WI: No King John

[Circle of Willis]

Per the title, what if the infamous and ill-fated John Lackland never ascends to rule England and the Angevin Empire following the death of his brother Richard the Lionheart, but was displaced by their underage nephew (son of the middle Plantagenet brother, Geoffrey the duke-by-marriage of Brittany) Arthur instead? The POD can be as simple as John himself slipping on some ice and fatally hitting his head while trying to govern Ireland, it doesn't really matter as long as it gets John out of Arthur's way.

Not much can be said about Arthur, considering he died while still a teenager and after having barely accomplished anything on his own. Apparently Richard named John his heir on his deathbed because he was concerned that Arthur was too young (he was 12 as of Richard's own death) and too heavily influenced by France to rule effectively; historically one of Arthur's few independent actions was actually to ally with France and help invade Normandy, where he tried and failed to besiege his grandma Eleanor of Aquitaine, but he likely had no choice save to ally with the Capets if he was going to make a realistic attempt at pressing his claim. Had he instead become King Arthur I of England in 1199, how might he have handled the various crises of the years to come - could he avoid antagonizing his barons to the point where they foist the Magna Carta on him, could he avoid losing most of the Angevin Empire to France, can he avoid getting excommunicated, who would he have married, etc.?

 

[PsihoKekec]

I think the barons would look at an underage king as a great way to increase their own power, so a conflict would be inevitable and I reckon it would be same with France.
However I doubt barons would escalate quickly, so his regent might try to focus their energies on the French first. Without rebels splitting the English attention on the continent there is a chance for victory over French, which would give the young king a much needed breathing space. Smart marriages of Arthur and Eleanor would also strengthen Arthur's position, so conflict with the barons could be resolved favorably for him.

As for marriage that to Joan of Flanders would be very advantageous.
Eleanor could perhaps be married to Alfonso II of Portugal.

 

[stevep]

Well it would depend on when John 'disappeared' as that would generate butterflies in itself. He was nicknamed Lacklands because he was not allocated lands to inherit along with the other son's of Henry II because at the time he was a baby and the infant mortality was so great there was no reliability he would be alive in 6 months let alone be the last surviving son. That would give considerably more butterflies than him dying shortly before Richard. After all what happens when Richard goes on crusade if John is not there to be regent/usurper? Who gets the job instead and what happens if Richard died on crusade or gets held hostage as OTL.

Assuming that Arthur develops similar to OTL and Richard dies leaving the throne to him then he's now in a position where he needs to defend the Plantagenet lands rather than seek to dismember them so he would now be a rival of the French monarchy. This assumes of course that there aren't rival claimants to the throne given Arthur's age and probably distance from many English lords.

 

[Circle of Willis]

I think the barons would look at an underage king as a great way to increase their own power, so a conflict would be inevitable and I reckon it would be same with France.
However I doubt barons would escalate quickly, so his regent might try to focus their energies on the French first. Without rebels splitting the English attention on the continent there is a chance for victory over French, which would give the young king a much needed breathing space. Smart marriages of Arthur and Eleanor would also strengthen Arthur's position, so conflict with the barons could be resolved favorably for him.

As for marriage that to Joan of Flanders would be very advantageous.
Eleanor could perhaps be married to Ferdinand of Portugal.

Agree that the nobility would exploit Arthur's minority to improve their own positions, it would be surprising if they didn't. France I suspect will remain an interminable enemy of the Plantagenets as long as they control half of that kingdom. IIRC Arthur's support base was strongest in the continental portion of the Angevin Empire than in England itself (where John was favored) so perhaps an in-house marriage to the Anglo-Norman nobility might be in the cards for the young king?

On the note of foreign (or at least non-English) matches, Joan of Flanders does seem like a very attractive proposition that would bind that rich county to England, although it's precisely for that reason that I imagine the Capets will violently protest such a marriage. Also she seems to have been born in 1199, which means it'll probably take a while for Arthur (thirteen years her senior) to sire an heir with her. Another possible match I thought of would be to John's historical wife, Isabelle d'Angouleme, who was Arthur's age and reputed to be one of the great beauties of the age; however if she's still been betrothed to a Lusignan count in 1199/1200 then that likely takes her off the table, since the Lusignans were a prominent power among the Angevins' continental vassals and Arthur can't really afford to piss them off as John did.

Interesting, a Portuguese match would help to line up more of Iberia with England (Castile already being locked down by the marriage of Arthur's aunt Eleanor to Alfonso VIII) and Infante Ferdinand seems far enough down the line of succession that he can't really threaten Arthur's position using the Fair Maid of Brittany (John feared that possibility so much he kept her under lock & key for most of her life IRL). I wonder if a match to the Counts of Toulouse or any of the other great Occitan magnates for Eleanor might have worked out though - bringing Languedoc into the Angevin Empire not only further undermines the Capetian position and gives the Angevins a Mediterranean coastline, plus it'd surely have a huge effect on the Albigensian Crusade. (Not that I think the Plantagenets would care much for the Cathars, but that crusade was as much about breaking the power & independence of the Occitans for the French crown's benefit as it was actually suppressing the heresy, and that isn't something I think Arthur would approve of if he could stop it)

Well it would depend on when John 'disappeared' as that would generate butterflies in itself. He was nicknamed Lacklands because he was not allocated lands to inherit along with the other son's of Henry II because at the time he was a baby and the infant mortality was so great there was no reliability he would be alive in 6 months let alone be the last surviving son. That would give considerably more butterflies than him dying shortly before Richard. After all what happens when Richard goes on crusade if John is not there to be regent/usurper? Who gets the job instead and what happens if Richard died on crusade or gets held hostage as OTL.

Assuming that Arthur develops similar to OTL and Richard dies leaving the throne to him then he's now in a position where he needs to defend the Plantagenet lands rather than seek to dismember them so he would now be a rival of the French monarchy. This assumes of course that there aren't rival claimants to the throne given Arthur's age and probably distance from many English lords.

On further reading, I think having John die in the early 1190s when Richard was in an Austrian prison and John actually allied with France to try to usurp the crown would be the best bet here. Him dying in any one of the skirmishes between his partisans and those of Richard would result in him going down in history as a failed usurper with no chance to redeem himself by going back to Richard after the latter got out of jail, and also means he'll never live to sire an heir who can potentially contest Arthur's succession as well. (Historically Henry III, his oldest child, wouldn't be born until 1207 - John at this time was married to the Countess of Gloucester, who he was prepared to repudiate to marry Louis' sister Alys to firm up the French alliance, but never had any kids with her)

Yes, as I mentioned in the first half of this message, I think that King Arthur would be fated to be an enemy of France due to simple geography - the Capets are never going to be secure as long as the Plantagenets rule the western half of their kingdom. I do think that with John dying childlessly Arthur actually wouldn't have any intra-dynastic rival to worry about, being the last male Plantagenet standing; his closest living relatives would be his aunts, each of whom is married to a foreign monarch with their own problems (Matilda to Henry the Lion of the Welfs - whose son Otto, future Holy Roman Emperor, was actually an English ally - Eleanor to Alfonso VIII of Castile, and Joan to William II of Sicily). In that regard he'll have lucked out significantly against Philip II and the future Louis VIII of France.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Regarding Eleanor's inheritance, I was under impression she became the heiress of her father's estates only after Arthur died, as the only surviving child. With Arthur being alive, the inheritance goes to him as the sole surviving male of the line, although he is still expected to provide a substantial dowry for his sister, probably some lands.

 

[stevep]

Agree that the nobility would exploit Arthur's minority to improve their own positions, it would be surprising if they didn't. France I suspect will remain an interminable enemy of the Plantagenets as long as they control half of that kingdom. IIRC Arthur's support base was strongest in the continental portion of the Angevin Empire than in England itself (where John was favored) so perhaps an in-house marriage to the Anglo-Norman nobility might be in the cards for the young king?

On the note of foreign (or at least non-English) matches, Joan of Flanders does seem like a very attractive proposition that would bind that rich county to England, although it's precisely for that reason that I imagine the Capets will violently protest such a marriage. Also she seems to have been born in 1199, which means it'll probably take a while for Arthur (thirteen years her senior) to sire an heir with her. Another possible match I thought of would be to John's historical wife, Isabelle d'Angouleme, who was Arthur's age and reputed to be one of the great beauties of the age; however if she's still been betrothed to a Lusignan count in 1199/1200 then that likely takes her off the table, since the Lusignans were a prominent power among the Angevins' continental vassals and Arthur can't really afford to piss them off as John did.

Interesting, a Portuguese match would help to line up more of Iberia with England (Castile already being locked down by the marriage of Arthur's aunt Eleanor to Alfonso VIII) and Infante Ferdinand seems far enough down the line of succession that he can't really threaten Arthur's position using the Fair Maid of Brittany (John feared that possibility so much he kept her under lock & key for most of her life IRL). I wonder if a match to the Counts of Toulouse or any of the other great Occitan magnates for Eleanor might have worked out though - bringing Languedoc into the Angevin Empire not only further undermines the Capetian position and gives the Angevins a Mediterranean coastline, plus it'd surely have a huge effect on the Albigensian Crusade. (Not that I think the Plantagenets would care much for the Cathars, but that crusade was as much about breaking the power & independence of the Occitans for the French crown's benefit as it was actually suppressing the heresy, and that isn't something I think Arthur would approve of if he could stop it)

On further reading, I think having John die in the early 1190s when Richard was in an Austrian prison and John actually allied with France to try to usurp the crown would be the best bet here. Him dying in any one of the skirmishes between his partisans and those of Richard would result in him going down in history as a failed usurper with no chance to redeem himself by going back to Richard after the latter got out of jail, and also means he'll never live to sire an heir who can potentially contest Arthur's succession as well. (Historically Henry III, his oldest child, wouldn't be born until 1207 - John at this time was married to the Countess of Gloucester, who he was prepared to repudiate to marry Louis' sister Alys to firm up the French alliance, but never had any kids with her)

Yes, as I mentioned in the first half of this message, I think that King Arthur would be fated to be an enemy of France due to simple geography - the Capets are never going to be secure as long as the Plantagenets rule the western half of their kingdom. I do think that with John dying childlessly Arthur actually wouldn't have any intra-dynastic rival to worry about, being the last male Plantagenet standing; his closest living relatives would be his aunts, each of whom is married to a foreign monarch with their own problems (Matilda to Henry the Lion of the Welfs - whose son Otto, future Holy Roman Emperor, was actually an English ally - Eleanor to Alfonso VIII of Castile, and Joan to William II of Sicily). In that regard he'll have lucked out significantly against Philip II and the future Louis VIII of France.

Some very interesting options and ideas there. Depending on how Arthur and others develop you could see Henry II's powerful empire staying largely united and possibly even expanded by his marriage. Which might actually cause problems for those nobles who are based largely/solely in England as they and the rudimentary English state that is starting to re-emerge from the Norman period are going to be increasingly an appendage of the far larger and more populous continental lands.

If John dies when you suggest the question might be does Richard manage to return home and if so what position he faces then. The young Arthur would be his heir unless he did marry and produce a son but when Richard died OTL - which could well be at a later date as that isolated clash could have not become fatal - he was only ~12 years old so there would need to be a regent.

Its interesting that according to wiki Arthur was actually declared Richard's heir when he went on crusade, rather than John, despite being a very young child. Richard recognised John as his heir on his deathbed in 1199 because he feared Arthur was too young and had already been under French influence for the last few years. It mentions

A marriage plan, originally aiming to establish an alliance between King Richard and King Philip II of France to marry Arthur's elder sister Eleanor to Philip's son Louis also failed. In 1196, Constance had the young Arthur proclaimed Duke of Brittany and her co-ruler as a child of nine years. The same year, Richard summoned Arthur, as well as Arthur's mother, Constance,[3] to Normandy, but Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester, stepfather of Arthur, abducted Constance. Richard marched to Brittany to rescue Arthur, who was then secretly carried to France to be brought up with Louis.

As such one question could one remove that period when Louis was basically Arthur's mentor? Could be more difficult if with John dead and Richard held hostage in Austria Louis might more to gain power over the young Arthur earlier?