Proximity of the blood means advantage to the shortest genealogical degree, ie nephew before grandnephew...and son before grandson. Why should the rules be different in absence/presence of a son ?
Because I wasn't talking about it
trumping primogeniture. I was talking about it in the context of being the eldest closest male heir.
Which he was in 1328 - Edward, Isabelle, Phillip IV, Charles IV. Plus he was in equal genealogical steps to Phillip V and Louis X, with an extra step to John I.
Phillip of Auvergne had it longer to Charles IV and Louis X but shorter to Phillip V - Phillip, Joan, Phillip V, Phillip IV, Charles/Louis.
Phillip of Valois had it longer - Phillip, Charles, Phillip III, Phillip IV, Charles/Phillip/Louis.
As did Phillip of Evereux - Phillip, Louis, Phillip III, Phillip IV, Charles/Phillip/Louis.
Proximity was being used as a supplement to primogeniture NOT a full replacement of it.
In the context of the
males only French Succession in 1328 Edward had a fully legal claim: of the male heirs of Charles IV he was the eldest and closest in blood.
If we rank senior lines by primogeniture only then he's only behind the 5 yo Phillip son of the Duke of Burgundy.
If we discount female transmission entirely then only Phillip of Valois, his brother Charles, and Phillip of Evereux count as senior heirs of Phillip III.
Though if we use Phillip III as our origin, allow full representation, then Edward III would be of the senior line as his mother Isabelle was the eldest child of Phillip IV.
It's worth pointing out that Edward only used his claim in order to gain concessions over Aquitaine/Gascony. I suspect he reasoned Phillip of Auvergne would get it and he could barter away position in the recency for full rights over his vassals in Aquitaine similar or greater to what the Duke of Brittany had.
That's not to say he wouldn't have taken the Crown if offered but it's disingenuous to say his only claim to the Crown was ambition. And by disingenuous I mean untrue, false, not correct, etc.