If the Church starts going on again about female inheritance of Salique land, watch out.
(Should have previewed. Giles’s post wasn’t there when I first read the thread.)
In fact, the English claim to the French crown was almost a century old by then, and was the ostensible reason for Henry’s invasion (along with various other flareups of the Hundred Years’ War).
The claim traces back to Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France and mother of Edward III of England. When Charles IV of France (last remaining son of Philip IV) died in 1328, Edward III was next in line for the French crown according to English rules of succession. The French rejected this line of succession as based on female descent (and, of course, because they didn’t want to be ruled by the King of England), and put Philip VI (nephew of Philip IV) on the throne.
I’d probably put this one in the same category as the US plan to invade Canada in the 1920’s and 30’s. Governments float proposals, conduct discussions, form commitees and draw up plans to meet all sorts of contingencies. Most of this is just talk, and the decision makers know full well that these proposals aren’t really going to go anywhere. But the written historical record only reflects what’s said out loud, so it can look like an idea was considered with much more seriousness than it really was.
It was also a measure of French PM Guy Mollet’s desperation and/or delusion. If it had gotten out that he’d seriously proposed it, I suspect he’d soon be out on his ear - and maybe even put in a padded cell.
Well, not really. France’s great strategic lesson of the past 140 years is that it lacks the ability to act independently - which is detrimental to its self-image of La Gloire France. So, in order to (at least attempt to) maintain its status as a great power, capable of independent action and global influence, France’s response has been to attempt to yoke the power of other nations to its goal. The most obvious example has been the European Union, which originally was envisioned as the Germans providing the motor, while France steered.
The same would be true of a French-British union. I don’t have census and GDP figures at hand for 1956 (and I don’t feel like searching for them), but IIRC France would have been the predominant portion of such a union in both areas.
I don’t think it would have worked - the political culture of the two nations would have been too alien to each other. But it is not all that surprising that Guy Mollet proposed it.
Sua
Nor has France completely abandoned the idea of union with another nation in order to enhance its influence. As recently as 2003, France was seriously discussing “union” with Germany. Not a full union, but closer cooperation and, most importantly, a common defense and foreign policy.
Sua
That’s exactly what I was thinking of. I remember reading about this in Churchill’s six-volume history of WWII. The idea was that if France ended up being conquered by the Nazis, they would still be able to fight alongside the British, IIRC.
Speaking of France being conquered by the Nazis…
Not in Summer '39 (when there was no formal war), but in May 1940, an offer to M. Reynaud when things were collapsing fast.
I think the real question is, how does someone fall “faint onto his feet?” Was he previously unfaint on his levitation machine?
I’m not so sure about that, France was a bit of a basket case at the time.
As was Britain.