What if: William, Count of Poitiers survives
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
I wonder if Richard will still be given his mother's duchy in it's entirety if he becomes a third son. Henry alt the young King might get the nod as the second son. If their mother still wants the Duchy to go to her favorite you may have a civil war earlier
Probably not giving the title and name of William, traditionally associated with the Duchy of Aquitaine I'd think he was really expected inheriting it; I'd rather see Richard obtaining either a northern French title or ending as another Lackland.
What about Eleanor of Aquitaine having a son with her first husband and he dies on the crusades but still marrries Henry II that would be interesting.
It would be quite unlikely. Queen Mothers played an important political role in France up to the Modern Era (and even there), and such marriage with a rival lord would have been particularly contrary to her role (while one shouldn't write off a remarriage with a secondary French lord as Anna of Kiev did in her time)
Seems to me it could be an interesting TL where only one of the myriad sons ever reaches adulthood. That would actually give a fairly indisputed heir for all these lands, allowing at least some modicum of unification (Henry II himself, after all, only really ruled the strongest and third strongest titles, England and Anjou-Normandy, with Aquitaine a good contender where Eleanor seems to have held at least as much sway).
Maybe not.
As said above, all these lands and titles were really distinct from each other, and their respective nobilities weren't exactly thrilled on the tought of a same head for all of them and would likely ask for their own rulers as soon as possible if not brothers, than nephews (in the medieval sense of any close enough parents) : and giving that Geoffrey Plantagenet's descendents list would be extremely limited ITTL...
Heck, even Foulques V's descendent list would be reduced and would basically be limited to Yerosolemite kings.
EDIT : Not even that actually, Baudouin IV having died before Henry II IOTL : House of Bellême (a House that Normans had significantly crushed and that would lack support) or House of Alsace as the only likely possible candidates, while House of Lusignan would be hardly models of likely and that legitim possibilities.
Well, either Henri II's only son refuse to abandon some prerogative and would likely face important nobiliars revolts (possibly formed around, or supported, by the aformentioned noble families); or he would be forced to give up titles and lands to a far (and a really far) kniship if not people not of his blood, which is not going to end well.
Of course "only one son surviving" and this particularly explosive situation could end with an Anarchy-on-steroids, if any sudden death should happens, as in dying in battle against aforementioned nobles or any other cause. It would make IOTL situation looking as an unquestionable big win for Plantagenêts in comparison.
As said above, all these lands and titles were really distinct from each other, and their respective nobilities weren't exactly thrilled on the tought of a same head for all of them and would likely ask for their own rulers as soon as possible if not brothers, than nephews (in the medieval sense of any close enough parents) : and giving that Geoffrey Plantagenet's descendents list would be extremely limited ITTL...
Heck, even Foulques V's descendent list would be reduced and would basically be limited to Yerosolemite kings.
EDIT : Not even that actually, Baudouin IV having died before Henry II IOTL : House of Bellême (a House that Normans had significantly crushed and that would lack support) or House of Alsace as the only likely possible candidates, while House of Lusignan would be hardly models of likely and that legitim possibilities.
Well, either Henri II's only son refuse to abandon some prerogative and would likely face important nobiliars revolts (possibly formed around, or supported, by the aformentioned noble families); or he would be forced to give up titles and lands to a far (and a really far) kniship if not people not of his blood, which is not going to end well.
Of course "only one son surviving" and this particularly explosive situation could end with an Anarchy-on-steroids, if any sudden death should happens, as in dying in battle against aforementioned nobles or any other cause. It would make IOTL situation looking as an unquestionable big win for Plantagenêts in comparison.
Last edited:
VVD0D95
Banned
Hmm interesting, it seems that combined with the differences in the territories, and Henry's and Elaenor's shit parenting skills, the PLatagentns were never going to be able to retain their possession for long
It's not a familial problem, or that Henry or Alienor were jerks. It's just that half of the most populated kingdom in Europe, and divided Lego-style in many different principalities (whom nobility complied to orders only when it fit it, especially in Aquitaine or Anjou) on which your main opponent had suzerainty (and that was far from being a gadget, as Capetians/Plantagenêts conflicts point out) was a big and hard pill to swallow.
Heck if something, we're talking of quite skilled persons, with most diverging interests, and a very complex situation to manage.
So basically an earlier "Arthur of Brittany"-equivalent? I couldn't see how it could ever possibly backfire. [/sarcasm]
The problem right now I guess is that the principal of primogeniture over proximity of blood wasn't quite established yet.
You didn't have such thing as "established primogeniture" as a law.
You really have to wait the legalisation of the medieval bureaucraties one century after to have such, and only when the case was brought on legal grounds.
For what mattered Plantagenets, the succession for the elder son had enough precedents that it went into custom (look at Angevine succession), and it never was really challenged by Plantagenets, except in moments of deep legitimacy crisis.
The problem wasn't that Henry's sons claimed the crown, but claimed to be independent princes of their own lands and trying to get most of it (including monetary compensations for not inheriting, which was the case elsewhere in France).
No,I'm talking about the fact that John took over was the triumph of proximity of blood over primogeniture.
Not as bluntly : you didn't have established succession laws, that appear more from custom and precedent than a CK II-esque decision "well, we're gonna switch to primogeniture now".
Basically, John's rights had such precedent for what mattered to England or some lands as Normandy; while Arthur's rights were more based on French customs (Angevine, Breton, etc.). And eventually John's capacity to rule as a king being more obvious than Arthur's, it made him won the day rather than an anachronical legal conflict.
Of course, their respective supporters were more from the relevant regions : pointing again the disunity of the so-called Angevin Empire. It doesn't mean you had a clear clash before : Henry the Young was crowned during his father's reign (as it was customary up to this era in France as well) for exemple, in order to reinforce his succession.
Eventually, John still had to deal with Arthur and having him dead, because primogeniture had enough base to live on (and did so after him).
Again, except deep succession crisis, the primogeniture succession had enough precedents : John's accesstion wasn't the triumph of anything (it didn't lasted as a precedent, quite at the contrary) and was more about the formation of precedent and succession customs than a clear fight between them.
Now, you're not wrong strictly speaking, but I just want to point that one shouldn't systematicalise and rationalise concepts that weren't yet formed as such.
In all case, it's a bit irrelevant for the case at hands, as in Plantagets conflicts during Henry II's reign.
VVD0D95
Banned
Aha indeed with regards to William. Though with regards to the conflicts, the fract that most of them were instigated by Eleanor shows how messed up that family were, they did not help themselves