Any prospect that 1254 appropriation settled political status of Channel Islands in Plantagenet kingdom would soon be complicated by their entanglement in Anglo-French relations from 1259 until Henry III and Louis IX's Treaty of Paris begins.
Peace and resolution of ongoing problems caused by severance of relations since 1202 were highly desired by both sides for various political reasons, and personal and family ties between Louis and Henry contributed to peace and settlement.
In a literal sense, historians agree that treaty was shaped by Henry's politically and economically disastrous undertakings beginning in 1254, in an attempt to acquire Kingdom of Sicily for his second son, Edmund, who played a large role to some extent. it provoked an uprising of English barons in 1258 and greatly weakened position of king.
Henry was therefore prepared to make significant concessions to Plantagenet position in France in order to secure permanent peace and restore his power in England. Under terms of treaty, Henry renounced his titles and rights to duchies of Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine and Poitou and accepted obligations of Duchy of Aquitaine to King of France, including Scony.
In return, Henry will be "Peer of France", and his abdication and salute oath will depend on whether Louis gives up everything that French king had in cities and parishes of Limoges, Cahors and Périgueux, as well as in the fiefs and rights of Périgord, Limousin and Kelsey passed to Henry.
These collections of lands and rights have potential to be a very lucrative source of income for King of England, although many of them are "complex and varied rights and jurisdictions" that are difficult to financially improve ownership and control of. Refereeing has never been completely satisfactory.
The Treaty of Paris had a serious long-term impact on Anglo-French relations. He is often credited in historiography with preparing for Hundred Years' War, as his terminology "sowed seeds" for a future conflict, creating largely unresolvable tensions between kingdoms of England and France.
It is important to understand, however, that long-term effects of treaty were largely unpredictable by its drafters, and that organization of feudal relations established by treaty between Louis and Henry was norm at time. In addition, treaty's connection to Hundred Years' War is sometimes detracted from fact that treaty succeeded in establishing a 35-year peace between kingdoms of England and France. However, main problem with Treaty of Paris was that it created an unequal relationship between kings of England and France.
Although Henry held a royal title equal to that of Louis, terms of treaty explicitly placed King of England in a subordinate position to King of France in respective territories, who recognized no superiority. Most importantly in this regard, Henry was required to pay homage to king of France, a higher and more extended form of homage that placed more severe restrictions on vassals.
For example, fact that King of England, as a duke, could not help or shelter enemies of King of France can be problematic, as it contradicts previous agreements and alliances made by King of England with other European states. This gave King of France considerable control over foreign affairs of King of England, which created potential for conflicts of interest. It cannot be denied that treaty "belittled greatness of English king".
Henry's acceptance of Liege's respect for Duchy of Aquitaine was unprecedented and met with strong opposition from many of Duchy's nobles and communities. Until 1259, kings of England owned Gascony by allusion, that is, they did not recognize it as their feudal lords. Under terms of treaty, King of France was now duchy's sovereign, granting it significant royal powers, most important of which were forfeiture and right to exercise supreme jurisdiction over duchy.
The subjects of Duke of Aquitaine can now sue Supreme Court of Cassation in Paris, kingdom's highest court of appeal, and Gascons dissatisfied with Duke often use this right to oppose kings of England and France to advance their interests. French kings, especially from late thirteenth century onwards, were increasingly eager to accept Gascon's cause, as it strengthened his sovereignty and undermined authority of Duke of Aquitaine by intervening in internal disputes between Duke and his subjects. The sheer number of cases brought before Supreme Court of Paris placed a heavy burden on ducal officials and drained resources of ducal government.
The two overlapping and self-confident royal governments of Aquitaine often clashed, which undoubtedly increased tension between kingdoms of England and France, creating a number of acute problems with no clear solutions. Henry's resignation of title and hereditary succession of Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine and Poitou was symbolically a major defeat. This effectively separated Plantagenets from lands that formed core of "Angevin" Empire and reflected lesser reality of England's growing status as core territory of Plantagenet "Empire".
Although lands had been out of Plantagenet hands for some time, treaty legalized Philip Augustus' confiscation of King John's lands in 1202, which was issued on questionable grounds, and greatly reduced future chances of Plantagenet ambition in these areas. Henry's new royal style reflected diminishing presence of Plantagenets in France: he now bore only titles of King of England, Leader of Ireland, and Duke of Aquitaine.
Henry's renunciation of title Duke of Normandy ended any long-standing constitutional link between Channel Islands and Normandy, however, according to one interpretation, Channel Islands were now recognized as part of Kingdom of France. The islands themselves are not explicitly mentioned in treaty. Instead, there is a rather vague reference in one paragraph that "the island, if any", belongs to King of England and will now belong to King as "a French peer and Duke of Aquitaine".
At that time, Channel Islands and Île d'Oléron were only islands that King of England owned off coast of France. Thus, King of England allegedly recognized islands as being in sovereign possession of King of France. However, position is not entirely clear. First, in this provision of treaty, King of England was called "Peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine", neither of which was suitable as a source of ownership of Channel Islands.
Second, there is no doubt that diplomats who negotiated treaty knew little about archipelago. So why is there no explicit mention of archipelago by name? If it is understood that they will be included in this statement, then this is contrary to, or at least rather difficult, terms of Grant of 1254, which considered islands an integral part of British Crown.
Therefore, British side may have reservations about direct inclusion of these islands in treaty. Their position was deliberately vague, probably trying to avoid any clear statement that islands were part of Kingdom of France or Duchy of Aquitaine, or any other political entity controlled by King of England in France.
This ambiguity is no doubt perpetuated when Edward I confirmed his homage during his visit to Paris in 1286, saying: “I am yours because of land I own under sea, revered by our ancestors. Forms of peace reached between What does land "under water" mean? This may refer to "below Channel", but whether this statement includes an island in Channel itself and, again, lack of mention of names, is open to interpretation.
In this round, evidence, although conflicting, leads to conclusion that King of England implicitly accepted islands as part of Kingdom of France, but as a separate political entity within it. The difference is that they belong directly to King of England and not through any other title.
There is no evidence that islanders themselves thought their status had changed after Treaty of Paris. For example, there is little indication that islanders referred legal disputes to highest authorities of Assembly of Paris, unlike inhabitants of Gascony since late thirteenth century.
During this period, islanders used courts in Normandy to hear their cases, but facts show only that ecclesiastical courts in Normandy used main Norman church, which owned land in archipelago, and not secular courts of duchy, and that these ecclesiastical courts, according to appear to be used as an alternative to two royal courts of islands, rather than serving as their courts of appeal.
This is not so much an indication of any changes made by treaty, but rather an exercise in longstanding jurisdiction of these courts over matters considered ecclesiastical. Perhaps islanders did not take advantage of their position in French kingdom because islands were more firmly in hands of English Plantagenet king, partly because of their small size, but also because successful policies of John and Henry III secured islands. The political elite was largely loyal to Plantagenets.
In Aquitaine, political interests are more diverse, and vast size of principality makes it difficult to exercise power of Plantagenets. There is no such thing in Channel Islands as Gaston VII, Viscount of Béarn (1229–1290) such a powerful lord who used Parliament adventurously and with relative impunity to undermine ducal administration of Aquitaine.
The newly appointed elite of islands, such as de Chenes and de Ballentines, had a vested interest in England and wider kingdom and were heavily involved in king's service, so they had little advantage in exploiting French. royal court and risked losing favor of king of England.
In addition, expanding trade links between England and Gascony increasingly involved islands, providing islanders with a valuable economic network, combined with preservation of freedoms and customs of islanders loyal to England. The benefits of Plantagenets far outweigh any benefits with Council of Paris.
There is no evidence of judicial intervention by French kings in affairs of archipelago, in stark contrast to their interference in affairs of Duchy of Aquitaine. It can be concluded that French king considered islands relatively insignificant for his ambitions to assert sovereignty. Of course, strategic importance of archipelago depended on state of Anglo-French relations, and in peacetime archipelago did not have same geopolitical importance as Duchy of Aquitaine in advancing French interests in south of France.
However, when Anglo-French War of 1294 revealed impossibility of Treaty of Paris, French king certainly believed that treaty included islands, because whenever English king's lands in France were declared confiscated by French king, for example, in 1294 and 1324, when islands were heavily attacked by French king, claims to archipelago were immediately indicated, although both of their attempts to capture islands were unsuccessful.
In any case, in peacetime islands continued to be ruled by King of England on essentially same terms as before treaty of 1259, and question of status of islands was certainly not a top political consideration, since long peace after Treaty of Paris overshadowed internal tension of subordination of Duke of Aquitaine to King of France.
The confidence of kings of England that they controlled islands is reflected in their use of islands as a valuable source of patronage: in 1277, Edward I's closest friend, Otto de Grandison, granted Lord of Isles, he was a knight of Savoy and grandson, a crusader and diplomat of "important people in Europe".
Otto's dominion over islands was in fact a sin "bestowed by virtue of his close relationship with king and his long and faithful service from childhood", and terms of his gift, although somewhat brief, were in fact an inalienable personal right to freely enjoy fruits and profits of Royal de Messe on island was a major concession on part of king, which he enjoyed for more than half a century.
Over time, islanders came out strongly against Otto's dominance, as it essentially removed their direct relationship with King of England when they were lords. Of course, Edward could not have foreseen that Otto would live to be ninety, and islands were not taken until 1328 by Edward's grandson, Edward III, leading to longest period islands were out of direct control. English king.
Shortly after Otto's death, people of Jersey took care not to offend crown by directly attacking Otto's name in their petition in 1328, yet they thanked God that they were once again under king's rule, they "sought our attachments." ".
The locals seem to think it's profitable to be part of royal estate. The hostility to Otto's rule has been compared to fierce resistance of estates of Bordeaux to King Richard II's attempts to cede Duchy of Aquitaine to Lancastrians and Irish lords to his favorite, Robert de Vere.
Similarly, this echoes hostility expressed by Gascons towards appointment of Simon de Montfort as quasi-governor in duchy from 1248 to 1252. The government of Otto de Grandison confirmed this view. No wonder Otto was absent lord.
However, its officials were often accused of mismanagement, that is, grossly neglecting their administrative and judicial duties and, even worse, aggressively seeking to extract as much income from archipelago as possible. So much so that in 1302 Otto and his officers were called before King and Parliament to answer complaints that they had caused islanders "offenses, damages and discontents of every kind".
Despite numerous complaints from islanders and several commissions of inquiry sent to islands, there is little evidence that any sanctions were imposed on Otto and his officials, possibly due to Otto's proximity to crown and his interest in importance wider Plantagenet Case.
From fourteenth century onwards, kings of England themselves were increasingly eager to return islands directly to them, especially after Otto broke away from Plantagenet business and returned to Savoy after death of Edward I in 1307. This makes his status as a lord seem more "weird" and irresponsible.
In 1318, when it became known that Otto had died, it was falsely reported that islands had been given to Edward II's eldest son, Edward, but grant had to be ignored. Efforts were also made in 1320s to mitigate effects of Otto's careless and exploitative administration and to ensure islands were securely defended during Anglo-French hostilities. The king began to govern islands directly, appointing guards nominally subordinate to Otto but actually accountable to king.
In July 1326, Ralph Basset of Drayton and John de Roche were appointed guardians of islands because, as recorded in their notice of appointment, Otto "did not remain in these islands, nor were they ordered to maintain them properly." protected from French attacks", and Lieutenant Otto was called upon to provide them with funds from question of islands for their defense.
When Otto died in 1328 King of England immediately took possession of islands, unfavorable state of administration of islands after Otto's reign and fact that until fifteenth century no one was restored to possession makes it difficult to disagree with opinion that Otto's reign was " long-term oppression" and "an unsuccessful experiment" that had a bad effect on both Otto and royal family, was supported by King of England.