So the Normans invaded England in 1066 and established a new ruling class, and it was even common for Norman nobles to have possessions on either side of the English Channel. They were supposed to be loyal to the French King, what happened in those 300 years?
Hello there !
This a rather long and complex question, since relations between French and English monarchies deteriorated through time. Nevertheless, it can’t be denied that this worsening of relations massively accelerated in the years that lead to the Hundred Years War.
I will focus on those last years and decades. If you want some informations about what happened before, I suggest you look up about Aliénor d’Aquitiane, the Battle of Bouvines (1214) and the rivalry between Philippe Auguste of France and Richard Lionheart and king John Lackland of England.
Now let’s get going on the causes of the war.
The seeds of dissent could be tracked back to Aliénor d’Aquitaine, duchess of Aquitaine and countess of Poitiers. The duchy of Aquitaine, at the time, was a rather vast and rich land and certainly not something to be overlooked. She first married king Louis VII of France (in 1137). The couple went through their fair share of problems that I won’t detail here since we’ve already much to discuss, and the marriage is dissolved in 1152, officially for cause of « consanguinity ».
The problem here is that Aliénor marries Henry Plantagenêt, heir to the throne of England, about 8 weeks later. Two more years and they are queen and king of England. From that point onward, the king of England possesses about half the lands of the kingdom of France, something known as the « Plantagenêt Empire ».
Everything is not that simple, however. Even though the successive kings of England do possess Aquitaine, Maine, Normandy and all, those lands are not part of the kingdom of England. They are personnal possessions of the kings of England but remain under the authority of the king of France. That makes the kings of England vassals to the kings of France for those lands.
One can only imagine the frustration and humiliation it could represent to the Plantagenêt. Every newly crowned king was to pay the « hommage lige » to the French, kneeling before him, swearing an oath of fealty. That meant, too, that the French administration could, in some way, meddle in the affairs of their lands, something the English were not really fond of.
This organization survived until the middle of the XIVth century. At that moment, a French succession crisis tilted the frail balance of powers and legitimacy and lead to the war.
Now, we’re going to delve a bit into the technicalities of French royal succession laws. If I’m not clear, feel free to point it out and ask for clarifications.
So 1316 marks the end of the « Miracle Capétien » : the uninterrupted line of succession from father to son of French kings since the enforcement of this rule in 987. Before that, French kings were elected by a council of nobles. Yet, in 1316, this line is broken at last. Louis X, son of Philippe le Bel, dies without a male heir. He has a daughter, Jeanne, who is still a child. Yet, his wife is pregnant still, and could give birth to a boy. It is decided that Philippe, brother of Louis X, will rule as a regent while we wait to see if the queen gives birth to a male heir. And she does ! Yet he only lives for four days.
Now, what to do ? Who shall be the rightful heir to the throne ? Jeanne, daughter of the last king ? She is a woman and, still minor, she can’t fight much to make her rights prevail (there also is a doubt about her legitimacy, and many suspect she is in fact a bastard). It is then decided that the regent, Philippe, brother of Louis X and second son of Philippe le Bel, shall rule. He is crowned as Philippe V.
This moment is crucial because it sets a precedent : women cannot inherit the crown of France. Before that time, what is sure is only that male heirs have priority over daughters. Yet the question of « should a woman inherit the crown of France ? » had never been asked and, therefore, never been answered. But now it has been : women shall not rule.
It is important to notice that this is very much a coup. Not a violent one, but it is arguably some kind of usurpation or, at least, some show of force by Philippe V. He made sure the inheritance laws were interpreted to his profit. Yet, he was chosen by the council of nobles, as per the custom of pre-987, meaning he is indeed the rightful king.
What makes the matter complicated is the fact that Philippe himself dies without an heir. He has daughters, but no son. Following the precedent that was established, his younger brother, Charles IV, claims the throne and is crowned. Once again, the daughters are elimintaed from the succession line.
In some display of comical irony, Charles IV himself dies without a male heir in 1328. And he has no more brother to inherit the throne. He has a sister, though, Isabelle de France. As per the precedent set in 1316, she cannot inherit the throne. But can she pass this right to heir son ? Can Isabelle’s son inherit the throne of France ?
Three things make it impossible.
- She cannot pass a right she does not have herself. If she has no claim, her son hasn’t either.
- She was married to Edward II of England, making her queen of England. Her son, who is only sixteen, is king of England since 1327 : Edward III (Although he has not yet started his personnal reign). That would mean that the crown of France would fall into the hand of a stranger, and a Plantagenêt too, to make things worse. This is unacceptable for French nobles.
- She is well known for taking part in a barons uprising against her husband, Edouard II, whom she has made prisonner and executed. And she publicly show herself with her adulterous lover, Roger Mortimer. That makes her reputation at the court of France destestable. She is deemed unfit to rule.
Therefore her son’s claims to the throne are considered by the nobles and rejected. The thrones goes to the eldest male member of the family : Philippe VI de Valois, cousin of Louis X, Philippe V, Charles IV and Isabelle.
Yet Isabelle ins’t quite content with that decision and she will push her son, Edouard III, to press his claims to the kingdom of France. After all, Edouard is the grandson of Philippe le Bel, while Philippe de Valois is only his nephew.
With soon on the throne of England a young man exhorted to take back his rightful throne of France, relations between the two kingdoms dwindle.
It is generally considered, though, that Edouard III did not really want to become king of France. He knew all too well that it would not be possible. He will fight, rather, to obtain the complete sovereignty over Aquitaine. He does not want to be a vassal anymore and he’s ready to fight. He will use his claim as a pretext rather than as a real objective.
I hope that helped answer your question. If you have any more interrogation or follow-up questions, feel free to ask !
u/FrenchMurazor gives a detailed and helpful explanation of the dynastic disputes that started the Hundred Years War, but I would like to give a more "institutional" point of view by talking about the vassal-suzerain relationship between the dukes of Normandy and the kings of France ;-)
- - - - -
Mighty French dukes talking money and politics during a hunting party, back in 1050:
"Say, Do you mint your own coin?"
"Why, no. Can't do! It's a regal priviledge. Only the king is allowed to do it."
"Ah. Because I do."
"No way!"
"Way."
- - - - -
Your question relies on the idea that the dukes of Normandy were loyal to the king of France at the beginning but that something went wrong between 1066 and 1336 which caused the Hundred Years War to happen. That is because you don't see the difference yet between de iure and de facto realities ;-)
De iure, as per law, the duchy of Normandy belonged to the king of France. Anyone holding it had to pay hommage to the king to keep it for himself.
At the time of Charlemagne, such proceedings didn't exist yet for good ol' Carolus Magnus could just appoint anyone he liked to any fief he saw fit whenever he needed to. His grandson who inherited West Francia lost that kind of authority and noblemen who'd been appointed a fief secured it as part of their family estates. They just had to pay hommage to the king in exchange for that.
Fun fact, however, the duchy of Normandy didn't exist yet when Charlemagne and his grandsons walked the Earth. It was actually carved out of the French kingdom through the Viking raids.
In 911, at Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, the Viking chief Rollo pays hommage to Charles the Simple, marries his daughter and receives a piece of land in Neustria. Rollo agrees to defend the realm against further Viking incursions, but he is also granted the right to pillage and plunder the eastern part of Britanny (which is today's Lower Normandy). Rollo is expected to kiss the king's foot but that sound odd to him. He delegates the task to one of his man, who takes the king's foot, doesn't knee and bring it to his mouth without kissing it. The king lost balance and fell backwards. The duchy of Normandy was born.
Following Rollo, from William Longsword to William the Conqueror, the history of Normandy is built on political struggles from all sides. While they're expanding their territory, the dukes of Normany have to stifle peasant revolts, assert their authority over their own local nobility, find the right balance of power with the Church and fight off regal oversight. William the Conqueror himself pushed back a regal invasion. Henry I of France actually attempted to recover or at least to take over Normandy in the years 1050's. However, William the Conqueror (who was only William the Bastard yet still) defeated the king and maintained his duchy's political autonomy and independance.
This was the de facto reality of the time. The duke of Normandy bowed to no one. He even minted his own money--which only the king was theoretically allowed to do. He started to do it as soon as 940. Norman coins were solid and good. They became more popular than most coins of West Francia during the 10th and 11th century.
The duke of Normandy also had gain quite a grip on the Church in his lands. There had been much open conflicts with mighty bishops at first but the founding and financing of several abbeys (Fécamp, Cerisy, Montivilliers...) brought the duke of Normandy back to the good graces of the pope. William the Conqueror had called upon a synod to help maintain the Pax Dei within his territories. When he crossed the Channel to conquer England, he did so with an papal banner.
Moreover, the duke of Normandy had become one of the most potent aristocrat North of the Loire. He liked to meddle with his neighbours affairs. He had a foot in Flanders, the duke of Brittany became his vassal, he even went as far as to intrude in the king's interests. Before Henry I of France tried to take back Normandy from William the Bastard, he benefited from the latter's father's help to secure the throne. Henry I had been contested by his brother, he fled to Fécamp and gained the backing of Robert the Magnificent, duke of Normandy. As a thank you, Henry I granted the French Vexin to Robert, which would later bring further tension between William the Conqueror and Philip I of France.
Edward the Confessor had spent many years in exile... in Normandy. He secured his throne of England with the help of Norman knights who were soon despised by pro-Danish nobles. Edward also nominated William the Bastard as his heir but the pro-Danish party wouldn't see to it and the earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, rose to the challenge. Nevertheless he encountered too much pressure as both the kings of Norway and the duke of Normandy landed on English soil to win over Edward's crown. Harold won at Stamford Bridge but was crushed at Hastings. William the Bastard was now the Conqueror.
The ruling of England proved difficult and William the Conqueror built castles all over the land to secure it. The kingdom of England basically became a Norman colony. When he came to die, William the Conqueror let the duchy of Normandy to his elder son and the kingdom of England to his junior. It meant that the duchy of Normandy was the higher prize.
I touched on it before, here and here (he later answer is also published on my blog, here), but the Hundred Years War wasn't much as a clash of nations. It mostly was the king of France's very long struggle to assert his authority over his many vassals. They were powerful, they didn't like to be told anything and they positively challenged the king both at court and on the battlefield. The duke of Normandy was among them.
King John of England lost Normandy and many other fiefs to Philip IV of France in the early 13th century. Nevertheless, the kings of England kept Gascony for themselves. As such, they remained vassals to the king of France up until 1336, when the Hundred Years War broke out. Since then, however, the kingdom of England had grown more respectable as a state and far more powerful as a military power. It wasn't the duke of Normandy's personal backyard anymore, as it was at the time of William the Conqueror, but a fully fleshed-out political might.
Edward III of England didn't see eye to eye with the king of France on many things and he certainly didn't like that he had to pay him hommage for Gascony. Therefore he did what every unhappy vassal did and had been doing in France since the 9th century: he challenged the authority of the king to grant himself more power, prestige and political independance.
The dukes of Normandy, from the very start, were only as loyal to the king of France as they needed to be in order to maintain their own political autonomy.
By the time William the Conqueror became duke of Normandy, his duchy was strong enough to resist any attempt from the king of France to take control of it.
At first, the kingdom of England was a secondary fief to William's descendants, who mostly remained French aristocrats. However, England as a state grew more powerful with time.
By the time Edward III was king of England, he couldn't bear to remain a "loyal vassal" to the king of France. Normandy wasn't his anymore, but he still had inherited from Gascony, and the king of France still only viewed him as a second class noble.
The Hundred Years War was the long struggle of the French kings to assert their authority over their vassals, chief among which was the king of England but also many others.