French Succession

Suppose that after he had a son, Louis VII demands all his dukes recognize male-preference primogeniture (which means a daughter of a sonless king takes precedent over salic hiers of the sonless king) for the Kingdom and the royal demesne.

Fast forward to the time of the hundred years war. The OTL Plantagenets in practice were willing to not claim the throne as long as their lands in Aquitaine was left alone and Normandy (taken from John) was returned.

Would the Valois take seriously the proclamation made decades ago by a long dead king, which was attended by every French duke (for the time) who agreed to it and are also long dead? Would any of the French nobility (most of whoam are not even decented from the dukes who made the promise) take it seriously? In fact, I don't think such a proclamation by Louis would have any butterflies into the HYW or anything other than a history textbook footnote.
 
In before LSCatilina...
A) At the time of Louis VII there were no clear cut succession rules only precedence - which generally meant nearest male relative of age
B) If he has a son why would he bring up inheritance via the female line in the first place? That would undermine his son's authority!
 
In before LSCatilina...
A) At the time of Louis VII there were no clear cut succession rules only precedence - which generally meant nearest male relative of age

Yeah, I'm aware of this. That's why this POD is him simply declaring the rule. Also, his son takes precedent over his daughters, so no it doesn't undermine his son's authority. Absolute primogeniture would.
 
Suppose that after he had a son, Louis VII demands all his dukes recognize male-preference primogeniture (which means a daughter of a sonless king takes precedent over salic hiers of the sonless king) for the Kingdom and the royal demesne.
Succession laws aren't really a thing before the Late Middle Ages, at best. What really existed was a mix of historical precedents (more undisputed succession from father to son, more likely the precedent is made an unformal rule), and political convenience (in case of a succession dispute, political situation can lean one way, especially if supported by precedent).
You had no such thing as "absolute primogeniture", "male primogeniture", "gavelkind", etc. These are historiographical conceptions without real contemporary formal and mental existence then.

Arguably some cultural and social concerns mattered as well, notably the important military role of French kings in this case.

As for the historical succession in France, it basically boiled down to "since generations, a son succeeded his father", and was considered then as regular : to change that you'd need Louis VII having only (-(surviving) daughters for the matter to be really debated and the result would depend a lot from the aformentioned mix of precedence, political concerns, and cultural matters.

Of course, it's likely to butterfly away the HYW, because it would impact a lot on inner politics, matrimonial diplomacy of Capetians, etc.

In before LSCatilina...
You get to win...For now.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm aware of this. That's why this POD is him simply declaring the rule. Also, his son takes precedent over his daughters, so no it doesn't undermine his son's authority. Absolute primogeniture would.
At this time officially putting his daughter into the succession puts his son at risk if her husband is ambitious.
Only if his son is childless but his daughter has sons would he do so.
Add in the fact that there wasn't a precedent for putting elder daughters before younger ones and Louis has several daughters from several marriages...
The point is that it took a succession crisis to form a precedent.
 
Succession laws aren't really a thing before the Late Middle Ages, at best. What really existed was a mix of historical precedents (more undisputed succession from father to son, more likely the precedent is made an unformal rule), and political convenience (in case of a succession dispute, political situation can lean one way, especially if supported by precedent).
You had no such thing as "absolute primogeniture", "male primogeniture", "gavelkind", etc. These are historiographical conceptions without real contemporary formal and mental existence then.

OK, so say if Louis VII makes that declaration and the Dukes all swear to obey it...

fast forward some decades

Now for every king since Hugh Capet, the next king was a close male relative, usually the son of the previous king. "since generations, a son succeeded his father." Now the throne is vacant. Precedent suggests going to the Valois. Louis VII's declaration was "Go to the oldest son. If he's dead his oldest son (defined recursively until no descendants). If the oldest son is dead with no descendants, go to next son. In other words, descendants 'take place' of dead parents. And if those run out, go to the oldest daughter. And if we run out of my descendants, I don't care whose king anymore." This set of instructions is male preference primogeniture without using that term because... well that term doesn't exist.

When the Valois succession comes up... I don't think anyone cares about Louis making that declaration. I don't think the Valois claim is any weaker and I don't think the HYW is butterflied. Why would a long dead king's declaration to try to formalize succession be taken into account? Remember, almost all the French nobles are not descended from the Dukes of the 1100s.

The succession is not codified. The last king died without descendants. I don't think TTL Louis VII's statement changes anything. I posted this to wonder... well does it change anything?
 
OK, so say if Louis VII makes that declaration and the Dukes all swear to obey it...
But why would it do so? It fits no social or institutional reality of the time : there would be litterally no reason for Louis VII to do so out of blue, even assuming that royal act could force the matter (long story short, they couldn't being essentially about public and aministrative matters).

When Philippe II doesn't crown his son as designated king, it's not because he made an act or an institutional decision, but because he simply didn't and that it was accepted. For Louis VII's succession to include a potential feminine inheritence, you'd need the case to appear.

It would be as assuming, comparison not being reason, that Colonial American leaders makes a declaration on universal suffrage in the XVIIIth fast-forwards to George W. Bush not being re-elected.

fast forward some decades
Now for every king since Hugh Capet, the next king was a close male relative, usually the son of the previous king.
It was systematically the case, contrary to many neighbouring dynasties. There was not a king of France until the 1328 that wasn't the previous king's son : hence why the patrilinear and male succession became so entranched as for centuries, there was no alternative needed.

Even if Louis VII made a statement (which, again, would have little to none institutional influence) it would be ignored as kings doesn't get to make the rules of succession, especially litterally centuries in advance.
 
It was systematically the case, contrary to many neighbouring dynasties. There was not a king of France until the 1328 that wasn't the previous king's son : hence why the patrilinear and male succession became so entranched as for centuries, there was no alternative needed.

Even if Louis VII made a statement (which, again, would have little to none institutional influence) it would be ignored as kings doesn't get to make the rules of succession, especially litterally centuries in advance.

So as I suspected, the POD does absolutely nothing other than create a history textbook note. Kings usually don't make succession. There is either precedent or formal ones.

Actually Richard I changed heirs from Arthur to John just by telling his earls and counts to accept it, but I think this is the exception.
 
It was systematically the case, contrary to many neighbouring dynasties. There was not a king of France until the 1328 that wasn't the previous king's son : hence why the patrilinear and male succession became so entranched as for centuries, there was no alternative needed.

Good old Miracle capétien. Twelve generations running!
 
Actually Richard I changed heirs from Arthur to John just by telling his earls and counts to accept it, but I think this is the exception.

He made a direct ruling on a specific case which he had to make go through his barons and which didn't stick, just like Henry I tried for Matilda with... less than stellar results. The point being that kings in the 12th century don't draw legislation on potential future situation. They make ad hoc provisions for a current problem needing solving. Institution building with a look for the future is more something for Philippe IV's légistes or more appropriately for people like Jean Bodin in the 16th century.
 
Actually Richard I changed heirs from Arthur to John just by telling his earls and counts to accept it, but I think this is the exception.
Richard I changed opinions on succession as I change socks : his occitan nickname was "Oc e No" (Yes and No) for a reason.
The problem there were both the absence of a clear succession line in Anglo-Norman history since the Anarchy, and that Richard was ruling over a collection of various feudal demesnes, each with its own nobility and own customs.

Trying to assert a clear enough inheritence was understable, but it was more or less ignored : if John didn't (as he probably did) killed or let Arthur dies, it would have led to a really difficult succession.

Note that I didn't said that asserting an heir by will couldn't happen : Philippe II did so for Louis VII even if he didn't made him a junior king. But it's more of a legal technicality in France, and more of a political gesture for Richard as he had to deal with the succession of a really mosaicized (institutionally and customally wise) ensemble.
 
OK it's true Anglo-Norman succession was a bit... erratic. Heck, William to Henry was erratic too! And Richard I did changed opinions on succession as people change socks. My point was that it was a time a king chose his successor, although that was pretty much the exception not the rule.

When the Valois come to ascend in TTL, I guess no one cares about what a king said on succession if it wasn't the previous king.
 
OK it's true Anglo-Norman succession was a bit... erratic. Heck, William to Henry was erratic too!
Which is the exact point : while the Capetian succession was particularily smooth, Anglo-Norman was often disputed and made even more complex as it was tied with the resolution of Norman, Angevin, Aquitain and Breton succession all with their own customs and expectations.

From one hand, no settlement on succession was needed to begin with, and from the other any tentative couldn't do much in the case of succession crisis with large ramifications way until the Late Middle-Ages (Lancaster takeover, War of the Roses) for what mattered the dynastical issues.
The throne of England since Normans was always more a dynastical hot seat compared to French throne.

My point was that it was a time a king chose his successor, although that was pretty much the exception not the rule.
He did less choose his successor (that he balanced between Arthur and John point that it was less than clear) than trying to settle between two equally legitimate choices to prevent a succession crisis. That he wasn't successful (and that the death of Arthur only definitely settled the matter) does shoes that he couldn't choose the successor : would have he lived longer without a son, then possibly his will would have reinforced Arthur's claims, but I'm doubful it would have decided the matter contrary to general nobiliar assent.

When the Valois come to ascend in TTL, I guess no one cares about what a king said on succession if it wasn't the previous king.
Frankly, if what the previous king said was not acceptable, it would have been ignored : the exemple of Louis XIV's will, being largely ignored by the Parliment comes in mind. it's of course a much later, and not entierly relevant exemple : but I wanted to point that even in a post-feudal state, the will of the deceased king would be ignored if going against what was mentioned in previous posts.
 
for what mattered the dynastical issues

Total tangent: I've seen you using that phrasing a few times and I'm not sure which French expression you're translating there.

the exemple of Louis XIV's will, being largely ignored by the Parliment comes in mind.

This is a very good example of Louis XIV doing incredible damage down the line. True, the Régent had some weird ideas concerning polysynodie but he dropped them after a while, and the legacy of having to giving power to the Parlement to quash the will of a king resonated when it came time for another young king, Louis XVI, to assert his power or not. And when you consider the impact of the Fronde on Louis XIV, you have to wonder what made him think than creating a new generation of légitimés like all the Vendômes and other Beauforts would bring to the country.
 
There was not a king of France until the 1328 that wasn't the previous king's son
Slight correction/expansion I'll be making there: from Robert II in 996 (his father Hugh Capet was technically elected to the throne) to Louis X in 1314, every King of France was the son of the previous one. But when Louis X died in 1316, he only left behind a pregnant wife and a four year old daughter. That's technically the first time the question of the succession arose. It eventually resulted in a Regency led by Louis X's younger brother Philippe de Poitiers until Clementia of Hungary (Louis X's widow) gave birth to John I the Posthumous. But then John I died five days after his birth.

After John I's death, the matter of the succession was disputed between Louis X's four year old daughter, Joan of Navarra, and his brother Philippe de Poitiers. Long story short, Joan was ruled out for being too young, for being a girl (thus over concerns over who her husband would be) and possibly for doubts on her legitimacy (her mother, Margaret of Burgundy was condemend for adultery in the famous Tower of Nesle scandal) though that last one weighed less than it's made out to be in the grand scheme of things. As a result of Joan's removal, Philippe de Poitiers became King Philippe V of France.

Fast forward to 1322 and Philippe V is dead too, without a surviving son. Unlike Louis X though, Philippe V's eldest daughter, Joan, was 14 years old and already wedded to Duke Eudes IV of Burgundy: so in theory, she could have clamied the throne. However, going by the precedent established in 1316, she was ruled out as a possible successor and thus the crown went to her uncle Charles, the youngest son of Philippe IV and the last surviving brother of Louis X and Philippe V, who became Charles IV.

We then come to the situation in 1328: Charles IV is dead too, without a son at the time of his death. He does leave behind a pregnant wife like Louis X, which leads to a Regency led by Philippe of Valois until she gives birth: this time however, the baby turns out to be a girl. We thus come to a situation where the Direct Capetians are dead in the male line and thus where the question of the succession needs to be taken. There were actually four major candidates considered at the time, even if only two are well-remembered:
  • Philippe of Evreux, the husband of Joan of Navarra, daughter of Louis X. Also, he is the son of Louis of Evreux, the younger brother to Philippe IV and Charles of Valois.
  • Philippe of Burgundy, the five-year old (at the time) son of Eudes IV of Burgundy and his wife Joan, daughter of Philippe V.
  • Edward III of England, who was the son of Isabelle of France, daughter of Philippe IV and sister to both Louis X, Philippe V and Charles IV.
  • Philippe of Valois, nephew of Philippe IV, regent of the Kingdom at the time and the closest heir through the male line, being the son of Charles of Valois, the eldest of Philippe IV's younger brothers.
Note that all the candidates considered are men, probably as a result of the precedents established in 1316 and 1322 where women were ruled out in favor of men. Three of them were however claiming the crown by dynastic links made through women. It was ultimately considered that the 1316 and 1322 precedent also meant that only descendants through the male line could ascend the throne: that's why Philippe of Valois became Philippe VI in the end.

Note that these were all based on precedents, and not on a codified succession. The actual codification came at a much later time and was actually helped by the Hundred Years War. After all, when facing an English King that says he's the true King of France, the Valois needed all they could get to discredit him. The first time the term of Salic Law appears in texts regarding the succession is in 1358 and it's still rather shaky and more made out of pro-Valois propaganda than anything else. It does however pave the way to the actual codification that actually came under Charles VII, in the middle of the XVth Century. After that, the rules of succession in France were definitely settled: you could argue there was one last hiccup with Henri IV's ascension in 1589 and his conversion in 1594, but that's more a rule linked to religion than to actual lineage.
This is a very good example of Louis XIV doing incredible damage down the line. True, the Régent had some weird ideas concerning polysynodie but he dropped them after a while, and the legacy of having to giving power to the Parlement to quash the will of a king resonated when it came time for another young king, Louis XVI, to assert his power or not. And when you consider the impact of the Fronde on Louis XIV, you have to wonder what made him think than creating a new generation of légitimés like all the Vendômes and other Beauforts would bring to the country.
To be fair, Louis XIV established his will in the final months of his life. He had kinda took a huge moral blow as he had seen most of his family wiped out by smallpox, leaving only a five year old great grandson as his successor, as well as another grandson who was now King of Spain and whose rights to the French throne could be easily contested. You could interpret the decision to add two of his bastards in the line of succession as a will to ensure his children/descendants would keep the throne.

Another argument has also been made that Mme de Maintenon played a huge role in the redaction of the will as it became to be known. Considering how she treasured the Duke of Vendôme and despied the Orléans, the content of the will becomes less surprising.

I will end with pointing out that while the Regent giving back the ability of Parliaments to quash the will of the King (the famous droit de remontrances) resonated as a move to reduce royal authority, it's also kinda what killed the monarchy in the end. When you look at their attitude under Louis XV and Louis XVI, you realise that Parliaments were actually incredibly rigid and conservative institutions, blocking many of the reforms that would have been needed at the time... especially in the fiscal department. But obviously, as it's something that happened after his death, that's not really something Louis XIV could have known in advance.
 
OK, two questions. One is could Philippe of Evreux get the throne? Let's say he makes a secret agreement with Edward that the two of them don't go into direct confrontation and Phillipe of Evreux will respect Edward's French lands, but Edward won't openly support Philippe because his "Plan B" if the Valois won was to... make his own claim.

The next is, what is your personal thoughts on a hypothetical proclamation by Louis VII with the inssturions I gave? That makes Philippe of Evreux the rightful heir, followed by his children, and Edward III would be hier presumptive to those children.

As I said my guess is that the proclamation means nothing as usually kings don't get to decide succession... especially decades in advance.
 
OK, two questions. One is could Philippe of Evreux get the throne? Let's say he makes a secret agreement with Edward that the two of them don't go into direct confrontation and Phillipe of Evreux will respect Edward's French lands, but Edward won't openly support Philippe because his "Plan B" if the Valois won was to... make his own claim.
Pretty unlikely for Evreux to get the throne as far as I know. Philippe of Valois was in a really strong position at the time, especially considering he was technically Regent of the kindgom as per Charles IV's will. And with the 1316 and 1322 precedents ruling out women in favor of men, even his claim as husband of Joan of Navarre would be shaky. Not to mention that as far as I know, he seemed pretty content with only getting the crown of Navarra that Philippe VI agreed to give him and his wife because Joan was actually a bit screwed over by her uncles legally in regards to Navarra.

There is also the problem of Edward III and Evreux agreeing... Claimants to the same crown don't like to share power in general. And why would Edward bother to have an allied French King when he can just take France for himself and solve all his problems that way?
The next is, what is your personal thoughts on a hypothetical proclamation by Louis VII with the inssturions I gave?
As The Professor and LSCatilina said, it's pretty unlikely Louis VII would make such a proclamation. The only reason he would have to bring the female line would be if he was convinced he would have no son to succeed him and if he was convinced his daughters and their husband would make more reliable rulers. Also, he would have to have a problem with the most likely male claimant to his succession.

Plus, if you dive into the order of succession to Louis VII, I don't think he would have any reason to favor the succession of his daughters. The two daughters he had with Eleanor of Aquitaine were married into the Blois-Champagne family, which was a bit of a rival and threat for the early capetians given that their lands (the counties of Troyes and Duchy of Champagne) surrounded the Royal Desmenes. The two daughters Louis had with Constance of Castille for their part were married to Henri the Young for the eldest and bethroed to Richard the Lionheart for the youngest: not sure he would be too happy about opening the succession to the Plantagenêts given how much land they owned and how powerful they were... As for the last daughter he had with Adèle of Champagne (Philippe Augustus' mother), she eventually wedded Alexis II Komemnos, so she would definitely be out...

By contrats, if you purely by Agnatic primogeniture, then the next in line after Philippe Augustus was Louis VII's younger brother Robert, Count of Dreux, a very staunch supporter of his brother and of Capetian interests. Truly, he'd probably be a far more likeable candidate for Louis VII than any of his daughter's husbands.
 
Top