WI: The King of England and France

[Chengar Qordath]

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?

You are of course correct that it would simply be a personal union, rather than a full political union. However, there would likely be some tendancy towards unifying some institutions in the two kingdoms, since unlike the empire of Karl V Frangland would be fairly contiguous. Any union between the crowns would take a long time though, if it were to happen at all.

Parliament will probably make faster advances than it did in OTL, as the King would be a largely absentee monarch. Presumably he designates the Duke of "X" to run England in his name, while he focuses on ruling France; probably only a matter of time before said Duke decides to make a try for King.

 

[Gladi]

Presumably he designates the Duke of "X" to run England in his name, while he focuses on ruling France; probably only a matter of time before said Duke decides to make a try for King.

Bright day
That is why the headsman has also a sword beside an axe.

There will be enough whistle-blowers.

 

[Thermopylae]

I get the feeling that becuase of tensions between French and English, the Union would have to be an "All or Nothing" thing. England would accept nothing less than full subjugation of its French holdings (however French the English might be), and the French wanted nothing less than England's full expulsion from France...

 

[blysas]

If England had defeated France I could see a much more powerful Britian, we might even take some of Europe, if event hold on course we might have an earlier start on the new world. or we might end up like Spain, who knows we might end up with a German england lool

 

[fhaessig]

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.

Steve

Not Quite.

This was not the first 'application' of Salic law. If Salic law had not been used, the english king wouldn't have had a claim at all.

And for the council to find against Valois, you need to remove not only Valois, but most of the lords on the concil, especially Bouvines. IIRC, his was the most vocal voice ( but far from the only one ) against an english king on the french throne.

 

[stevep]

Not Quite.

This was not the first 'application' of Salic law. If Salic law had not been used, the english king wouldn't have had a claim at all.

And for the council to find against Valois, you need to remove not only Valois, but most of the lords on the concil, especially Bouvines. IIRC, his was the most vocal voice ( but far from the only one ) against an english king on the french throne.

fhaessig

Its a long while since I read the reference so you could be right. [Except that I never said it was the 1st application]. Was the sense of national identity so strong at that time or was it more regional rivalry. Don't forget Edward was not only king of England, with claims to Scotland Wales and Ireland, but also ruler of very large areas of France. If his claim had been accepted I don’t think he would have seen himself as an English king ruling France. As other sources have said France, especially if united under a strong king, would quickly have become the dominant element if the partnership and very likely an English independence movement would be emerging.

Steve

 

[fhaessig]

fhaessig

Its a long while since I read the reference so you could be right. [Except that I never said it was the 1st application].

No, but you implied that without the salic law, the english king was the rightful claiment to the throne. He wasn't; it would have been his cousin.

Was the sense of national identity so strong at that time or was it more regional rivalry.

Both. There was a lot of regional rivalry, but, except for the peripheris ( flanders, britanny... ), there was a se'nse of national unity against 'l'estranger'. This was built among others, by the number of times, the french king called 'l'Ost de France' ' Pour Bouter sus à l'Englois' or against the germans ( see Bouvines, Montjoie! Saint-Denis ); it has some quite deep roots. One of the reasons Hugues Capet got the crown was that the only caroligian claiment, Charles de Lorraine was seen as too German ( and Adalberon's manipulations, of course ).

Don't forget Edward was not only king of England, with claims to Scotland Wales and Ireland, but also ruler of very large areas of France. If his claim had been accepted I don’t think he would have seen himself as an English king ruling France. As other sources have said France, especially if united under a strong king, would quickly have become the dominant element if the partnership and very likely an English independence movement would be emerging.

Steve

I'm not forgetting. It doesn't matter; it's too late. He was seen, at least in the core of France, as an english King. And nearly all the Kings of France for generations had to call the Ost against the english. Phillippe Auguste, Saint-Louis, Philippe Le Bel ... etc Richard may have been able to be accepted; maybe John ( had he had a brain transplant ), but I think later is too late.

 

[Thermopylae]

Perhaps now would be a good time to discuss the effects of a united England/France on future history, particularly history up to 1800...

 

[fhaessig]

Lord Garett without magic....