What do these numbers and letters like "S1" and "H3" mean? -- Nik 07:04, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
It's a genealogical notation I picked up. The rulers are numbered. S1 = Son of 1, D = Daughter, H = husband, etc.. I could post the entire system somewhere if others would find it useful.
- Ah, so "D3/4" means "Daughter of numbers 3 and 4", I take it? -- Nik 04:28, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what's your POD? Historically, the kingdom did prefer Stephen, hence the civil war. Obviously your timeline requires Stephen to have won, almost immediately. Perhaps Henry I died before making the nobles swear to support Maude? This might have weakened her support enough that Stephen would have controlled England outright.--TheFuzzy 02:51, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
See the new material.
- Makes some sense. I'd add a substantial bribe to Maud from Stephen for plausibility. England was never part of the H.R.E., so their featly wouldn't have meant much. But gold most certainly would have.
- Since Henry VI is the son of Henry V, he would have been a different person than Henry II (OTL) was. As such, do you really think it reasonable that the son of German Henry V would be able to steal Eleanor away from the King of France? It doesn't seem likely. Heck, what happened OTL was pretty unlikely and based largely on Henry II's charm, good looks and ambition. A Henry VI would have been older (and hence less attractive to the young Eleanor). So the Angevins would not have existed, ATL, at all. --TheFuzzy 16:21, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
How would the Capetian dynasty handle the rule of England, France, and Navarre? Philip IV of France had three sons - would all be independent kings or would one be king and the others his local governors? Without Edward II's claim on the French throne, there would be no reason to invoke Salic law, and therefore both (OTL) Louis "X" and Philip "V" would leave female heirs.
- base on french history in OTL, they would be independent from one another although like the bourbon in spain and france, probably quite close in term of policy. They would probably have a "family pact" of some sort.--Marcpasquin 00:07, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, regarding the female queen of france, the salic law went back to frankish time and was quite established so I doubt they would have overlooked it and if it was, it would have more then probably resulted in a conflict.--Marcpasquin 02:22, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
In TTL, Each of the three sons of Philip IV of France (I of Navarre) agreed to treat the line of their kingdom as beginning with themselves and excluding the other brothers, but the chair of the alliance as continuing in the Capetian line. Therefore the heir of John I of France could only be Joan I of France. Even though her uncle Philip I of France was appointed her guardian until she was married, the terms of the Triple Alliance excluded his succession to the throne of France (a good thing, too, given his activities in OTL). The guardianship passed to Charles I of Navarre until 1328. After Charles I of Navarre died, Joan I of France fell under the guardianship of her grand-uncle Philip de Valois.
Philip de Valois married Joan I of France to Philip de Valois’ compliant lackey Philip of Evreux (a junior line Capetian) and Philip of Evreux assumed the sacral duties as Philip V of France by right of Capetian descent. Philip de Valois, although chair of the Triple Alliance, was not a king, and therefore married his son John (I of Navarre) to Mary I of Navarre, daughter of Charles I of Navarre so that their son (Charles II of Navarre) would be a male-line descendant of the Capetians. Joan II of England co-ruled with her Burgundian husband.
The constant intermarrying between England, France, and Navarre strengthened the Triple Alliance. For example, John I of Navarre, chair of the Triple Alliance, was the son of Mary I and John I of Navarre. His brother Philip married Margaret II of England and therefore became Philip IV of England.