AH Challenge: Make Charles de Bourbon King Charles X of France in 1584

In this challenge you have to make Charles de Bourbon King Charles X of France in 1584. What it would take for Cardinal de Bourbon to become the "undisputed" King of France? Or is it ASB?
 
Don_Giorgio said:
In this challenge you have to make Charles de Bourbon King Charles X of France in 1584. What it would take for Cardinal de Bourbon to become the "undisputed" King of France? Or is it ASB?

Pretty easy in theory: have Henri III of France and Henri III of Navarra (OTL Henri IV) die for whatever reason. Since Charles, Cardinal of Bourbon, is second-in-line at the time, he will get the French throne. There are few chances he'd be uncontested because the Catholic Ligue had already recognised him as heir of Henri III because he was Catholic; as for the Protestants, he is senior to any Protestant Bourbon so they have no reasons to stop him from getting the French throne.
Now, in practice, I'm not sure this will be that easy to do given the explosive context of the time (French Religious Wars). Plus, I think the Cardinal of Bourbon was imprisonned by Henri III at one point.

Lastly, the Cardinal of Bourbon ruling as Charles X of France is only a way to stall for time: he is already 61 by 1584 and, as an Archbishop, unmarried. There are few chances he will have time to quit the chuch's ranks, marry and sire a son. And in this case, his heir is Prince of Condé who was Protestant. There may be another Catholic Bourbon down the road but I think the Ligue will still try to get rid of Salic Law to have a Catholic King crowned.
 
Lastly, the Cardinal of Bourbon ruling as Charles X of France is only a way to stall for time: he is already 61 by 1584 and, as an Archbishop, unmarried. There are few chances he will have time to quit the chuch's ranks, marry and sire a son. And in this case, his heir is Prince of Condé who was Protestant. There may be another Catholic Bourbon down the road but I think the Ligue will still try to get rid of Salic Law to have a Catholic King crowned.

I believe that only Conde was protestant. His younger brothers Conti, Soissons and I believe another Cardinal Bourbon, were all quite young when their father died and were raised Catholic by the deceased Prince of Conde's second wife. Of course I'm pretty sure they all still supported Henry of Navarre, between the family ties and the excesses of the Catholic League and Henry's timely conversion I don't think any of them ever chose to oppose him.

Of course Conde comes before them in succession but if we're killing off Henry of Navarre why not Conde as well, maybe another massacre. Then you have have the younger Conde brothers who are at least nominally Catholic to follow Charles X. Though I'm not sure what all of this accomplishes since France ended up with a Catholic king anyways. I guess maybe it would be a weaker monarchy?
 
There are few chances he will have time to quit the chuch's ranks, marry and sire a son. And in this case, his heir is Prince of Condé who was Protestant. There may be another Catholic Bourbon down the road but I think the Ligue will still try to get rid of Salic Law to have a Catholic King crowned.

The main question here is: Would the Pope (Gregory XIII at the time) granted him a dispensation in order to get marry and have an heir or we would have the same situation as in Portugal with an elderly unmarried Cardinal as King?

Also any chances that Catholic League would succeed in repealing Salic Law and inviting Isabelle (daughter of Philippe II of Spain) as the closest relative of Henry II?
 
Don_Giorgio said:
The main question here is: Would the Pope (Gregory XIII at the time) granted him a dispensation in order to get marry and have an heir or we would have the same situation as in Portugal with an elderly unmarried Cardinal as King?
Technically, considering you propose 1585, the Pope would rather be Sixtus V: Gregory XIII died on April 10, 1585. But I'm not sure wether or not the Pope granting a dispensation would count: Charles of Bourbon is already in his 60s and he died in 1590 OTL. He has few chances on siring an offspring in such a short amount of time.

These conditions could lead the Pope to not give Charles the dispensation he would need. Of course, there remains the question of the succession which will probably have a heavy influence on Sixtus' decision. The main heir would be Henri I, Prince of Condé, a Protestant: however, he died in 1588 OTL and left his wife pregnant with a son, the future Henri II of Condé, who was raised as a Catholic. After Condé are his younger brothers who are indeed Catholic like Vitruvius said: Francis of Conti, Archbishop Charles II of Rouen* and Charles of Soissons.

I guess if negotiations drag long enough and Henri I of Condé's death happens as per OTL, Sixtus would argue the dispensation isn't necesseraly needed: have Henri II of Condé raised by a Catholic (probably his uncle Francis of Conti) and you've got a Catholic on the French throne. He could also have Condé excluded from the succession in favor of his younger brothers.

*There was apparently Bourbon nepotism regarding the Archbishopric of Rouen. Charles I of Bourbon was Archbishop of Rouen and he was succeeded by his nephew Charles II of Bourbon, younger brother of Henri I of Condé. The latter was in turn succeeded by Charles III of Bourbon, a bastard son of Antoine de Bourbon and half-brother of OTL Henri IV of France...

Don_Giorgio said:
Also any chances that Catholic League would succeed in repealing Salic Law and inviting Isabelle (daughter of Philippe II of Spain) as the closest relative of Henry II?
That's a possibility but I wouldn't count on it. The Estates General were already reluctant to have the King of Spain choose the next King of France OTL... Plus, I don't think Sixtus V would be all that happy about Isabella winning the French throne: Sixtus hated Protestantism of course, but he viewed the growing power of Philip II of Spain as a threat. He probably would prefer Henri II of Lorraine over Isabella, despite Henri II's claim being weaker.

But even with that, I'm not sure that would work because the accession of Charles of Bourbon as King Charles X means Salic Law is still applied and that there was a dynastic change : the Valois made way for the Bourbon. This could weaken the need for abrogating Salic Law and thus the rights of the Valois-related candidates. Getting rid of Condé to pave the way for a Catholic Bourbon seems easier than abrogating Salic Law. Plus, OTL, the Catholic League calmed down after Henri IV's conversion: so they prbably just want a Catholic King, be it Bourbon or not.

Vitruvius said:
Though I'm not sure what all of this accomplishes since France ended up with a Catholic king anyways. I guess maybe it would be a weaker monarchy?
Maybe. I think this scenario has chances of prolongating the Religious War for a bit, which would leave France a bit weaker than OTL. It has also chances of butterflying the Edict of Nantes: Protestantism would not be allowed in those conditions. Most of the Bourbons supported OTL Henri IV but I'm not sure they would go as far as he went regarding Protestantism.
 
But even with that, I'm not sure that would work because the accession of Charles of Bourbon as King Charles X means Salic Law is still applied and that there was a dynastic change : the Valois made way for the Bourbon. This could weaken the need for abrogating Salic Law and thus the rights of the Valois-related candidates. Getting rid of Condé to pave the way for a Catholic Bourbon seems easier than abrogating Salic Law. Plus, OTL, the Catholic League calmed down after Henri IV's conversion: so they prbably just want a Catholic King, be it Bourbon or not.

I tend to agree. If you abrogate salic law after the throne has passed to the Bourbons wouldn't that still exclude the Valois women because their family is no longer dynastic? I mean you can't do it retroactively can you? So without Salic Law Charles X's successors would be male Bourbons followed by female Bourbons. Though I believe the only female Bourbon that produced heirs was Marguerite, wife of the Duke of Nevers. Or the as yet unmarried Catherine who was in any case a protestant. So that maneuver doesn't gain much.

In reference to Henry II of Lorraine, could salic law be set aside in such a way that the throne can be inherited through a woman, but not by a woman? Because that would mean Henry could claim France as son of Claude of Valois. But the older Elisabeth Valois has no sons, only unmarried daughters. So could that pretext be used to trump the claim of Isabella of Spain? Of course this assumes the Cardinal of Bourbon never succeeds and all the other Bourbons are deemed unacceptable for some reason.

And good point about the Edict of Nantes. I wasn't really thinking in those terms, I guess I had dynastic tunnel vision or something.
 
Top