WI: Henry Curtmantle (Henry II) dies in 1152/3

Uhura's Mazda · Mar 2, 2015

OK. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII of France had their marriage annulled in 1152 and 8 weeks later she remarried to the future Henry II of England (after evading two separate kidnap attempts by rival suitors). In response, Louis VII, Henry I of Champagne and the latter's uncle, Stephen of England, smelled blood. Stephen sent his son, Eustace, off to besiege Wallingford and try to finally win the Anarchy while Henry of Anjou was distracted by his French enemies. Eustace died of dysentery in the process.

So it seems that if Henry FitzEmpress was hit by a stray arrow or something during this general melee in France, the effects would be felt immediately on both sides of the Channel:
1) Stephen is more secure in England, even if he loses his elder son. His only rivals are the younger brothers of Henry, both of whom died without issue IOTL - plus the descendants of Thibaut of Champagne. Does the Anarchy continue for a few more decades in this case.
2) Eleanor of Aquitaine would need a new husband - or maybe Louis would consign her to a nunnery having realised how risky the prospect of her having a son would be. What happens to Aquitaine over the next couple of generations?
3) Now the King of France has a range of vassals and the 'Angevin Empire' is stillborn. This presumably strengthens the newfound tendency towards centralised bureaucracy in France: Anjou, etc. goes to Geoffrey, with an apanage for the youngest brother; hell knows who gets Normandy (Geoffrey FitzEmpress, King Stephen, Henry of Champagne?) so Alt-Philippe-Auguste has the potential to be even more successful.

Any thoughts?

Emperor Charles V · Mar 2, 2015

In this scenario Stephen's younger son William would most likely be the heir to the throne following Henry's death and probably will succeed his father as William III. However, Henry's two younger brothers Geoffrey and William (most likely the former) might contest the throne as well. So it's very likely the Anarchy will continue after Stephen's death.

If William succeeds Stephen and he does childless like IOTL, there will be another succession dispute. William's sister (Stephen's daughter) Marie is technically the next in line but a male relative (perhaps Henry Curtmantle's brothers if they are still alive) would probably challenge this.

LSCatilina · Mar 2, 2015

Uhura's Mazda said:
1) Stephen is more secure in England, even if he loses his elder son. His only rivals are the younger brothers of Henry, both of whom died without issue IOTL - plus the descendants of Thibaut of Champagne. Does the Anarchy continue for a few more decades in this case.

I'm not sure. Henri of Champagne just came back from Crusade and to inherit Champagne and he really had to deal with local problems. And others Plantagenêts never really looked like really interested on Henri's ambitions.

That said, I wouldn't write off a war between Eustace of Blois and Champagne at middle term, but I don't think it would count as another Anarchy.

2) Eleanor of Aquitaine would need a new husband - or maybe Louis would consign her to a nunnery having realised how risky the prospect of her having a son would be. What happens to Aquitaine over the next couple of generations?

The "nunnery" thing would so definitely not work, so the prospect of a new husband may be a good clue. Now...Which would be the new consort?
Probably outside the kingdom, as most of likely possible prospects were already married or in too great havoc to be possible (such as Brittany).

In France, the only likely possiblity, at least to me, would be Thibault V of Blois, that IOTL tried to marry her after the dissolution of her union with Louis VII or Henri I of Champagne. It would certainly make Blois/Champagne and Aquitaine a main target of Capetian policy, without them having nearly as close the same force than IOTL Plantagenêt.
At the very least, I would see an equivalent alliance between Raimondins and Capetians as IOTL during the late XIIth century.

Guigues V of Dauphiné, or Raimon-Berengier II/III of Provence may be good prospects, would it be only to open a second front against Raimond V, but it would ask for the latter to end the Baussenques Wars, and both weren't nearly as prestigious than Henri Plantagenêt or Thibault de Blois.

3) Now the King of France has a range of vassals and the 'Angevin Empire' is stillborn.

Well, Capetians were suzerains of many places where Plantagenets dominated. That's the thing : Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou, etc never stopped to be part of the kingdom and it's how Philippe managed to support the revolts of Henry II's sons and why Aquitains nobles called for Capetian justice when they were at odds with Plantagenêts.

This presumably strengthens the newfound tendency towards centralised bureaucracy in France

Centralized is a bit too different from the tendency that existed. Basically, it would still exist, but I think it would evolve more slowly without the obvious Plantagenêt dominance and the motivation it represented.

Anjou, etc. goes to Geoffrey, with an apanage for the youngest brother; hell knows who gets Normandy (Geoffrey FitzEmpress, King Stephen, Henry of Champagne?)

It depends on how goes the Anarchy, but I would say Eustace of Blois. Without Henri Plantagenet and Eustace would benefit from Louis VII's support. I don't think Plantagenêt would be that incline to continues Henri's policies (and it seem that even when he was alive, they were quite divided on the matter) and Geoffrey VI of Anjou would be more focused on Brittany.

so Alt-Philippe-Auguste has the potential to be even more successful.

Less Philippe Auguste itself, than Capetians doing the same work more gradually (but more efficiently).

Gonzaga · Mar 2, 2015

Wouldn't Geoffrey of Nantes try to replace Henry and continue to war against Stephen? It seems that he was quite ambitious and greedy IOTL.

LSCatilina · Mar 2, 2015

Gonzaga said:
Wouldn't Geoffrey of Nantes try to replace Henry and continue to war against Stephen? It seems that he was quite ambitious and greedy IOTL.

He also didn't supported much Henri IOTL (among others reasons because he was a walking embarassement for his brother), and while ambitious simply wouldn't have the same ressources and support than his brother had.
If he had to try, I would see this happening after Stephen's death and against Eustace of Blois, but I could arguably be convinced otherwise.

(A detail, but by 1152, he wasn't yet count of Nantes)

kasumigenx · Mar 2, 2015

LSCatilina said:
Guigues V of Dauphiné, or Raimon-Berengier II/III of Provence may be good prospects, would it be only to open a second front against Raimond V, but it would ask for the latter to end the Baussenques Wars, and both weren't nearly as prestigious than Henri Plantagenêt or Thibault de Blois.

If one of them marries her there is a possibility of reestablishing the Kingdom of Aquitaine.

LSCatilina · Mar 2, 2015

kasumigenx said:
If one of them marries her there is a possibility of reestablishing the Kingdom of Aquitaine.

They could take on Raimondins but I doubt they would have the forces to really topple them.
Remember that Henry II tried to enforce his wife's claims on Toulouse in 1159 while beneficing from domination in England, in all western France and being allied with Barcelona. It didn't worked, and only reinforced Raimondin-Capetian alliance (with Louis VII being present in the city at the arrival of Henry II in what was probably the best "lolno" of french medieval history).

I really don't think Dauphiné or Provence (which would have the benefit to call on Barcelonese alliance), would be able to do better than Henry II there.
At the very least, you'd need an internal crisis within the County of Toulouse in the same time.

kasumigenx · Mar 3, 2015

LSCatilina said:
They could take on Raimondins but I doubt they would have the forces to really topple them.
Remember that Henry II tried to enforce his wife's claims on Toulouse in 1159 while beneficing from domination in England, in all western France and being allied with Barcelona. It didn't worked, and only reinforced Raimondin-Capetian alliance (with Louis VII being present in the city at the arrival of Henry II in what was probably the best "lolno" of french medieval history).

I really don't think Dauphiné or Provence (which would have the benefit to call on Barcelonese alliance), would be able to do better than Henry II there.
At the very least, you'd need an internal crisis within the County of Toulouse in the same time.

But in a marriage between Eleanor and Raimon of Provence, they would have lands in Toulouse itself which are Gevaudan and Carlat.

LSCatilina · Mar 3, 2015

kasumigenx said:
But in a marriage between Eleanor and Raimon of Provence, they would have lands in Toulouse itself which are Gevaudan and Carlat.

Certainly, but that wouldn't be even close to give them enough ressources to take down Raimondins : you'll agree that Gevaudan and Carladès aren't exactly richer and more wealthy than the whole of England and all Western France.