone in their concerns, I can certainly see the Bretons also switching sides if England starts doing too well, and Aragon is not likely to ignore the English threat either. The Scots might choose to take more direct action than sending a few mercenary units to France if England is doing too well; they have to be aware that Frangland could crush them like a bug.

Of course, Scotland was riven by civil war in this period; so they're not too much of a threat.

 

[Faeelin]

"Frangland" (or would it be Franglaterre? It is French-dominated after all...) would have to deal with the usual difficulties of fusing two very different governmental systems. I would imagine they might also face some aggressive neighbors hoping to take advantage of their internal difficulties. Assuming they survive the early days more or less intact, one can expect Frangland to have policies much closer to France's than England's, which has some major implications for the Americas. Religion is a difficult question for Frangland, assuming the populace falls much as it did in OTL there will be no shortage of choices.

Hmm. There would be no kingdom of France and England, unless the crowns are unified (which seems unlikely; look at the Union of Kalmar). You'd have a king of France who was also the King of England.

Double Hmm. If the monarch is present in France for most of the time, does this encourage parliamentary rule in England?