How likely is it for there to be a Queen regnant ?

The succession system was discussed in 1328, when Charles IV died without sons, but with two daughters, three nieces and a grandnephew. If women could transmit their rights, this grandnephew (Philip of Burgundy) was the heir. Problem was, he was not the senior genealogical descendant of Philip the Fair, as he was a grandson to Philip V. The potential sons of his cousin once removed, Jeanne the wife of the Count of Evreux, could lay a claim in his later reign. Big potential for civil war, so the French court decided to support the nearest male heir, Charles of Valois, as a way of avoiding any later contestations. But a War of the Lilies could make a good TL.

When Charles IV died in 1328, the son of Jeanne wasn't potential, he already existed (Charles the Bad of Navarre). Jeanne hadn't any sons when her father, Louis X, died in 1316 however, so she had been bypassed altogether under the Salic Law. The succession then went Louis X, interregnum (because his wife was pregnant and they wanted to see if the baby was a boy or a girl), John I (posthumous son of Louis; died after 5 days), Philip V (elder of Louis' brothers).

I don't know how Edward III's theory that succession could go through the female line accounted for him being the rightful king rather than Charles the Bad.
 
Hmm, isn't tanistry more a case of eldest member of those (descended from*) the Royal Dynasty?

* ie sons of "princesses" count but not daughters.
My mistake in using 'tanistry' to describe the Picts' system; apparently they were different. The details of Pictish history are not always known, but at least some of the kings inherited via their mothers, and there were never any queens regnant.
 
When Charles IV died in 1328, the son of Jeanne wasn't potential, he already existed (Charles the Bad of Navarre). Jeanne hadn't any sons when her father, Louis X, died in 1316 however, so she had been bypassed altogether under the Salic Law. The succession then went Louis X, interregnum (because his wife was pregnant and they wanted to see if the baby was a boy or a girl), John I (posthumous son of Louis; died after 5 days), Philip V (elder of Louis' brothers).

I don't know how Edward III's theory that succession could go through the female line accounted for him being the rightful king rather than Charles the Bad.

I am afraid you are mistaken : Charles the Bad's birth did not come until 1332.
 
The succession system was discussed in 1328, when Charles IV died without sons, but with two daughters, three nieces and a grandnephew. If women could transmit their rights, this grandnephew (Philip of Burgundy) was the heir. Problem was, he was not the senior genealogical descendant of Philip the Fair, as he was a grandson to Philip V. The potential sons of his cousin once removed, Jeanne the wife of the Count of Evreux, could lay a claim in his later reign. Big potential for civil war, so the French court decided to support the nearest male heir, Charles of Valois, as a way of avoiding any later contestations. But a War of the Lilies could make a good TL.
A War of the Lilies would be amazing.
But it would probably need for a surviving John I Posthumous to die childless but favouring the son of his (half)sister Jeanne who'd succeed to Navarre after him.
I doubt she'd be married to Philippe Evreux in this TL, perhaps a cousin?
How would a surviving John affect his uncles's marriages TTL?
 
My apologies for being late to the party, but I feel an interesting argument can be made for Navarre, which allowed non-Salic descent. Between 1300 and 1600 they had six queens regnant (Jeanne II (1328-1349); Blanche I (1413-1441); Blanca II (1461-1464); Leonor (1464/1479-1479), Catherine (1483-1517) and Jeanne III (1555-1572)), in spite of having (in most cases) a male alternative to the succession (Jeanne II - her uncle, Philippe V of France; Blanche I - the Comte de Lérin; Catherine had her uncle, the Comte d'Étampes)
 
Top