Dual Monarchy

if Henry V had lived to 60, solidified his conquests of France and left a half decent heir, how would this new kingdom (empire?) fair in regards to Europe.
Would it surpass the HRE/Ottomans as the pre-eminent player? as we know in our time eventually France and England become the two most powerful, albeit for different reasons, countries would this union create a superpower or a disorganised, unstable mess?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The English routinely defeated the French despite being outnumbered during the 100 years war over the span of 80 years. Ultimately internal disunity would weaken the already disadvantaged England and seal the fate of the war

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This. I think that it would be basically unstoppable if it held together, but I just don’t think it ultimately would. I think some drastic measures would need to be made to secure the loyalty and goodwill of the French nobility. I don’t know how you’d do that. Perhaps it holds together for awhile, but I don’t think the French nobility and the French themselves would want to remain under an English boot, and the English nation had certainly emerged by this point under Henry V, Henry V having spoken English as his first language. I feel like you’d have to combine the realms a bit sooner and through a war that wasnt built on raiding and slaughtering the French to make England wealthier.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This. I think that it would be basically unstoppable if it held together, but I just don’t think it ultimately would. I think some drastic measures would need to be made to secure the loyalty and goodwill of the French nobility. I don’t know how you’d do that. Perhaps it holds together for awhile, but I don’t think the French nobility and the French themselves would want to remain under an English boot, and the English nation had certainly emerged by this point under Henry V, Henry V having spoken English as his first language. I feel like you’d have to combine the realms a bit sooner and through a war that wasnt built on raiding and slaughtering the French to make England wealthier.

      I could see a scenario where the English Proto-Nation is backstabbed to secure the French tbh

      Probably end up as a bloodier version of the war of the three kingdoms

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        elaborate

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      considering France quite easily took on most of Europe at several points in history, assuming the Industrial revolution occured as normal then this nation unironically could defeat the rest of Europe combined if it was stable

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    A bit off topic, it's crazy how much the 100 years war shaped a lot of the modern world

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >'When the noble Edward gained England in his youth, nobody thought much of the English... now they are the finest and most daring warriors known to man'
    - Jean Le Bel, 14th Century chronicler

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      yeah one King briefly made the English considered the dominant land warriors in Europe. many German princes and counts paid homage to him in Northern France when Paris fell. For a King of a country so heavily outmanned and outresourced by France he had the potential to be the greatest English king by far

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        France wouldn't have become Anglicised at all, but I also disagree that England would've become any more Gallicised than it already was

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          England at the start of the 100 years war was Gallicised as frick. In fact it became substantially less Gallicised as a result of it. If England’s elite remained Francophone eventually that would have trickled down to the rest of society, especially as in a medieval union of England and France the latter would be, by far, the richest and most populated kingdom.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >England at the start of the 100 years war was Gallicised as frick. In fact it became substantially less Gallicised as a result of it.
            That's not at odds with my statement. If you look solely at the start of the HYW and Edward III, he had only received the approval of parliament and support of his nobility on the basis that England and France remain distinct Kingdoms. There was no popular support for England and France becoming one, united nation, and plenty of opposition thereto amongst men of influence. By the end of the war, anti-French sentiment had become so rabid that any attempt by Henry V to unite the two Kingdoms as one state would've simply caused an earlier civil war or popular revolt

            >If England’s elite remained Francophone eventually that would have trickled down to the rest of society
            Why would it be any different compared to the previous 300 years? Almost everyone who was Francophone also spoke English, and they certainly considered themselves English and a nation apart from France (even if they took cultural cues from it). The middling sorts used French because it was standardised and allowed for easier official communication across England, and indeed its non-Anglophone neighbours in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Merchants used it in part for the same reason, but also because their travels beyond the Kingdom generally took them to the Kingdom of France or surrounding states.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            > There was no popular support for England and France becoming one, united nation, and plenty of opposition thereto amongst men of influence
            Right, and that was also the case for England and Scotland right up until the Act of Union had to be heavily cajoled through parliament. It still had a tremendous Anglicising effect on Scotland (which was already heavily Anglicised) and accelerated the fusion of the elite in both nations.
            > The middling sorts used French because it was standardised and allowed for easier official communication across England, and indeed its non-Anglophone neighbours in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Merchants used it in part for the same reason, but also because their travels beyond the Kingdom generally took them to the Kingdom of France or surrounding states.
            It’s for precisely these reasons that French would be the lingua franca for politics, law and commerce in such a united monarchy, as it already was in the medieval Angevin empire. If such a union could transition into a modern state that would put French in the natural position to trickle into all levels of society as English did in the IRL UK. Perhaps English would even still be spoken into the 21st century, but the language of commerce is eventually going to become the language of work and eventually the language of home if the polity that is enabling this cultural exchange persists. For context at the start of the war France had 5x the population of England, 2 million to 10 million.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The whole thing would turn into the Angevin Empire 2.0, where the king would probably reside at Anjou and personally rule France, while England, Ireland and Scotland (in case the Union ever happens or it is conquered) will be ruled by regents and a local parliament. Maybe the Prince of Wales would be the preferred regent of Britain, as to gain knowledge and connections there before coming to rule in France. There would likely be some English settlement in Normandy, as such efforts were already pursued during the HYW, but I don't expect there to be an Anglo-French culture, except maybe among a small urban elite around the Channel. As for European politics, this thing would just be France, but bigger, trying to face off against the Habsburgs and establishing a medium sized colonial empire in America and Asia. I don't wanna make certain predictions about the Reformation or anything beyond 1600, but they would likely stay Catholic, as England nearly did anyways, which would probably be encouraged by the strong clergy in France. As for expansion, I don't see how such an overstretched, multicultural empire could do much more than maybe seize the Low Countries and Burgundy, as they would be targeted by pretty much everyone else on the continent if they tried expanding to aggressively. After that, idk

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >addendum:

      This. I think that it would be basically unstoppable if it held together, but I just don’t think it ultimately would. I think some drastic measures would need to be made to secure the loyalty and goodwill of the French nobility. I don’t know how you’d do that. Perhaps it holds together for awhile, but I don’t think the French nobility and the French themselves would want to remain under an English boot, and the English nation had certainly emerged by this point under Henry V, Henry V having spoken English as his first language. I feel like you’d have to combine the realms a bit sooner and through a war that wasnt built on raiding and slaughtering the French to make England wealthier.

      I think that anon is right about the situation, but moving the court to France and integrating the French nobility into some local parliament, separate from the English kingdom might work. That's not to say, that the Burgundians or Habsburgs couldn't support a rebellion of the French nobility during the early stages of the union and expel the English in a moment of weakness. Keeping the allience with Castille and Burgundy should be a paramount of the English monarchs after defeating France (which would likely hold out holed up in the Provence or somewhere, waiting for a moment to pounce and start an uprising). Another issue for early stability is Henry VI. Fricking hell, Henry VI and the War of the Roses might kill this entire thing in its infancy. Let's just hope he dies before he gets to rule

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      wouldn't have happened, the whole war only began when edward made concessions to his nobles about england and france remaining distinct kingdoms (much as england and scotland were, despite a joint monarch, between 1603 and 1707)
      by the time of henry the fifth and his successes there was already a well established sense of national identity, especially amongst the english
      even if a monarch had attempted to unite the two, the result would simply have been an immediate civil war/rebellion in england and the re-establishment of an independent kingdom there

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      by the time of Henry V his primary language was English and most of his power base was in England, combined with the fact that many regions in France like Gascogny, Brittany and Flanders were not 'french' it's possible that the reverse would happen and France would become anglicised

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    1. They probably would've lost France in the subsequent war of the roses
    2. I think it's likely that at some point a king would've split it and give one kingdom to one son and the other to another son
    They wouldn't have thought of it in terms of how big of a blob of land can i assemble for the next 500 years.

    One thing also to add is that the rulers of Burgundy was from a Male line of Valois.
    So if at any time the English didn't have a male heir (which they didn't with Henry VI) Burgundy would've had a legitimate claim on the French throne

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Henry V living until his 60s means war of the roses likely gets butterflied away. Henry V will likely realise his son isn't a war king (he was perfectly fine at admin except for anything related to war) and ensure he has an establishment in place to handle the military aspects. It also means Henry VI likely has a male heir by the time Henry V kicks the bucket.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It probably would have allied with the Ottomans and wiped out the HRE once and for all like France tried to.
    Also Protestantism would probably be entirely limited to northern Germanic Europe.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It wouldn't have lasted.
    France Europe's super power before HYW. And had fve time England's population.

    It was never going to remain united.
    Think the best scenario would be Henry V to have two sons, and the other gets France, and other keeps England, Ireland, Normandy, and Aqutaine

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I also love the Anglican Empire, but it would have collapsed later in a similar manner no matter how successful it was. France was simply too large to effectively conquer and rule as a foreigner.
    Like the idea of the English pushing all the way to Avignon is a pipe-dream.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why are alt-historygays always so moronic? Obviously the kingdoms would be split between his sons after his death. And even if it lasts for longer than a generation, it would be split eventually. Just like the united Austrian and Spanish Habsburgian Empire split. Just like the Northsea Empire split. Just like the Roman Empire was split four ways. Just like … and so on.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *