The issue posed by English possessions within the kingdom of France is an old one. Medieval, early modern, and contemporary historians have extensively studied it, if only because these possessions have given rise to some of the most widely known narratives in the history of both kingdoms during the Middle Ages, from the Battle of Hastings to the Hundred Years War. To these events, we must add figures who have sometimes attained mythical status, and whom writers and artists have seized upon: William the Conqueror, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Richard the Lionheart, John Lackland, Bertrand du Guesclin, the Black Prince, Henry V, Charles VII, Joan of Arc—so many incarnations of a conflict spanning from the mid-eleventh century to the mid-sixteenth century, despite a few decades of respite in the thirteenth century. Adding to this are battles—Bouvines, Poitiers, Agincourt, or the siege of Orléans—forming nearly all the elements necessary for the forging of national epics. Indeed, since the Grandes Chroniques de France, a mode of historical writing has existed that charts a path toward the state and the nation, making the clashes with overly intrusive English forces key elements in this ‘birth’.

It would be unfair to claim that the historiography of ‘English France’ is solely shaped by this teleological vision, but it has been strongly influenced by it. In his introduction to the major 1986 conference on ‘English France’, Robert-Henri Bautier noted that research on the topic was linked to ‘the fundamental issue of the genesis of the concept of nation’. That conference, which brought together French and British historians, can be considered the first to establish the idea of ‘English France’ not merely as a period within the Hundred Years War—one that would correspond to Christopher Allmand’s Lancastrian Normandy—but as a long-term historical reality. Robert-Henri Bautier advocated for a chronology extending from the establishment of an Anglo-Norman polity by William the Conqueror to the loss of Calais by the English in 1558, marking the end of nearly five centuries of trans-Channel connections.

We propose to revisit this issue—still as relevant and evocative as ever—within the framework of a conference in the ‘Medieval Normandy’ cycle, to be held in Cerisy-la-Salle in May 2026, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of that congress. However, we wish to approach it from a different perspective. The notion of ‘English France’ raises several difficulties. Beyond the assumption that the concepts of France and England are self-evident—even though they were not necessarily so, even in the fifteenth century—the term also pits nations, or at least states, against each other. In this regard, the conference will also align with discussions on the ‘birth of the modern state’ (J.-P. Genet). More problematic still—and this issue was already present in the 1986 volume—is the tendency of this notion to group together heterogeneous realities, to which historiography sometimes attributes an artificial coherence. In order to better reflect this complexity, we propose to move partially beyond the limits of this concept to explore a more plural reality: that of English Frances.

To encourage new interpretations, we aim to promote a comparative approach to the various forms of rule or administrative systems established by the English in France, within a long chronology spanning from the Treaty of Paris (1259) to the siege of Calais (1558). Here, ‘English Frances’ will be understood as all areas of the kingdom of France where, in one way or another, the king of England exercised authority (whether as count, duke, or king). Indeed, the men and women of these territories lived ‘between two kings’. This comparative approach will necessarily put to the test the coherence or unity of the concept of ‘English France’. Did the regimes established in these different spaces, and the experiences of their subjects, share enough commonalities to justify speaking of a singular ‘English France’? The eleventh and twelfth centuries have been the focus of recent studies (particularly concerning the Plantagenet era), and a Cerisy conference will explore the time of William the Conqueror in 2027 to mark the millennium of his birth, hence the decision to exclude this period from our discussion.

The proceedings of the 1986 congress reveal a significant contrast between the discourse of authorities or propaganda literature and the lived experiences, attitudes, choices, and motivations of men and women facing English presence or rule. We wish to prioritise a bottom-up perspective, grounded in the experiences of individuals confronted with the laws, structures, and administrations of ‘English France’ or engaging with them, without neglecting the theories or ideologies that underpinned or influenced them. This integrated approach builds upon a historiography that has continued to expand over the past three decades, particularly regarding Lancastrian Normandy, thanks in part to improved access to sources. This integrated, comparative, and interdisciplinary approach aims to provide a richer and more nuanced understanding of the English Frances—their underlying ambitions, successes, and failures—while also seeking to define new research trajectories. Comparisons with regions such as Anglophile Flanders or Burgundian France will also be considered, as political cultures and practices circulated beyond the strictly defined ‘English Frances’.

Proposals for papers may fall within one or more of the following thematic axes, though they are not exhaustive:

• Conceptualizing the ‘English Frances’. This task is both essential and complex. Does the concept of ‘English France’ refer to a homogeneous entity, or should we instead consider a diversity of forms of domination and presence that varied by region (Calais, Ponthieu, Normandy, and, of course, Aquitaine) and period, depending on the vicissitudes of war and the treaties that punctuated the Hundred Years’ War? To what extent did English sovereigns seek to integrate their territories into a broader political project, and to what extent did they endeavour to give it a legal reality? Notably, James Palmer once put forward the hypothesis of a ‘barbican strategy’ in the fourteenth century, whereby Calais, Brest, and Cherbourg were envisioned as continental outposts. More ambitiously, recent English historiography has interpreted the possessions of English monarchs in France, as well as their territorial acquisitions, as the dominions of a Plantagenet Empire (1259–1453) (P. Crook, D. Green, M. Ormrod). This bold hypothesis raises key questions about military and administrative organisation, structures and institutions, and the circulation of individuals and ideas within this Plantagenet Empire. Whether approached through regional case studies or broader comparisons, this issue remains central to our conference.

• Writing the ‘English Frances’. Extensive research has been conducted on chronicles and historical writing, particularly in the wake of B. Guenée (J. Delvaux, P. Courroux, A. Brix). However, these sources have rarely been examined through the lens of "English France." How do these sources address this issue? On what basis do their judgments rest? What vision of this domination is conveyed through these narratives, and how do the authors of these chronicles justify or critique this English presence? These considerations may also draw inspiration from studies on medieval conceptions of peace (J.-M. Moeglin, N. Offenstadt). A study of historiographical texts produced in the relevant regions may also be conducted (annals, monastic chronicles, etc.) in order to compare different ways of writing about and justifying changes in rule. Papers may also take a historiographical approach and examine how these medieval writings have influenced the works of modern and contemporary historians.

• Legitimising the ‘English Frances’. The perception of the ‘English Frances’, and more particularly of Normandy, has been profoundly shaped by the political discourse of contemporaries who sought to construct and disseminate representations of English rule. This question is not new. The Valois propaganda of the first half of the 15th century is a well-explored field of study (P.S. Lewis, N. Pons, C. Taylor), but it undoubtedly deserves further exploration and expansion. What strategies of legitimation and delegitimation were implemented by French and English rulers, their administrations, and their supporters? On what arguments were these strategies founded? How were they manifested in written texts—charters, letters, mandates—and in political actions—diplomacy, military campaigns, ceremonial entries? In this regard, a comparative approach across different regions may prove fruitful. Another equally interesting but less explored avenue is the reception of this political discourse by cities (what do municipal archives reveal?) and by individuals, as well as their responses.

• Building the ‘English Frances’. The ‘English Frances’, and in particular Lancastrian Normandy, are often portrayed in terms of opposition or resistance, as evidenced by the abundant historiography on Norman brigandage, popular revolts (C. Furon, V. Toureille), or Mont-Saint-Michel (D. Fiasson). Resistance and its various forms remain an essential topic, particularly due to the wealth of available documentation, which continues to offer new perspectives. Far from being separate from this question, the construction of power is shaped by crucial issues such as oaths, allegiance, and betrayal (C. Gauvard, S. Cuttler). These themes, which remain a source of fascination, continue to shed light on how ‘English Frances’ were formed and later dissolved. While the study of English structures and institutions, as well as the relationships between individuals and communities under English rule, is not a new research avenue—important work has been conducted on Aquitaine (M. Vale, G. Pépin) and Normandy (C.T. Allmand, A. Curry, R. Massey, P. Cailleux), though less so on Calais—we wish to encourage a perspective centred on the individual and their relationship with these structures. How does the individual, engaged in dialogue with institutions, structures of power, authorities, and their own community, contribute to the construction of the ‘English Frances’, whether in economic, religious, social, cultural, or political terms?

Rémy Ambühl, associate professor in medieval history, University of Southampton (UK) [ra4c09@soton.ac.uk]

Fabien Paquet, maître de conférences in Medieval History, University of Caen Normandie (CRAHAM and OUEN/MRSH) [fabien.paquet@unicaen.fr]

• Frédéric Boutoulle
• Anne Curry
• Laurence Jean-Marie
• Jean-Marie Moeglin
• Amicie Pélissié du Rausas
• Graeme Small