Maybe. Henry has a very good claim to the throne of England, but Lewis has England. So its a bit of a tricky situation, which will be elaborated upon at a later date.
Clavis Angliae
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
Maybe. Henry has a very good claim to the throne of England, but Lewis has England. So its a bit of a tricky situation, which will be elaborated upon at a later date.
Maybe. Henry has a very good claim to the throne of England, but Lewis has England. So its a bit of a tricky situation, which will be elaborated upon at a later date.
OTOH Henry's claim is by conquest not so many generations ago.
Lewis's claim ITTL (as it was IOTL) that England was to be confiscated from John due to he various crimes in France. What is likely to happen is that Lewis may be recognised as King of England but Henry and his supporters in Ireland are unlikely to go down without a fight.
Whilst the Capetians have some stunning successes in the early 13th Century they are not likely to last.
The noblemen who put Lewis on the throne were doing so largely to prevent King John from intruding on their "rights". If Lewis tries to do something similar (and as a Capetian he is almost genetically programmed to) he will shown the door as well.
I don't know how invested Lewis was in making sure that English nobles stayed in line though. I think that Lewis would be willing to something of a long view- that is, his father is old, and he will soon inherit the crown of France. Once he has the revenue and following of the French crown, the English noblemen will find it far harder to stand against him.
So Lewis waits a few (6) years, maybe invades Ireland and forces Henry to become a pretender on the continent, then becomes the King of France. And if (more like when) he does something that displeases a noble faction, and they revolt in the name of the deposed Henry, Lewis defends his "rights" as the King. But now King Lewis I has France behind him, and it is not so easy to depose a King who has another kingdom so close, and so wealthy . . .
Two points :
1) As king of England, even limited by the Magna Carta, Louis/Lewis has a lot more power over his nobles ( and the rest of his subjects ) that any Capetian king of France ever dreamed possible. His father was the first King of France not to be elected. And the first Capetians were the weakest of the big nobles of France, from a territory size point of view, this has began to change by the time of PHillippe Auguste ( Louis/Lewis father ), but it's still a reality.
2) Lewis/Louis has a mighty tasty carrot to get English nobility to stay on his side in the form of estates in France, sometime even the return of familly estates confiscated when his father took back Normandy.
Anyway Scarecrow, on your map of England and France, I think you forgot to do the border between the Ile de France and Bourbon...
The Capetians were no longer the weak Kings of the 11th and 12th centuries. Lewis is in control of England, and his father has taken over Angevin possession in France. The Angevins, who were the most powerful noble family in France, have fallen to the Capets.
The big difference between the English and French king however is that while the French king may not be able to make his nobles do anything, neither is he constrained by written law in what he can do to them. In England the Magna Carta lays out in writting the nobles' rights. So the balance of power might change, but the nobles have certain rights which have to be respected.
These written constraints matter far more than balance of power problems. Once constitutional restraints are put on a monarchy, it is very hard to get rid of them. Look at the other European monarchies were the nobles were able to force the King to give them written law respecting their rights- Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and the Kingdom of Poland. The Spanish kingdoms had powerful nobles until American gold buried them.
That is a good carrot, but the same one was used with Scottish nobles by various English Kings. Ask Edward I how effective that was in keeping a country that doesn't want foreign rule under control.
That was only by the time of Lewis father, who is called Augustus for a reason. In the time of Louis VII, and even more Louis VI, the King of France was had very little domains to call his own. Contrast that with the situation of the King of England.
Lewis/Louis is living his ancestors dream and he won't want to disturb it for some time.
You're looking at that from a modern perspective, not from the perspective of a 13th century nobleman. Even if the matter may changes for their descendent, in the present, the King of France was much more restricted than the King of England.
In fact the lack of written guarrenties underlines the power of the french nobity wrt the King. They didn't need to gang together to get a written guarenty to prevent the King from abusing their rights. If the King ever tried to, one of his dukes was enough, by himself, to set things right; Sometime, a count was enough. And if the' kings annoys enough nobles, they will crown another king ( granted, it had not happened since the Xth century, but the tradition was there ).
I'm not sure you realise how weak the kings of France were until Phillipe Auguste ( and then Phillippe Le Bel then Louis XI) - and after Charlemagne, obviously -.
It certainly helped the Hammer of the Scots quite a lot.
Last edited:
First, in french the month is called Aout. Nothing to do with Auguste.
Second, AFAIK, the Auguste nickname was invented by Phillippes II official chroniques writer, the Monk Rigord ( having the nickname giver in the pay of the one nicknamed seems to ensure good nicknames, doesn't it ) and not bestowed at birth ( the nickname had had at birth was, AFAIK, dieudonne - godgiven - )
Errr... Mais si, it is the same word. Aout drops a couple of letters, but that's entirely normal in the evolution of French words from their Latin ancestors.
I found this on French Wiki, which unfortunately doesn't clear it up any:
Le surnom d'Auguste qu'on lui donna de son vivant, est une référence directe au titre antique, quoique d'autres interprétations aient été fournies sous son règne : il peut rappeler le mois de sa naissance, ou encore le verbe latin augere qui signifie « augmenter », « faire croître ». En effet, ce surnom lui a été donné par le moine Rigord[1] après que Philippe II ajouta au domaine royal en juillet 1185 (Traité de Boves) les seigneuries d’Artois, du Valois, d’Amiens et d'une bonne partie du Vermandois[2].
in bold, loosely translated:
it can recall the month of his birth;
the name was given to him by the monk Rigord after Phillipe added to the royal domain
Anyone have a definitive answer?
Le surnom d'Auguste qu'on lui donna de son vivant, est une référence directe au titre antique, quoique d'autres interprétations aient été fournies sous son règne : il peut rappeler le mois de sa naissance, ou encore le verbe latin augere qui signifie « augmenter », « faire croître ». En effet, ce surnom lui a été donné par le moine Rigord[1] après que Philippe II ajouta au domaine royal en juillet 1185 (Traité de Boves) les seigneuries d’Artois, du Valois, d’Amiens et d'une bonne partie du Vermandois[2].
in bold, loosely translated:
it can recall the month of his birth;
the name was given to him by the monk Rigord after Phillipe added to the royal domain
Anyone have a definitive answer?The concept of using a written document in order to permanently curtail the powers of a monarch is something that other nobles beyond England used. The Golden Bull of 1356 went much further than the Magna Carta in laying out the powers and rights of the nobility. Polish kings starting with Casimir III (1310-1370) also signed documents in order to guarentee noble rights.
So my point is that overthrowing a written document like the Magna Carta will be the primary goal of Lewis I's reign. He knows that while the balance of power between King and noble can change (witness his own family's rise), a document can go a great way in fixing the unequal balance of power permanently in the nobility's favor.
My point was despite the grants of land to Scottish nobles, Scotland still rose successfully and threw off English rule. I think one could argue it was a kind of proto-nationalist movement, one that forced the nobles to join it, rather than being led by the nobles.
In the same way a personal union of France and England under a Capetian King will probably grow unpopular in England, as the King raises taxes to pay for his European wars. English noblemen might have land across the channel, but if the English people rise against the monarchy, they might have no choice but to join the rebellion.
What would be interesting is to see from where the would-be native English King draws his legitimacy, whether he claims his royal rights from William's line or the Anglo-Saxons. I think William is probably the better bet, since the nobility is mostly descended from Norman and Norman-imported families.
Just a quick post to say that an update is forthcoming, I've just been alternating between
1) Lack of Internet at home for over a week
2) Studying for exams
3) Job hunting.
Since the first two have been dealt with and the third gets easier with every application and cover letter, I have plenty of time to write more Clavis Angliae.
My feelings on the Magna Carta is that Lewis wouldn't be that put out by it, similar to what fhaessig has been saying.
The Magna Carta was created in direct response to the failure of John's policy in France, especially the loss of Normandy (which cannot be underestimated) and the financial levies that were placed upon the English barons to try and take it back.
Secondly the MC was a negotiated document between the Barons and King John, and underwent many negotiations during Henry III's minority and majority. There is no doubt that Lewis would negotiate with the barons once peace has been made with the Plantagenet forces. Under the terms of the MC the King gained power: Royal Justice was expanded at the expense of the barons own honorial courts.
But that's just my thoughts on the matter.
1) Lack of Internet at home for over a week
2) Studying for exams
3) Job hunting.
Since the first two have been dealt with and the third gets easier with every application and cover letter, I have plenty of time to write more Clavis Angliae.
My feelings on the Magna Carta is that Lewis wouldn't be that put out by it, similar to what fhaessig has been saying.
The Magna Carta was created in direct response to the failure of John's policy in France, especially the loss of Normandy (which cannot be underestimated) and the financial levies that were placed upon the English barons to try and take it back.
Secondly the MC was a negotiated document between the Barons and King John, and underwent many negotiations during Henry III's minority and majority. There is no doubt that Lewis would negotiate with the barons once peace has been made with the Plantagenet forces. Under the terms of the MC the King gained power: Royal Justice was expanded at the expense of the barons own honorial courts.
But that's just my thoughts on the matter.