alternatehistory.com
1326-7: France
1326-7: PHILIP OF VALOIS TAKES THE HELM, AND DOESN'T
"Historians have been unkind to Philip and his regency, largely at the prompting of his harshest contemporary critic--King John himself. 'A very poor fellow in most matters' sniffs John in one letter to his son-in-law... 'and utterly undeserving of the great trust that was vested in him.' 'It is no wonder that [[John of Valois]] is so unworthy a man, and so ruled by women, for his father was the same,' he notes in another one. 'I am very ill-served by my family, for those problems of mine that do not stem from my cousins, they stem from my brother, Philip of Valois, and his wretched son,' he supposedly said to Jean Froissart[1], a theme on which he later enlarged...
" 'I hold that it is the greatest ill that has been done to this kingdom, that we had Gascony in the palms of our hands, and we returned all but a portion of it, all at the insistence of my brother, who trusted in the lying tongues and endless flattery of the English. It was a wicked and a wrongful thing he did then, and we have suffered for it, these past forty years.' So he said--or so Froissart has him say to the Duke of Normandy in one of the most-quoted passages in the Chronicles. Too many people take the King of France at his words. There was, after all, little chance that Philip, a powerful feudal magnate in his own right, would contribute to the utter defeat of one of his fellows even (or perhaps especially not) if that fellow was the King of England, anymore than his predecessors would have.
"Indeed, Philip's handling of the peace negotiations of the War of Saint-Sardos were generally well-praised at the time, as was his finally settling certain money matters of the Queen Mother's that both his father and Philip of Poitiers had allowed to drag on. Where Philip the Tall and Charles of Valois had both had a worrying tendency to 'play the king', Philip of Valois was humble, considerate and thoughtful, a man who listened to the opinions of others--perhaps sometimes a bit too much.
"It is most likely the source of John's disdain--aside from his notable troubles with Philip's son--was largely based on one incident, one of the most famed in history. In early 1327, Edward, Prince of Wales arrived to pay his homage as was agreed, in what was to be his first meeting with his cousin. The young Prince arrived to pay his homage bearing a sword and with a helmet upon his head[2]. While Philip prepared to ignore this breach of custom, John was livid, and demanded that Edward remove the offending items. The Prince refused. John then told Philip that he should order the Prince of Wales seized for this--Philips responded by declaring that he would not do this, because Edward was a prince, the son of a king, and John's own near kin, and if John were to make such orders when he grew to be a man for such petty reasons, he would lose honor in the eyes of all men. John sullenly went along with the Regent's response, and accepted Edward's homage, albeit with notably bad grace (which appears to have allowed the young Prince to escape the entire matter of fealty). However, it is clear from John's own words on various occasions, he never forgot this incident--the first notable occurrence to show John's famously imperious personality..."
The Blood Royal: A History of the House of Valois, by Robert Gregory (1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Famed historian, and incorrigible medieval gossip hound and celebrity hanger-on. Just imagine this version of him and John schmoozing over wine. It will cheer you up.
[2] This is a major etiquette breach in these matters. And one that Edward did IOTL when he paid homage to Philip.
"Historians have been unkind to Philip and his regency, largely at the prompting of his harshest contemporary critic--King John himself. 'A very poor fellow in most matters' sniffs John in one letter to his son-in-law... 'and utterly undeserving of the great trust that was vested in him.' 'It is no wonder that [[John of Valois]] is so unworthy a man, and so ruled by women, for his father was the same,' he notes in another one. 'I am very ill-served by my family, for those problems of mine that do not stem from my cousins, they stem from my brother, Philip of Valois, and his wretched son,' he supposedly said to Jean Froissart[1], a theme on which he later enlarged...
" 'I hold that it is the greatest ill that has been done to this kingdom, that we had Gascony in the palms of our hands, and we returned all but a portion of it, all at the insistence of my brother, who trusted in the lying tongues and endless flattery of the English. It was a wicked and a wrongful thing he did then, and we have suffered for it, these past forty years.' So he said--or so Froissart has him say to the Duke of Normandy in one of the most-quoted passages in the Chronicles. Too many people take the King of France at his words. There was, after all, little chance that Philip, a powerful feudal magnate in his own right, would contribute to the utter defeat of one of his fellows even (or perhaps especially not) if that fellow was the King of England, anymore than his predecessors would have.
"Indeed, Philip's handling of the peace negotiations of the War of Saint-Sardos were generally well-praised at the time, as was his finally settling certain money matters of the Queen Mother's that both his father and Philip of Poitiers had allowed to drag on. Where Philip the Tall and Charles of Valois had both had a worrying tendency to 'play the king', Philip of Valois was humble, considerate and thoughtful, a man who listened to the opinions of others--perhaps sometimes a bit too much.
"It is most likely the source of John's disdain--aside from his notable troubles with Philip's son--was largely based on one incident, one of the most famed in history. In early 1327, Edward, Prince of Wales arrived to pay his homage as was agreed, in what was to be his first meeting with his cousin. The young Prince arrived to pay his homage bearing a sword and with a helmet upon his head[2]. While Philip prepared to ignore this breach of custom, John was livid, and demanded that Edward remove the offending items. The Prince refused. John then told Philip that he should order the Prince of Wales seized for this--Philips responded by declaring that he would not do this, because Edward was a prince, the son of a king, and John's own near kin, and if John were to make such orders when he grew to be a man for such petty reasons, he would lose honor in the eyes of all men. John sullenly went along with the Regent's response, and accepted Edward's homage, albeit with notably bad grace (which appears to have allowed the young Prince to escape the entire matter of fealty). However, it is clear from John's own words on various occasions, he never forgot this incident--the first notable occurrence to show John's famously imperious personality..."
The Blood Royal: A History of the House of Valois, by Robert Gregory (1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Famed historian, and incorrigible medieval gossip hound and celebrity hanger-on. Just imagine this version of him and John schmoozing over wine. It will cheer you up.
[2] This is a major etiquette breach in these matters. And one that Edward did IOTL when he paid homage to Philip.
- Space Oddity
- Word Count: 670