>1066
>french vassal william successfully invades England
>english throne technically belongs to france
>fast forward a couple hundred years
>1337 hundred years war
>started because french thrones technically belong to England
how the hell did this happen
>>432826
It didn't technically belong to England, inheritance laws weren't handed to humans by the hand of god or anything.
That said those guys were not descended of William.
>>432826
William's house didn't hold the throne forever, and eventually, a family with a claim to the French throne came to power. That's more or less the basic jest of it, though England never belonged to France since William ruled it along with his holdings in Normandy as a separate domain from France, which is why England held land on the mainland.
I think Feudal law wasn't that simple. While the Duke of Normandy was a vassal to the King of France, the fact that the same person held Normandy and the English throne didn't make England a French possession.
And when William I died, he left Normandy to his son Robert and England to William II. Once his fourth son Henry I defeated Robert's invasion and conquered Normandy, defeating Robert and Louis VI of France, and the whole confusion of the Anarchy happened under Stephen and Matilda, things became a bit more unclear.
Anyway, the exact status of Normandy was always controversial. Normans owed their service to the Duke of Normandy, not to both the Duke and King of France as in other dependencies, no appeals could be made to the Royal Court from the Ducal Court, and the Norman dukes claimed the act of homage by the Duke to the King did not establish his sovereignty over Normandy but only the personal suzerain relationship between the King of France and Duke of Normandy . Of course the King of France disagreed, but until the 14th century didn't have the military strength to force the issue
>>432826
>english throne technically belongs to france
Lol no. William was only a vassal to the French king due to his holdings in Normandy, everything outside of the French domain was not in any way under French vassalage.
>>432826
thrones don't belong to countries but to dynasties you massive dickhead
aslo the king of england who was pretty much a french guy did have a legit claim on the french throne because all the kings male heirs did withtout giving birth to sons, but the king of england married the daughter of the french king and had a son with her which made him an heir to the throne , but then the actual french said that women cannot inherit thrones so the kings daughter and her son were excluded from succession , instead the brother of the french king would get the throne
>>432826
basically
Normans/French take the power in England
Then, a French, related to the conqueros take the power in England.
Then, in France, the rightful heir is the French that took power in England.
But it's seen as being cucked by England, so they just put another dude as a king.
Then war.
>>432826
Because a French family was ruling England
What's not to understand?
The HYW started because the French nobles who owned England also felt they had a claim on their homeland, France
>>432826
Because Edward's 3 mother was Isabella of France.
>>434154
It had actually more to do with his father's line (which was French as well).
>>434156
No it didn't. He claimed the French throne based on his descent from King Philip IV of France, through his mother Isabella. He was descended paternally from Geoffrey Plantagenet, who was just a count and had no claim to the French throne.
>>432967
>I think Feudal law wasn't that simple. While the Duke of Normandy was a vassal to the King of France, the fact that the same person held Normandy and the English throne didn't make England a French possession.
Pretty much. Sort of how the elector of Brandenburg was sort of a vassal to the holy roman emperor, but his territory of Prussia was independent of the HRE.
The English throne did not belong to France. Normandy did.
Actually, Normandy and most of the other large vassals of the French King were pretty much independent at the time. The French King was at most first among equals.
The truth on what happened is soap opera-ish.
There was this King of France (Phillip IV). He had 3 sons and a daughter.
As it turns out, his 3 sons got cucked and he died a few years after.
The first son became King and had as his heir, the daughter of the woman that cucked him. He died soon after.
The second son wanted to be King and used the fact that there were doubts over the legitimacy of the girl to manipulate the laws so that HE would be the King of France. As it turns out, he soon died too. Humorously, this law change meant his own daughter would lose the throne to his brother...
Who was the third son that also had no male heirs and soon died.
So, there were two people contending for the throne.
One was the Queen of England, daughter of Phillip IV, who claimed the throne for her son, saying that while women could not inherit, this didn't mean her son couldn't. The other was the son of the King's younger brother.
Actually, the correct Queen of France would be either Joan II of Navarre, Joan III, Countess of Burgundy or the King of France (in the case all daughters of Phillip IV's sons were actually not legitimate).
>>434199
>Geoffrey Plantagenet, who was just a count and had no claim to the French throne.
The Counts of Anjou were about as strong as the King of France by the time of William the Conqueror or by the time they inherited England.
>>432826
Medieval geopolitics makes more sense if you think of things in terms of personal property and rival families rather than the modern conception of nation-states.
The concepts of "France" and "England" existed more as place-names than as independently existing units of political activity.
>>435268
Thats unreleated with having a claim to the French throne.
The french throne has never belonged to the english King.
France follows a strict agnatic law that come from the Frankish customs, the "loi salique". Of course, this law was really enforced simply because no french lord would want to kneel before a King of England, especially at a time where the French State was being created (Under Philippe IV, there was the first Estate Generals, and it soon appeared that France had a great administration)
>>435304
>Thats unreleated with having a claim to the French throne.
Yeah, I know, but the Counts of Anjou were not some nobodies. Chances are, a Count of Anjou could have been selected King of France, at some point in time.
>>435305
>because no french lord would want to kneel before a King of England
But the kings of England were French anyway
What difference between them and any other French dynasty?
>>435284
/thread
>>435305
That's mostly an invention of a son of Phillip IV, Phillip V.
For the early Capetian Kings of France, the throne was actually "Elective". The nobles would select one of them as the King, who was mostly a first among equals with little power. Also, in the beginning, they never thought the throne would always go to the Capetian heir. This happened eventually because the Capetians were somewhat able and because they always had a ready, male heir for a long time.
>>435256
Joan II was daughter of Louis X second wife, not the first, disloyal one.
>>435338
No, she was the daughter of the cucker. The second wife only had a son, that died early (and who was for a short time King of France).
>>435335
The king had his son and heir crowned before his own death, thus ruling together till the Capets became firmly attached to the Throne.
>>435312
Chances are that I may be elected President.
That does not mean that I am the legit representative of the Supreme Executive Branch.
>>435350
Exactly. The Capetians while not always able in administrative terms were able in doing that.
>>435354
The Kings of England didn't get their claim due to their Angevin ancestors. But the Counts of Anjou were not "just a count". There was not a large difference between the Early Capetians and the Counts of Anjou.
>>435370
The Capetians were Robertians in their origins and had already gave kings to the Franks
>The family frequently named its sons Robert, including Robert of Hesbaye (c. 800), Robert III of Worms (800-834), Robert the Strong (d. 866) and Robert I of France (866-923). It figured prominently amongst the Carolingian nobility and married into this royal family. Eventually the Robertians themselves delivered Frankish kings such as the brothers Odo (reigned 888-898) and Robert I (r. 922-923), then Hugh Capet (r. 987-996), who ruled from his seat in Paris as the first Capetian king of France.
And had Paris, which whose symbolic capital was pretty useful too.
>>432826
It didn't happen. You're making things up.
William was a vassal of the King of France as Duke of Normandy because Normandy was part of the french realm. But not as King of England because England wasn't.
Same story basically later on.
The notion of being "French" came much later than this. Different regions of France spoke different dialects, and the vassals of the "French" king were notoriously quarrelsome and obstinate toward the crows. The culture of the different parts might be quite different than that of the crown territories.
The Normans were Normans, and William's family also had Danish (Or perhaps Swedish we don't really know) ancestry. Normandy also had frequent conflicts with the crown, and indeed their acquisition of England led to further conflicts.
It was not a "French" victory, it was a Norman one, with some help from the Bretons. You have to think of medieval politics in terms of families, not nation-states with defined identities like we have now.
>>435511
You're wrong, French identity dates from the 9th century, when Frankish identity divided itself into French and German ones depending of location
In Middle Ages, not all of France was French, only the Northern half (Oil territories)
But the parts that were French really were.
Normans were an exception, as they were originally Danish vikings
That being said, by 1066 they were pretty much French both culturally and genetically (heavy interbreeding happened since 911)
At the time of the HYW, there was barely any distinction between them and the rest of the Northern half of France.
So yeah, being French was a thing
Richard Lionheart for exemple was French as you can be
On the other hand, Henry V had nothing French outside of his blood
>>435511
What>>435542 said.
You're using the argument that the King of France was politically weak until Phillip II in realation to the powerful nobility to conclude, erronously, that, at least when it comes to the northern half of France, they didn't all consider themselves as french as a baguette. Except for Brittany.
>>435635
Wasn't Flanders very different as well?
>>435673
Only a small part of Flandres was French back then
