Henry the II Jousting Accident

TudorQueen · Jul 4, 2015

In 1559, Henry the II of France was involved in a horrible jousting accident which claimed his life due to his physicians not being able to cure the infection which ensued. Imagine that Henry the II had survived the injury and the infection, or even if the accident had never occurred at all. What impact would this have had on the future of France?

LSCatilina · Jul 4, 2015

The Valois-Angoulême administrative, fiscal and political policies went already toward not only the continuation of late medieval bureaucratisation, but from a monarchisation of the kingdom of France.

You may not have butterflied Wars of Religion (it means that the causal chain of event that led to them may be not broken) but at least significantly lowered their impact, and eventually hastened French centralisation policies by one century.

That said, Protestantism in France would be still likely repressed and you'd still end with conflicts: Henri II already began such campaign, which could make an action against Habsburgs not written off, but lowered until tensions with Bourbons and Bourbons-Condé meet an end; to say nothing of wider resistances against both centralising and religious policies.

Guise's rise may be better held in check by a longer living Henri II, which may lower the nobiliar and popular resentment that already existed in France against them, and critically could prevent them to create a private political faction opposed to Protestants but to royal's authority alike.

A stronger Valois-Angoulême throne could really have important consequences, save political stability without two short reigns of kings too young to really rule.
Scotland would probably still left the French sphere of influence unless a strole of luck but that would mean an anti-Elizabethan France, and far less focused on Habsburgs (while a more stable France may not be to please Spanish or Imperial policies, it could be seen as an interesting anti-Protestant partner)

Regardless, an earlier focus on American colonisation may appear ITTL (In This TimeLine), either in South America or in North America (earlier New France?)

Butterflies, really, would be important.

Yorel · Jul 4, 2015

Henri II was 40 when he was accidentally killed. Given the lifespan of his father François I (52) and sister Marguerite (51), we can expect at least to see Henri II rule France for at least another decade thus up to around 1570, potentially 1580 if he is lucky.

I'm not sure OTL François II would become King as he was of very poor health: I wouldn't be surprised if he still died in 1560 as per OTL. That said, maybe without the stress of a regency and with a more peaceful situation, he could live longer. If so, that raises the question of his potential offspring with Mary Stuart, assuming François II wasn't sterile as is sometimes suspected.

If not François II, we're left with Charles IX as Henri II's heir in this case. Charles was also said to have poor physical health, but it's apparently the trauma of the Saint Barthélémy that played a part in his decline in 1573-1574: Henri II's survival as high chances of butterflying the massacre so Charles would be likely to live longer. How long is the question of course but mediocre physical health doesn't mean you can't live to a respectable age. I wonder if Charles would still end up marrying Elizabeth of Austria but I don't see why Henri II would be opposed to such a match. Remains thus to be seen if Charles and Elisabeth could have a son.

And of course, there are still two younger sons after them: OTL Henri III and François d'Alençon. OTL Henri III could still end up becoming King of France depending on how his elder brother fair, otherwise he'll just be Duke of Anjou unless he is still proposed for the Polish throne in 1573. His life will however be quite different depending on the butterflies. And I don't think there is a need to mention how François d'Alençon's life could be altered.

Assuming the Valois still fail to have sons (it's still possible), we still have the Bourbon to succeed the throne but likely with a very different OTL Henri IV. For one thing, Antoine de Bourbon has high chances of living past 1562 (he was killed during the Wars of Religion) and thus influence the life of his son more.

LSCatilina said:
You may not have butterflied Wars of Religion (it means that the causal chain of event that led to them may be not broken) but at least significantly lowered their impact, and eventually hastened French centralisation policies by one century.

I'd say the increase of centralisation would depend on how violent TTL Wars of Religion would turn out. Henri II's survival gets rid of the regencies and ensures stronger royal power, but that doesn't mean we couldn't get a strong Protestant uprising. Especially with a King that is less willing to compromise. I doubt it would be the mess it was OTL but it could still be pretty serious.

Curt Jester · Jul 4, 2015

Well, he may outlive his son Francis, meaning no Queen Mary of France. Maybe she goes to Scotland earlier ITTL? That'd be interesting.

Also, what's with the thread spam of one liners? I feel the ghost of
LeopoldPhilippe lurking about.

LSCatilina · Jul 4, 2015

Yorel said:
If so, that raises the question of his potential offspring with Mary Stuart, assuming François II wasn't sterile as is sometimes suspected.

To be frank, the number of "suspected to be sterile" king would have sky-rocketed if all died as young as he did : don't forget that kings such as Louis XVI were suspected being so, and eventually prooved that they weren't.

Assuming the Valois still fail to have sons (it's still possible),

A bit unlikely to me : IOTL they failed to produce legitimate sons and that was mainly the cause of a really unstable France, with no much time to focus on legal reproduction.

With four sons, whom three produced illegitimate offspring, and a stabler situation, it would be a bit astonishing that the same genealogical situation would happen.

I'd say the increase of centralisation would depend on how violent TTL Wars of Religion would turn out.

I'm not sure you could have a Wars of Religion, comparable to IOTL. That a violent Protestant uprising would eventually come out is likely, but without the constitution of really strong factions as IOTL (and especially without Elizabethan or Habsburg's meddling without real opposition), it might be more of a one-sided conflict.

It could be serious, especially with Protestant Bourbons less encline to compromise as they did with Henri III, but could overall be more favourable to Valois-Angoulême

Curt Jester said:
Well, he may outlive his son Francis, meaning no Queen Mary of France. Maybe she goes to Scotland earlier ITTL? That'd be interesting.

Well, Charles IX wasn't much younger than his brother, and while Mary Stuart would have 8 years more than Charles, if Henri II still focues on Scotland, you'd may see him more or less imposing a new marriage (that would, arguably, piss a lot Scotland).

Yorel · Jul 5, 2015

LSCatilina said:
To be frank, the number of "suspected to be sterile" king would have sky-rocketed if all died as young as he did : don't forget that kings such as Louis XVI were suspected being so, and eventually prooved that they weren't.

True. But I seem to recall that there were talks about him having problem wit his testicles among his many other health problems. Then again, François II and Marie Stuart were married at a young age and François died not long after, so it could just be nasty rumors.

LSCatilina said:
A bit unlikely to me : IOTL they failed to produce legitimate sons and that was mainly the cause of a really unstable France, with no much time to focus on legal reproduction.

With four sons, whom three produced illegitimate offspring, and a stabler situation, it would be a bit astonishing that the same genealogical situation would happen.

Well, frankly, the Valois had a real stroke of bad luck in their last forty years. Henri II got killed accidently by the captain of his guard in a jousting tournament. François II was a sickly King who barely stayed on a throne, leaving his underaged brother Charles IX to rule. Said Charles IX had to face the first Four Wars of Religion and apparently died because of the stress caused by the Saint Barthélémy. Henri III fell in love and married a sterile woman, saw his youngest brother die of Tuberculosis leaving him with a Protestant cousin as his heir, faced the opposition from the Ligue as a result and died assassinated by Jacques Clement in 1589. I'm not sure many would have pictured that catastrophic chain of events.

I'll admit it's a bit of stretch given as you said that we have four sons and a more stable situation. It's also likely that OTL Henri III (and maybe Charles IX too depending on the conditions) would have a different bride while François d'Alençon would end up marrying early in his life. So chances that one of the four brothers would end up having a legitimate son. Still, I'm never completely ruling out the "Catastrophic" scenario.

LSCatilina said:
I'm not sure you could have a Wars of Religion, comparable to IOTL. That a violent Protestant uprising would eventually come out is likely, but without the constitution of really strong factions as IOTL (and especially without Elizabethan or Habsburg's meddling without real opposition), it might be more of a one-sided conflict.

It could be serious, especially with Protestant Bourbons less encline to compromise as they did with Henri III, but could overall be more favourable to Valois-Angoulême

All will depend on how strong both factions were before Henri II's OTL death and how they will evolve under his rule with his survival. Also, we have to account that we had pretty high ranking figures on the Protestant sides with several Princes du Sang as well as prestigious families. I wouldn't also completely rule out Elizabethan or Habsurg meddling: the first because of the Scottish question, the second because of traditionnal Habsburg-Valois rivalry. Probably less involvement of the two than they were OTL but I'd still take them into account.

I agree the conflict would probably be more like a révolte des Grands than OTL Wars of Religion here, which is probably more favorable to the French monarchy overall. But depending on the scale of the révolte, we won't have the same increase in royal power.

Londinium · Jul 5, 2015

Actually, I think the Queen of Scots would have likely STAYED in France had Henry II lived because she considered him to be her de facto father and it was only with his death and the early death of her husband that she had no one to keep her from Catherine de Medici's scorn. She really had no desire to return to Scotland and only viewed it as an income source and a stepping stone to ruling England . It's also possible that Henry may have attempted to marry her off to one or more of Francis's younger brothers had Francis died on schedule but it seems that the all of Henry's sons by Catherine were sterile so it's likely Mary would have ended her days as a childless widow and the direct Stewart line would have ended with her [which also means that both the Scottish and English successions would have been much murkier].

DracoLazarus · Jul 5, 2015

Londinium said:
it seems that the all of Henry's sons by Catherine were sterile

Charles IX had an illegitimate son, which became Duke of Angoulème. Your point is invalid.

Gonzaga · Jul 5, 2015

DracoLazarus said:
Charles IX had an illegitimate son, which became Duke of Angoulème. Your point is invalid.

He even had a legitimate daughter. If he had decided to spend more time with his wife instead of his mistress, and if he had kept his health after the Massacre of St. Bartholomew there would be great chances that he could have a male heir.

Londinium · Jul 5, 2015

Oops! Didn't remember those kids. Wonder if they got presents from their grandmother even if they couldn't save the Valoises?

Considering ALL the trouble over Henry VIII of England's marriage to his older brother's widow the Church had had to endure just a few decades before, that would have made the Queen of Scots's union with one of Francis's younger brothers somewhat unlikely to have been greenlighted despite what she and Henry II may have wanted. Still, I think she likely would have remained in France as long as she had the aegis of Henry II's protection but if lived an extra ten years, she herself may wound up outliving her own fertility regardless of any subsequent unions and thus, the Stewarts would have been no more.

LSCatilina · Jul 6, 2015

Yorel said:
True. But I seem to recall that there were talks about him having problem wit his testicles among his many other health problems. Then again, François II and Marie Stuart were married at a young age and François died not long after, so it could just be nasty rumors.

Maybe not entierly nasty rumors about his "constipated testicles" (while the chroniclers is hardly a model of objectivness), but the prince seems to have been quite impressionnable in conjuction of a poor wealth, and reproducing with Mary Stuart while being onto direct medical and court watch may not have helped him critically in the case of a testicle malformation (Cryptorchidis isn't always sterilous).

I'm not sure many would have pictured that catastrophic chain of events.

Well, Henri III did, hence why he decided that "f**k that" and almost litteraly beheaded the Ligue.

All will depend on how strong both factions were before Henri II's OTL death and how they will evolve under his rule with his survival.

De Guise depended more, originally, of Henri II's support, and grew more independent as Francis II let his uncle's influence grow as De Guise acted as a bicephal "Prime Minister" of sort.

ITTL I'd expect the Catholic party to be more divided with De Guise, Montmorency as possibly a good part of IOTL "malcontents", and a stronger Valois power.

Londinium said:
Actually, I think the Queen of Scots would have likely STAYED in France had Henry II lived because she considered him to be her de facto father and it was only with his death and the early death of her husband that she had no one to keep her from Catherine de Medici's scorn.

Doing so would have definitely made her rule as Queen of Scotland meeting a quick end : Scottish nobles and Parliment were growing so tired of french tutelage that they wouldn't have accepted that.

As for Catherine de Medicis' scorn, I keep checking for this but I think it's again another part of the romanticist black legend on her : Mary Stuart was said to be ruling together France and Scotland with Francis II, and in the absence of another strong figure, could have be a problem during Charles IX's regency.

While a living Henri II wouldn't have too much issues with his son's widow (even possibly marrying her to Charles, if he really wanted to focus on Scotland), she was eventually a political problem.

Not that even if Catherine welcomed her, Mary would have remained in France. Doing so would have been, on a really short prospect, lossing her Scottish throne.

Queen of Scots's union with one of Francis's younger brothers somewhat unlikely to have been greenlighted despite what she and Henry II may have wanted.

The problem with Henry VIII's marriages didn't really concerned his first one : the pope was quite compliant removing the canonical issues, giving a dispense of virginity for Catherine.

Giving that, furthermore, the union wasn't consommated between Francis and Mary (as it was argued for Catherine) you really had less grounds to canonically prevent such an union.

The problems in such marriage would have been basically political, not canonical.